Last week, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith announced the release of the National Defense Strategy (NDS) and National Military Strategy (NSS). The two documents were developed in tandum to ensure coordination between the development of defense strategy and concepts supporting the defense strategy. Both documents build upon President Bush's National Security Strategy, released in Sep 02. To understand the differences between the two documents, the defense news release notes: "The NDS defines DoD’s strategic objectives: securing the U.S. from direct attack; securing strategic access and retaining freedom of action; strengthening alliances and partnerships; and establishing security conditions conducive to a favorable international order. The NMS provides strategic guidance to the armed forces on how to support NDS objectives. It sets forth three military objectives: protecting the U.S.; preventing conflict and surprise attack; and prevailing against adversaries." Both documents will be used in developing this year's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
The QDR will be developed by the efforts of six panels through a series of workshops held between April and July. These panels include:
- Capabilities mix - chaired by DepSecDef Paul Wolfowitz and Vice CJCS General Peter Pace, focusing on countering Islamic terrorist groups, countering proliferation of WMDs, military role in homeland security, and threats from an emerging power.
- Joint capability enablers - chaired by USD(I) Stephen Cambone and AF vice chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley, looking at logistics, command and control, and intel, surveillance, and recon (ISR) capabilities.
- Manning and force balance - chaired by USD(P&R) David Chu and director, J-8, VADM Robert Willard, examining active/reserve balance, recruiting & skills retention.
- Roles/missions and organizations - chaired by USD(P) Doug Feith and director, J-5, LTG Walter Sharp, including homeland security and intel.
- DOD authorities - chaired by SecNav Gordon England and asst to the CJCS LTG Raymond Odierno, examining aspects of US code and what might be changed to allow for defense transformation actions.
- Business practices and processes - chaired by Director, PA&E Ken Krieg and director, J-4, Lt Gen Duncan McNabb, looking at acquisition procedures.
I intend to address both the NDS and NMS more carefully and in more detail, but want to hit on some general issues first. Some bloggers have expressed alarm that the language in these documents amount to an agenda for "global military domination." I think that's hardly the case. What the two documents do stress is that the U.S. military intends to protect the homeland, and part of that involves being able to reach out and touch individuals in far-off countries. If we can do that in cooperation with international allies, fine, if not, it will be harder but we will get them. You can dislike the unilateral message, but it's far from a claim to take over the world.
The NMS retains the four principle concepts in the last QDR - assure allies and friends, dissuade potential adversaries, deter aggression and counter coercion, and defeat adversaries. It also retains the force structure guidance of "1-4-2-1" without specifying specific geographical regions of interest. Feith tried to differentiate between preventive actions and pre-emptive actions, but he dodged the question of whether Iraq was a pre-emptive or preventive military action.
Q: Mr. Feith, would you please clarify what is the real difference between preemptive action and preemption measures? And tell me if I am right. The war in Iraq was a preventive action, and the war in Afghanistan was preemption measures.
And my question is: Is there any possibility for a preventive action, let's say, against Iran?
MR. FEITH: I don't think I agree with your terminology. What I was saying is one of the key strategic messages that the secretary is giving the department through the National Defense Strategy is that people should be thinking not simply how to react to events when those events have already become big problems or wars, but what kinds of actions do we want to take now to help shape an international environment so that problems are less likely to become crises. And through early action we can sometimes prevent a crisis from becoming a war -- I mean, the kind of intervention that was done in Haiti. The kind of early intervention that was done on the humanitarian operation for the tsunami was an example of doing something quickly so that a large problem doesn't get exacerbated because of the failure to act.
There are also things that we can do to shape the environment, like the Proliferation Security Initiative developing the capacity of other countries to do interdictions of shipments of weapons of mass destruction materials or technology is the kind of thing -- a sensible preventive action that can help prevent countries from proliferating weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it serves our interests to prevent problems from occurring or getting worse.
Q: Yeah, but what about the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan? It was -- I mean, the war in Iraq was a preventive action and the war in Afghanistan was a preemption measures after the attack of 9/11.
MR. FEITH: I mean, I don't want to get into academic debates about that, you know, how we label --
Q: -- about the war in Iraq, it was a preventive action I mean?
MR. FEITH: The war in Iraq was a way to take care of a threat that the United States tried for at least a dozen years to take care of through numerous other means, with resolutions of the Security Council and inspection measures and sanctions, and various other methods that unfortunately did not remedy the problem.
The NDS has some interesting concepts, to include its discussion about "weapons of mass destruction or effect" or WMD/E:
The term WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary capabilities that pose potentially devastating impacts. WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive weapons as well as other, more asymmetrical "weapons". They may rely more on disruptive impact than destructive kinetic effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or attacks against transportation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small release of a lethal agent.
While I am delighted that the military is at least recognizing the importance to define WMDs by the mass casualty or disruptive effect they cause rather than their particular form of technology, I still think they fail to recognize the need to separate incidents of single, small scale releases of CBRN hazards by terrorists from the deliberate and sustained use of NBC weapons by nation-states. The current language seems to be overly exaggerated, in that any use of CBRN hazards would create such an impact on unprotected US citizens that any response is justified. Thus sentences like this: "The threat posed by adversaries, especially those that possess WMD/E, is so great that the United States must adopt a global posture and take action to prevent conflict and surprise attack" (bold as per original text).
I acknowledge the need to avoid future 9/11 attacks and the right to self-defense, but at the same time I note that we have combating WMD and combating terrorism strategies, equipment, and organizations that lessen this risk without promoting full-scale military combat operations. Sometimes it appears that the DOD is defensively justifying its past actions against Iraq rather than really examining ways to better prepare for the future. More on these two documents later.
Sir,
Sub:How to control AlQaeda?
The biggest failure of Osama and Musharraf have been Kashmir and Chechnya issues being pushed out of public memory.This has been mainly due to attacks on America.We will support US completely in this war against terrorism.I want to tell Osama that if US supports India on terrorism issue , it is as good as getting support from the whole world.Japan , china , Europe etc., will not antagonize US and the whole Islamic world will be neutral.Osama does not think about the consequences of his actions.He is rash and reckless.Musharraf has started speaking about the disappearance of Pakistan from the world map!This is simply because of Osama’s war mongering behavior.Of course Pakistani rulers have behaved in the past in a dangerous way.They just eliminated hindu minorities immediately after the partition of India.East Pakistanis were cruelly treated.For ten years , Taliban was being supported.Terrorism was sponsored secretly and sometimes openly against neighbourers.Nuclear technology was shipped to all rogue nations.The biggest exports of Pakistan has been drugs and terrorism.What is the contribution of Pakistan to the world?All political leaders live in exile.Why should Pakistan retain its sovereignity?Bush does not realize that Musharraf is the leader of Jehad.Musharraf is Dr.Jackyll and Mr Hyde .He publicly supports US but privately supports jehadi elements.If Musharraf can control terrorism in Afghanistan for 5 years after the fall of Taliban, can any one believe that this is possible without the influence of ISI on Osama?There are a number of ways .Musharraf could have done this.He could be having a secret deal with Osama in return for safe sanctuary.All I am asking Bush is to force or arm twist Musharraf to use all his influence to control terrorism in Iraq.Else, Indian troops will deal with Osama
The way India has controlled the muslims and prevented them from joining AlQaeda is appreciable.Bush send some counter- terrorism experts to India to study why it is possible.I would like to give an explanation.There are a number of social, economic and political factors which have prevented Muslims from joining AlQaeda.Education institutes in Engineering, Medical,Management etc. are numerous.Our muslims need not depend on Madarasas for education.The media in India are much more powerful than it is in Islamic world.Any minor problem of the minorities will be given good coverage in the media and it will be rectified by the concerned authorities. Osama cannot carry out his propaganda in India.In the last 2 decades , Jehad has grown in a big way.But, at the same time Economic reforms have been carried out in India.This has given immense job opportunities to many Indians.Even political power is being granted to the minorities .The hindu fundamentalist government was responsible for the election of Abdul Kalam to the post of President.There is no anti-western sentiment in India. If jobs, education, and power is granted to the muslims , why will they feel interested in joining Al Qaeda ?This model has to be replicated in whole Islamic world .But, my suggestion to Bush is- carry out social , economic and political reforms in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia first, as these countries are contributing to AlQaeda in the form of personnel, funds, propaganda etc in a big way.
May God save the world from Al Qaeda!
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Dr.sridhar.K.K.
Posted by: dr.sridhar.k.k | 14 October 2006 at 01:14 PM