DISTRIBUTION
A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Document created: 1 March 2007
Air & Space Power Journal
- Spring 2007
|
|
Focus Area |
Lt Col Paul D. Berg, USAF, Chief, Professional Journals
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen T. Michael Moseley have said, “As Airmen, it is our calling to dominate Air, Space, and Cyberspace.”1 The Air Force has long dominated air and space operations, and Airmen understand that such dominance requires more than devastating weaponry. Supporting functions such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; air refueling; airlift; global positioning; and communications are equally critical. Properly integrating complex air and space functions with other military activities makes truly dominant battlespace effects possible. We can achieve equally impressive effects in cyberspace, but we cannot rest on our air and space laurels as we ponder new cyberspace challenges. The face of warfare changes constantly, so today’s technologies and doctrines may become obsolete tomorrow. We must “recapitalize” our aging air and space hardware by fielding new platforms, even as we transform operational concepts for their employment and develop new cyberspace equipment and doctrine. The growing need for cultural and language expertise amplifies these interlocking challenges.
Everyone recognizes the importance of cyberspace, but opinions vary about the most effective way to define it, promulgate doctrine, organize forces, and integrate cyberspace activities with the more familiar air, space, sea, and land operations. Cyberspace’s abstract and ubiquitous nature complicates efforts to characterize it, but tentative definitions describe this realm as a “warfighting domain . . . ‘defined by the electromagnetic spectrum.’”2 One does not find the term domain clearly identified in doctrine manuals, which now take an increasingly effects-based approach to explaining how best to conduct operations. Current doctrine focuses more on optimally achieving desired effects than on specifying the environments in which military forces operate. For example, the Air Force has strategic-attack doctrine, but the document notes that forces operating in any environment can potentially produce effects through such attack.3 Because of cyberspace doctrine’s embryonic state, it remains to be seen how that guidance will address military cyberspace activities. Organizationally, the cyberspace picture became clearer in 2006 when the Air Force redesignated Eighth Air Force as Air Force Cyber Command.4 Though still evolving, specific responsibilities of the new command will likely include computer-network defense and attack, among other areas.
If we properly define cyberspace, codify valid doctrine, and establish effective organizations, this domain may help take joint integration of air, land, sea, and space operations to the next level. Conversely, errors may have dire consequences for national security. Potentially, cyberspace may transcend the other military operational environments and help interweave them, but that does not mean it is superior to them. For example, the atmosphere covers land and sea, but airpower does not control all activities in those environments. One can say the same of space. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has contributed significantly to integrating joint military operations. Will Goldwater-Nichols prove equally able to encompass cyberspace operations, or will we need some additional landmark legislation?
Airmen will dominate air, space, and cyberspace only by engaging in disciplined thinking and taking bold action. Air and Space Power Journal, the professional journal of the Air Force, dedicates this issue to advancing the professional dialogue about how best to answer Secretary Wynne and General Moseley’s call.
Notes
1. “SECAF/CSAF Letter to Airmen: Mission Statement” [7 December 2005], Air Force Link, http://www.af .mil/library/viewpoints/jvp.asp?id=192 (accessed 8 December 2006).
2. SSgt. C. Todd Lopez, “Air Force Leaders to Discuss New ‘Cyber Command,’ ” Air Force Print News, 5 October 2006, Air Force Link, http://www.af.mil/news/story .asp?storyID=123028524 (accessed 8 December 2006).
3. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-1.2, Strategic Attack, 30 September 2003, 5, https://www.doctrine .af.mil/afdcprivateweb/AFDD_Page_HTML/Doctrine _Docs/afdd2-1-2.pdf (accessed 8 December 2006).
4. SSgt C. Todd Lopez, “8th Air Force to Become New Cyber Command,” Air Force Print News, 3 November 2006, Air Force Link, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp ?storyID=123030505 (accessed 8 December 2006).
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University
[ Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]