DISTRIBUTION
A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Document created: 1 June 2008
Air & Space Power Journal- Summer 2008
|
|
Quick-Look |
Lt Col Jeff S. Hinrichs, USAFR
Countless pundits have accentuated the importance of intelligence in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Broadly speaking, a strategy-to-task intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) transformation effort is under way to more effectively assess the accelerated threats of this new geopolitical landscape. However, with the spotlight squarely on ISR’s significance, current and future strategic leaders outside the proverbial “green door” know little about ISR and what it can or cannot do. Strategic leaders must formally emphasize education in joint ISR as part of the professional development of senior leaders, and they can find a perfect avenue through the Intelligence Directorate (IN) of the newly formed Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center (AFDDEC) at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
“This ideological struggle of the 21st century will require . . . good intelligence.”1 More reflective than prophetic, President Bush’s comment suggests what he and many strategic leaders have been professing, namely that ISR must transform to meet today’s challenges. Indeed, ample guidance on strategic ISR—ranging from the National Intelligence Strategy to directives issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for ISR (Headquarters USAF/A2)—promulgates ISR’s value. Bluntly put, there is no shortage of directives for intelligence professionals that define ISR or indicate where it should go. However, for individuals “beyond the green door,” it is an entirely different story.
Educating future senior leaders outside the intelligence community about ISR within the context of the global war on terror (GWOT) has become lost in translation. “Most [nonintelligence officers] have a lot of misconceptions of things we can’t do or things we can do, and most don’t understand how ISR has changed to fight the [GWOT].”2 This poignant statement comes from a senior intelligence officer in the field who drives the point further: “If an F-16 or F-18 is weather or [maintenance] canceled, no one notices. If an ISR platform is so much as delayed, it is a 2-star level issue in about 60 seconds.”3 Certainly, ISR education could help. However, authoritative guides that dictate curricula for senior developmental education in joint professional military education (JPME) do not specify a need for ISR education.4
Despite this shortcoming, AFDDEC/IN provides ISR education to current and future senior officers through developmental-education electives and national-level war games. Though only a small slice of the overall JPME pie, Air University (AU) touches over 2,000 current and future senior officers through its JPME programs. Further, it hosts these officers as a captive audience for an extended period of time. As part of AU, AFDDEC/IN is the only organization in the Air Force that can reach this number of joint senior leaders with ISR education. Without formal strategic guidance on such education, however, it must forge ahead with curricula loosely tied to ISR inferences hidden within the authoritative JPME guides.
ISR education transformation is not ISR training transformation. The issue at hand does not involve training those outside the intelligence career field to become ISR professionals. To the contrary, the transformation of ISR education in this contextrepresents a functional awareness on the part of nonintelligence leaders (i.e., what ISR can or cannot do for them). The extent of their deficiency in understanding ISR requires further analysis, but one assumes that they do not possess “sufficient” awareness to wield the most effective operational or strategic art.
One may also infer that the dearth of JPME guidance has caused the lack of ISR understanding outside the ISR profession. Although culture, complexity, and parochialism may contribute to the problem, one may truthfully say that guidance on ISR JPME simply does not exist. Some individuals think that ISR curricula would come at the expense of other specialties or not meet the thresholds of JPME requirements. Whatever the reasons, the facts remain that some degree of ISR misunderstanding exists, a condition exacerbated by the lack of strategic guidance for ISR JPME (notwithstanding strategic leaders’ profession that ISR is central to the GWOT). Infusing ISR into JPME could only positively affect the situation.
Within the context of the Air Force’s JPME, AFDDEC/IN finds itself in a great position to champion an institutional paradigm shift in JPME ISR. However a number of factors will ultimately determine the fate of any effort to transform ISR education.
AFDDEC/IN could inform senior leadership of the problem. Communicating the issue through its chain of command at AU, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) could request that the Air Staff lobby for a change in ISR JPME at the Joint Staff level. However, this normalized approach carries one notable risk: nonintelligence commanders through the chain could debunk the necessity or urgency for organizational change in ISR JPME. Despite the risk, AFDDEC/IN must use its chain of command. However, requesting that AETC own the issue may not be necessary.
Alternatively, with the chain’s permission, AFDDEC/IN could take the issue directly to Headquarters USAF/A2. Unlike AETC representation, that headquarters serves as the Joint Staff authority that would approve the transformation of ISR education. Directly requesting its sponsorship entails a lower risk of rejection than asking AETC to carry the ISR torch. Regardless, the risk remains that Headquarters USAF/A2 might not view the transformation of ISR education as necessary or urgent. Using the chain of command may seem obvious, but determining who sponsors organizational change in ISR JPME is no trivial matter when one considers its ultimate success.
To increase the chances for success, AFDDEC/IN could do more than petition a cause by revealing a problem; it might consider a broadly outlined solution. As noted, an ISR JPME elective and war-game curriculum, already in existence, touches thousands of nonintelligence leaders annually. Analysis-based statistical data highlighting deficiencies in nonintelligence personnel’s awareness of ISR may further help identify specific curriculum topics. Regardless, AFDDEC/IN should hone a general ISR curriculum with a simple theme of “what ISR can and cannot do.” Finally, details are important, but specific tenets of the ISR curriculum most likely will transform as ISR evolves in the rapidly changing environment. Nevertheless, AFDDEC/IN must consider a suggested curriculum that directly transforms ISR education.
Convincing senior leadership of a problem in ISR awareness may prove easier than fighting for formal senior-level guidance regarding ISR JPME. Sponsors from across the Department of Defense can nominate up to 10 special areas of emphasis annually for formal inclusion in JPME.5 Aside from the laborious nomination/approval process, functional specialties such as ISR rarely “make the cut.” Furthermore, the nomination of ISR in this case must compete against other areas and specialties. Though existing special areas of emphasis within the guides suggest the importance of ISR, approving an ISR-specific requirement—though difficult—would formally direct the development of ISR JPME in the following academic year.
Apart from the formal pursuit of transforming ISR education, AFDDEC/IN could also redefine its newly merged role to further the case of ISR JPME. It has an unprecedented opportunity to seize upon the former Air Force Doctrine Center’s reputation as the foremost authority on doctrinal thought. Mentoring its personnel to lead this charge, AFDDEC/IN could position itself as an institution of excellence to which leaders of all backgrounds go for ISR answers. One risk is that this process would take time and might do little to address the immediate need for enhanced ISR awareness outside the intelligence community. Further, redefinition does not address one contributing factor to the problem: lack of strategic guidance for ISR JPME. As a vision, however, such reflective thought could only improve the future quality of ISR JPME.
Though remote, there is a chance that AFDDEC/IN redefinition could make a direct impact on ISR JPME within AU. Armed with a transformed reputation, at the collegial level, it could present the ISR awareness problem to AU faculty leadership and request formal ISR representation in the core curriculum. Based on past experience, objections would likely center on competing course requirements as well as the absence of formal ISR references in the authoritative JPME guides. In the future, however, if faculty leadership perceives AFDDEC/IN as having greater authority, new opportunities for ISR JPME may arise. Whatever the perceptions, AFDDEC/IN redefinition could positively affect ISR JPME now.
Undoubtedly, ISR is fundamental to fighting the GWOT. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that military personnel beyond the green door do not possess adequate ISR awareness to fight our nation’s new war effectively. Although several factors may contribute to the problem, lack of strategic guidance for ISR JPME remains a key culprit. AFDDEC/IN must alert strategic leadership to the problem and request formal JPME direction.
Ultimate success will hinge on whether or not AFDDEC/IN can convince Headquarters USAF that a problem exists with ISR awareness and then solicit top-level sponsorship of the issue. The most promising choice calls for approaching Headquarters USAF/A2 directly; relying on AFDDEC/IN to redefine itself would take too much time, given the immediacy of the issue. Without top-down support, however, the transformation of ISR education will have to rest on the inadequately authoritative shoulders of AFDDEC/IN—an unacceptable choice for today’s new world.
Notes
1. Pres. George W. Bush (address, Reserve Officers Association, Washington, DC, 29 September 2006).
2. Col Kimberly B. Sievers, Air University, to Col Ronald Bartley, AFDDEC/IN director, e-mail, 11 April 2007.
3. Ibid.
4. Adm E. P. Giambastiani, acting chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to chief of staff, US Army; chief of naval operations; chief of staff, US Air Force; commandant, US Marine Corps; and president, National Defense University, memorandum, 15 February 2007.
5. Ibid.
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 ]