JOINT FORCE QUAR TERLY JFQ - National Defense University
JOINTJFQFORCEQUARTERL YLessons tions02SpringPOWs and MissingPersonnelInstallation ForceProtectionAP R O F E S S I O N A LM I L I TA R YJ O U R N A L
The only thing harder than getting anew idea into the military mind is toget an old idea out.—Basil Liddell Hart
JFQChairmanIn the last issue of Joint Force Quarterly, I outlined my three top priorities as Chairman—winning the global war on terrorism, improving joint warfighting capabilities, andtransforming the Armed Forces. In this issue, Iwant to discuss in more detail my thoughts ontransformation, the third priority.Transformation has become one of thehottest topics inside the Beltway—and with goodreason. Highlighting the urgent need to protectAmerica from terrorism, President Bush, speakingat the Citadel last December, declared that his1st Combat Camera Squadron (Cedric H. Rudisill)AWord fromtheB–52 returning fromAfghanistan.first priority was accelerating transformation.With the President setting the goal, SecretaryRumsfeld is aggressively taking action to changethe Department of Defense on many fronts, fromrevamping military strategy to streamlining theplanning, programming, and budgeting systemand adopting better business practices.The area of transformation that I am mostconcerned about is military transformation,a much narrower slice of the larger DOD effort.During testimony before the House and Senate(continued on page 4)Spring 2002 / JFQ1
CONTENTSJFQ 1 A Word from the Chairmanby Richard B. Myers60 Operational Deception in theInformation Ageby Milan N. Vego8 From the Field and Fleet:Letters to the Editor 67 The Evolution of PeaceOperations Doctrineby Richard B. Lovelock12 Lessons from the War inKosovoby Benjamin S. Lambeth20 Military Transformation andLegacy Forcesby Williamson Murray andThomas O’Leary28 Europe’s Military Revolutionby François L.J. Heisbourg33 The Republic of KoreaApproaches the Futureby Jiyul Kim and Michael J. Finnegan41 Australia and the Quest forthe Knowledge Edgeby Michael Evans52 Seeking Synergy: JointEffects-Based Operationsby Price T. Binghamby Robert M. Antis and Claudia H. ClarkPHOTO CREDITSThe cover of this issue shows AH–1W, Enduring Freedom(USS Bonhomme Richard/Spike Call). The front inside coverfeatures CH–46 hoisting emergency personnel at ApraHarbor, Guam (Fleet Imaging Command, Pacific/MarjorieMcNamee); soldiers clearing house near Kamenica,Kosovo, during Joint Guardian (55th Signal Company/Christina Ann Bennett); F–15Es on line being readied forEnduring Freedom (U.S. Air Force/Dave Nolan); andMarine tanks on Egyptian range, Bright Star ’01/’02. Thetable of contents depicts Land Warrior fighting system(Fort McPherson/Susan Norvick) and P–3 departing (FleetCombat Camera Group, Pacific/Arlo K. Abrahamson). Theback inside cover captures E–3 AWACS taking off from Elmendorf Air Force Base,Alaska, Northern Edge ’01 (U.S. Air Force/Wayne Clark). The back cover picturesUSS Curtis Wilbur in the North Arabian Sea for Enduring Freedom (U.S. Navy/TedBanks); amphibious assault vehicle on Red Beach, Kernel Blitz (13th MarineExpeditionary Unit/Fidencio J. Hernandez); F–15C climbing from Kadenaairbase, Japan, Cope North ’02–1 (18 Communications Squadron/MarvinKrause); and M1 tank during force-on-force training, Bright Star ’01/’02 (55thSignal Company/Robert Hyatt).th2JFQ / Spring 200274 Creating a New Path for JointEducation82 Recovering and Accountingfor Prisoners of War andMissing Personnelby Thomas E. Erstfeld89 Closing the Barn Door—Installation Force Protectionby John L. Cirafici94 Planning War in Peacetimeby Michael C. Desch
SPRING OF CHIEFS AND CHAIRMEN105 George Henry Decker THE JOINT WORLD107 Doctrine and Lessons Learned2002/NUMBER30111 The Fight for Peace:A Book Reviewby Geoffrey D.W. Wawro113 MacArthur’s Air War:A Book Reviewby Thomas E. Griffith, Jr. OFF THE SHELF114 Military HistoryReconsidered:A Book Review110 War by Any Name:A Book Reviewby Kalev Seppby Holger H. HerwigJoint Force QuarterlyStephen J. FlanaganRobert A. SilanoLieutenant Colonel Peter L. Hays, USAFDirectorInstitute for National Strategic StudiesEditor-in-ChiefDirector of PublicationsInstitute for National Strategic StudiesEditorExecutive EditorMartin J. Peters, Jr.Calvin B. KelleyWilliam A. RawleyProduction CoordinatorCopy EditorU.S. Government Printing OfficeArt DirectorJFQ is published for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffby the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, to promote understanding of the integratedemployment of land, sea, air, space, and special operationsforces. The journal focuses on joint doctrine, coalition warfare,contingency planning, combat operations conducted by theunified commands, and joint force development.The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the contributors and donot necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defenseor any other agency of the Federal Government. CopyrightedISSN 1070–0692portions of this journal may not be reproduced or extracted topics of common interest to the Armed Forces (see page 116without permission of copyright proprietors. An acknowledg- for details). Please direct all editorial communications to:ment to Joint Force Quarterly should be made whenever mateEditor, Joint Force Quarterlyrial is quoted from or based on its contents.ATTN: NDU–NSS–JFQThis publication has been approved by the Secretary of De300 Fifth Avenue (Bldg. 62)fense. All previous issues have been published electronicallyFort Lesley J. McNairand are available over the Internet at the address indicatedWashington, D.C. 20319–5066below. Paid subscriptions to JFQ are offered through the U.S.Telephone: (202) 685–4220 / DSN 325–4220Government Printing Office.Fax: (202) 685–4219 / DSN 325–4219The editors invite articles and other contributions on jointe-mail: JFQ1@ndu.eduwarfighting, interservice issues that support jointness, andInternet: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrineMay 2002Spring 2002 / JFQ3
Joint Force QuarterlyGen Richard B. Myers, USAFPublisherADVISORY COMMITTEEVADM Paul G. Gaffney II, USN National Defense UniversityChairmanLTG John P. Abizaid, USA The Joint StaffBG David A. Armstrong, USA (Ret.)MG Reginal G. Clemmons, USAA. Denis Clift National War CollegeJoint Military Intelligence CollegeRADM David R. Ellison, USNNaval Postgraduate School BG Mark P. Hertling, USACol Craig S. Huddleston, USMCMG David H. Huntoon, USAOffice of the Chairman The Joint StaffMarine Corps Command and Staff College U.S. Army Command and General Staff College MG Robert R. Ivany, USAU.S. Army War College Maj Gen Edward L. LaFountaine, USAFMajGen Harold Mashburn, Jr., USMCJoint Forces Staff College Industrial College of the Armed Forces Maj Gen Bentley B. Rayburn, USAFRADM Rodney P. Rempt, USN Air War College Naval War CollegeBrig Gen John T. Sheridan, USAF Air Command and Staff CollegeCol John H. Turner, USMC Marine Corps War CollegeEDITORIAL BOARDStephen J. Flanagan National Defense UniversityChairmanRichard K. BettsCol John M. Calvert, USAFEliot A. Cohen The Johns Hopkins UniversityLtCol Thomas J. Felts, USMCAaron L. Friedberg Joint Forces Staff CollegeSchool of Advanced Airpower Studies COL Robert A. Doughty, USAAlan L. Gropman Marine Corps War CollegePrinceton University U.S. Army Command and General Staff CollegeCAPT Chester E. Helms, USNCOL Paul Herbert, USAMark H. JacobsenDaniel T. Kuehl U.S. Military AcademyIndustrial College of the Armed ForcesCOL Timothy S. Heinemann, USA Naval War CollegeNational War College Marine Corps Command and Staff CollegeInformation Resources Management CollegeThomas L. McNaugher The RAND CorporationWilliam H. J. Manthorpe, Jr. Joint Military Intelligence CollegeJohn J. Mearsheimer The University of ChicagoLTG William E. Odom, USA (Ret.)COL Robert E. Smith, USAJames H. Toner Hudson InstituteU.S. Army War CollegeAir War CollegeLtGen Bernard E. Trainor, USMC (Ret.) Harvard UniversityA P R O F E S S I O N A L M I L I TA R Y J O U R N A L4JFQ / Spring 2002AWORDFROMTHECHAIRMAN(continued from page 1)Armed Services Committees in February, I saidthat the goal of military transformation is fostering changes that result in a dramatic improvement over time in the way combatant commanders wage war. First, we must acknowledge thatsuch improvement requires more than new technology; it must involve change across the ArmedForces in areas such as doctrine, organization,training, people, and facilities. Second, it calls fora cultural change in our thinking and use of ourcapabilities to achieve more effective results.Third, military transformation requires improvedinteroperability, flexibility, and adaptability tosupport and achieve national security objectivesin a dynamic international environment.Having established the broad outline for theprocess of military transformation, the next step isdetermining how to achieve it. In the near term,we need to focus on improving joint linkages, fusing combat power, and eliminating gaps andseams among combatant commands, services, andsupporting defense agencies. We must improvejoint command, control, communications, com-not surprisingly, it is easierto study past revolutions than tocreate or control new onesColumbia University Col Stephen D. Chiabotti, USAF puters, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C 4ISR) capabilities to better connect allthese entities in the battlespace. Finally, we needto synchronize and leverage ongoing service transformation through continuous joint experimentation under U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM).I firmly believe that by integrating combat powerand the core competencies of the services we willaccelerate transformation and create the changesnecessary to address an array of both current andfuture threats to national security.The need for change is not new. History is replete with militaries that deliberately pursued newideas, while in more recent years much has beenwritten about a revolution in military affairs(RMA). JFQ alone has published over thirty articleson all aspects of the subject. Not surprisingly, it ismuch easier to study past revolutions than to create or control new ones. RMAs may result from deliberate actions taken by necessity, but rarely aretheir outcomes preordained. Prior to World War II,the Marines experimented with combined armswarfare for amphibious operations, the U.S. andJapanese navies developed carrier-based aviation,and the German army fielded combined arms
Joint direct attackmunition on USSTheodore Roosevelt,Enduring Freedom.forces—each illustrating a deliberateeffort to transform military capabilities. The motivation to improvewarfighting was provided by whateach nation considered to be thechallenge to its security. As dramaticas these examples are, none involved a linear process from the initial concept to full realization of enhanced military capabilities. Theorganizations involved had one thing in common:an institutional willingness to experiment andchange. I am convinced that the deliberate stepswe have taken to synchronize and support serviceand joint transformation will create that samemindset. I am also convinced that the joint experimentation process at JFCOM will have a centraland sustaining role in military transformation.Summer 2002 should provide a watershed forjoint experimentation. JFCOM is working closelywith the services, U.S. Space Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. Transportation Command to combine several transformationinitiatives in the largest joint field experimentever conducted, Millennium Challenge ’02 (MC02). This experiment is designed to improve C4ISRby evaluating warfighting concepts and related1st Combat Camera Squadron (Jeremy T. Lock)USS Theodore Roosevelt (Angela Virnig)MyersPresident Bushaddressing the Nation,December 11, 2001.tactics, techniques, and procedures, and improveour ability to achieve rapid, decisive effectsthroughout the battlespace.As a result of previous experimentation insights, current operational demands, and lessonslearned, JFCOM has created a standing joint forceheadquarters. A central component of MC 02 andfuture experiments, this headquarters is part of aninvestigation into how to eliminate the ad hoc nature of current operations, improve joint interoperability, and enhance operational effectiveness.The insights gained from the experiment will bereflected in recommendations on doctrine, organization, training, leader development, and otherareas that impact transformation.Spring 2002 / JFQ5
AWORDFROMTHECHAIRMAN353d Special Operations Group (Michael Farris)Jumping nearUlan Batar, Mongolia.Experimentation is crucial, but it is not theonly transformation path. Modernization and recapitalization also play a part. While sudden doctrinal, organizational, and technological breakthroughs are possible through experimentationand should be vigorously pursued, history suggests that there is also a linkage between transformation and incremental modernization of keythe requirement to maintain readiness must bebalanced with modernization investments andthe need to accelerate transformational changesprograms. The development of modern firepoweris an example. There have been many small, deliberate steps to enhance weapon systems duringthe past century. These incremental improvements have led to three major transformationalleaps in military effectiveness. The first was thedevelopment of weapons such as automaticsmall arms, machine guns, and tanks—coupledwith development of both wire and wirelesscommunications—which enabled operationaland tactical commanders to mass both forces andfirepower with unprecedented effect on the battlefield. Further developments in weapons, to include rockets, cruise and ballistic missiles, andnuclear weapons—linked by satellite and digital6JFQ / Spring 2002communications technology—led to the secondtransformational leap, allowing commanders tomass firepower using dispersed forces.Modernization efforts over the past thirtyyears are leading to a third transformational leap.We are already exploiting the potential of precision-guided munitions, using the global positioning system (GPS) to guide joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) on targets with deadly accuracy.Thus we envision combatant commanders beingable to achieve mass effects on an enemy withouthaving to mass either forces or firepower.On occasion, we can almost immediatelyforesee radically new militar y capabilitiesbrought about by technological improvementsin a modernization program (for example, withstealth technology). From concept to acquisition, planners envisioned the operational impact of stealth-capable aircraft defeating robustintegrated air defense systems. This importantadvancement coupled with precision-guidedmunitions has dramatically improved jointwarfighting capabilities.But usually it is difficult to perceive thebroader potential of technologies in the conceptstage. More often it takes incremental development and refinement to realize their transformational qualities. GPS represents this latter type ofchange. Though an important development, itsuse to enable precise navigation in operationsaround the globe did not, by itself, dramaticallyimprove warfighting. It took further development and companion technologies to synchronize the timing of fires and communications andthe movement of forces, as well as to pinpointthe delivery of ordnance. These advances incombination have vastly improved joint warfighting capabilities.Whether transformation comes in incremental steps or radical leaps, it does not occur in avacuum. As the world changes, so do the threats.The standing requirement to maintain readinessfor today’s conflicts and potential adversariesmust be balanced with modernization investments and the need to accelerate the introduction of transformational changes.The global war on terrorism has spurred innovative thinking, which may in turn allow us tooptimize many modernization programs—takingolder systems in unforeseen directions. We haveused so-called Cold War relics such as B–52s, designed for intercontinental strategic strikes, andP–3s, intended to hunt submarines, in novelways. B–52s armed with JDAMs now provideclose air support. P–3s, flown in tandem withJoint Stars and unmanned aerial vehicles, provide
55th Signal Company (Andres J. Rodriguez)MyersU.S. and Afghan forces,Operation Anaconda.real-time intelligence, reconnaissance, and targeting data to Army, Marine, and Special OperationsForces units. B–52s and P–3s are not, in and ofthemselves, transformational. But how they havecome to be used does represent a transformation.Modernization and the innovative use of C4ISRhave dramatically improved the way U.S. CentralCommand has been able to fight the war, including the shortening of sensor-to-shooter decisioncycles through the use of real-time data collectedfrom a web of sensors.Recent combat operations in Afghanistan illustrate how modernization programs contributeto transformation and dramatically improved capabilities for combatant commanders. Continuedmodernization of complementary joint-capablesystems and platforms and additional improvements in C4ISR and other emerging technologiesis crucial. We seek greater operational flexibilitythrough plug-and-play capabilities, quickly mixing and matching forces as conditions dictate.We seek further integration of warfighting systems and development of standing joint forceheadquarters for all combatant commands.Finally, we seek to experiment with new ideasand capabilities to validate and explore otherapproaches to transformation.I look forward to MC 02 and the work bythe standing joint force headquarters to improvejoint warfighting. These efforts will contributegreatly to transformation and better prepare usto face a complex array of threats. More importantly, I look forward to the ideas of the men andwomen in the Armed Forces, pursued on thefrontlines of the global war on terrorism andthrough forums such as Joint Force Quarterly. Creativity is the fuel that will power innovation andimprovements in joint warfighting and militarytransformation throughout the 21st century.RICHARD B. MYERSChairmanof the Joint Chiefs of StaffSpring 2002 / JFQ7
FROMTHEFIELDANDFLEETLetters . . .INTERWAR YEARSTo the Editor— Frederick Kagan has writtenanother excellent synthesis of history and derivedwisdom. His “Strategy and Force Structure in an Interwar Period” (JFQ, Spring/Summer 01) is bothwell supported and direct in its advice. There is,however, a crucial gap in the logic underpinninghis recommendations.Kagan outlines his recipe for accomplishingreadiness (shaping, maintaining, and preparing)while simultaneously acknowledging but skippinglightly over the crucial point that almost no democracy accomplishes this task in the absence of anidentified and sustained threat. In other words, heis preaching to the choir while neglecting the restof the flock. What confronts the United States isnot a lack of resources but rather the absence ofsustained political will.Perhaps it is time thinkers and actors on thenational stage consider other methods to act onKagan’s thoughts on readiness. While actions suchas those pursued by the Creel Commission wouldlikely be illegal today, other routes can be explored.Kagan is undoubtedly correct in saying that this isan interwar period. The conundrum is bringing thatrealization to the national security community andselling it to the rest of America.—MAJ Robert Bateman, USACenter for Strategic and InternationalStudiesTo the Editor—While I agree with FrederickKagan’s overall message—that the United Statesmust have the goal of “prolonging the currentepoch of peace and prosperity as long as possibleand being ready to fight and win the conflict thatwill ultimately end it”—I question some of his assertions as well as his seemingly contradictory conclusion about the best way to accomplish that goal.First, I am astonished at Kagan’s limited
—Basil Liddell Hart. Spring 2002 / JFQ 1 I n the last issue of Joint Force Quarterly, I out-lined my three top priorities as Chairman— . John J. Mearsheimer .
Plumbing the Battlespace Global Mobility The Prussian Model Multinational Doctrine JFQ Spring 98 0118 C1/PDF 1/14/99 9:57 AM Page 1. Cov 2 JFQ / Spring 19998 Now is the moment to be farsighted as we chart a path into the new millennium.
Flash fiction, or “postcard fiction,” has been around for a long time. In Japan it is a “Palm of the Hand” story; in China, a “Smoke Long.” The Smoke Long Quar-terly, at smokelong.com, features stories that “relish t
Executive Director, Health Sciences Creative Services Karon Schindler Associate VP, Health Sciences Communications Vincent Dollard Emory Health is published quar-terly for Emory neighbors and the community as well as faculty, staff, affiliates, and friends of the Woodruff Health Sciences Center of Emory Uni
For ordering or inquiries visit lifeway.com, or write LifeWay Resources Customer Ser-vice, One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN 37234-0113. For bulk shipments mailed quar-terly to one address, fax (615) 251-5933, e-mail orderentry@lifeway.com, or write to the above address. Annual individual sub
Dick Caldwell Museum Store ManagerSubscriptions Jim Stewartare mailed via nonprofit Volunteer Coordinator Janice Caldwell Librarian MSgt. Bob Wikso, USAF (Ret.) Membership Manager Deborah Sellars Website (www.amcmuseum.org) Hal Sellars The AMC Museum Hangar Digest is published quar-terly and is dedicated to the preservation of our
80 Power Amplifier. All of Dynaco's new tube products performed very well. EDITORIAL STAFF Vacuum Tube Valley is published quar-terly for electronic enthusiasts interested in the colorful past, present and future of vacuum tube electronics. Subscription rate is US 25.00/year (4 issues) US a
THE NORTHERN LIGHT (ISSN 1088-4416) is published quar terly in February, May, August, and November by the Supreme Council, 33 , Ancient ccepted Scottish Rite, Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, U.S.A., A as the official publication. Printed in U.S.A. Periodicals posta
ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING 13th Edition FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING ELLIOTT AND ELLIOTT Financial Accounting & Reporting is the most up-to-date text on the market. Now fully updated in its 13th edition, it includes extensive coverage of International Accounting Standards (IASs) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). This market-leading text offers students a clear, well .
