Published Airpower Journal -
Winter 1993
DISTRIBUTION
A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Edited by Col Gary D. Payton, USAF
Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.
--Sun Tzu
THIS ESSAY is the "final product" of a future deputy chief of staff for intelligence, United States Air Force. The author, an unnamed general, enjoyed an almost 30-year career as an intelligence officer spanning 1987 to the spring of 2017. Faced with the impact of the information explosion on the quantity of "raw data" available to intelligence professionals, he undertook a project to distill intelligence to its very essence. The principles and tenets described here form the fundamental truths of the art.
Styled in the manner of Sun Tzu's classic The Art of War, as translated by Samuel B. Griffith, and using the same technique of assertion and expert commentary, this essay describes the principles and tenets of intelligence that are universal across time and stand the test of changing technology.
The ultimate objective of intelligence is to
enable action to be optimized.
--Dr R. V. Jones
Chief, British Scientific
Intelligence World War II
The general died Monday while TDY to San Antonio. His last day in the Pentagon was like hundreds of others--quick reviews of intelligence background papers for the chief, planning for the upcoming Senior Intelligence Officers' Conference, and telephone calls regarding the placement of colonels in key positions around the Air Force. Late Friday, after he stuffed the last few folders in his briefcase and turned to leave the office, he flipped the keys of his locked desk to his executive officer. "Just in case!" the general called. "Just in case," replied the exec as he caught the keys and dropped them into his desk. It was a departure ritual they had carried out countless times. This time was the last time.
He had been the best of a new breed of intelligence officers--a "generalist" skilled in intelligence operations and intelligence application. Unlike the many deputy and assistant chiefs of staff for intelligence before him, he had not progressed in a "stovepiped" discipline of signals intelligence (SIGINT), imagery intelligence, or human resources intelligence (HUMINT). Rather, the career path he followed had been envisioned by senior intelligence officers in the 1980s and codified by major changes to Air Force speciality codes in the early 1990s.1
Across a series of assignments that included wartime duty with an F-111 fighter wing, leadership at a major signals intelligence collection site, and joint duty on the unified command staff at US Strategic Command, the general watched and learned how intelligence supported--or failed to support--military commanders.
His experience with the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm anchored his entire career. As a junior officer, he devoted months at Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath in England to gaining the confidence of the pilots and weapons systems officers who flew the venerable Aardvark.2 During the prewar buildup, he and his enlisted intelligence specialists honed their skills in building target folders, briefing and debriefing crews, and providing the wing commander with comprehensive intelligence reports on Saddam Hussein's forces. But when the air war began, nothing he could do at the unit level could get poststrike satellite imagery of the military targets into their hands fast enough. Their appetite for imagery was insatiable and could not be met.3 Despite the many successes of intelligence in Desert Storm, a generation of future Air Force leaders convinced themselves that intelligence failed because they as pilots were unable to get timely pictures of their strike missions.
In the 1970s and 1980s, when an intelligence officer was characterized by the nature of his or her technical training (e.g., being viewed as a SIGINTer, a photo interpreter, or a HUMINTer), the opportunity to lead large numbers of Air Force people was not equally available to junior intelligence officers. When career emphasis and training shifted to a "generalist" mode, officers like him began to receive assignments to key positions across a wide range of major commands based on their leadership skills and managerial ability, not just on their past affiliation with a technical specialty. The general's future was shaped by the breaking down of these historic barriers.
As a captain, he had served as a flight commander at one of the Air Force Intelligence Agency's most important overseas field sites, the 6903d Electronic Security Group at Osan Air Base, Korea. He had been thrust into the role of leading over 40 specialists in their around-the-clock task of providing vital intelligence support to the commander, Seventh Air Force, and to the US and South Korean chain of command.
"Up close and personal" had characterized the general's leadership opportunity in Korea. He had led his flight by personal example. He motivated. He delegated. He empowered. He disciplined. His daily activities ranged from team building and goal setting to working the dozens of personal problems (caused by a year's separation from family in the States) his subordinates brought to him. And, most important, along the way he absorbed the myriad of details associated with high-tech intelligence collection. He learned the strengths and the weaknesses, and he began to ponder the enduring principles and tenets of intelligence in support of military operations.
Years later, as the US Strategic Command's director of intelligence, or J-2, the general served in Omaha as a principal advisor to his four-star commander in chief on such critical issues as the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) Treaty III and global weapons of mass destruction. He recognized clearly the political impact of his counsel when his military views on treaty compliance clashed with those of the Department of State or the Central Intelligence Agency. He saw firsthand how timely and accurate intelligence shaped policy on issues vital to the security of the United States.
For nearly three decades, the general served as an intelligence officer. From the aircraft shelters of Saudi Arabia to the halls of the Pentagon, he helped shape intelligence products delivered to commanders. From "bombs on target" to national security decision making, he understood the value of piercing the enemy's secrets while protecting one's own.4
It wasn't until Thursday, after the majority of the details for the Arlington Cemetery funeral were ironed out, that the general's executive officer opened the locked desk. Patiently, the exec separated personal items from official documents and classified messages. In the bottom drawer in a hanging folder marked "Art" that was bulging with dozens of yellow highlighted and annotated articles and clippings, he found the draft manuscript and the illustrative comments the general had asked his closest confidants to prepare on each major subject.
The following excerpts of this final product of the general, The Art of Intelligence, were first published four months after his death.
Intelligence is an instrument of conflict. It consists of words, numbers, images, suggestions, appraisals, incitements. It consists also of truths that enlighten or mislead, or of outright falsehoods. Because it is immaterial, intelligence cannot wound. But its use has led to the killing or saving of millions.
--Angelo Codevilla
Accuracy
The general said:
1. Accuracy is the prime principle of military intelligence. With accurate intelligence, all aspects of strategic, operational, and tactical planning and execution proceed on the basis of fact. Without accurate intelligence on the enemy's location, capability, and intent, planning is an unfocused and wasteful exercise, and execution may result in defeat.
2. Accurate intelligence is a necessary condition for victory. It is not, however, a sufficient condition to gain the victory. Intelligence does not pilot air and space vehicles, or field armies, or sail ships at sea. Instead, intelligence supports the maneuver, the surprise, the security, and the economy of combat forces to achieve their objective.
The historian: Accurate intelligence serves as a powerful force enhancer. In the largest single air battle of the second half of the twentieth century, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) devastated the Syrian Air Force on 9 June 1982. To support "Operation Peace for Galilee," the IAF's mission was to neutralize Syrian SA-6 sites and destroy reacting enemy fighters. At every juncture, planning and execution were enhanced by accurate intelligence. In the one-year period following the April 1981 introduction of SA-6 missiles into the Bekaa Valley, Israeli military intelligence had focused on the new surface-to-air threat. Their successes allowed aircrews to rehearse the strike missions in the Negev Desert against highly accurate replicas of the missile sites. On the day of the attack, superb tactical intelligence contributed to success. Syrian airspace was scanned by E-2C surveillance aircraft flying off the Lebanese coast. A Boeing 707 signals intelligence platform monitored Syrian communications and radar activity. With F-15 and F-16 pilots flying combat air patrols, IAF F-4s armed with Shrike, standard antiradiation, and Maverick missiles, and F-16s loaded with standoff weapons and conventional munitions attacked 19 SA-6 sites and several SA-2 and SA-3 sites.
In a superb example of real-time intelligence application, the IAF strike commander monitored the ongoing operation from video provided by forward orbiting Scout and Mastiff remotely piloted vehicles (RPV). On the first day of the air campaign, 17 SA-6 sites were destroyed along with several SA-2 and SA-3 installations. On 9 June, the Israelis downed 23 Syrian MiG-21s and MiG-23s. On 10 June, they shot down 15 more MiGs. By the end of September, Israeli pilots had destroyed 29 surface-to-air-missile (SAM) sites in seven raids, 85 Syrian MiGs, and had lost only two IAF aircraft to enemy ground fire.5 Accurate intelligence contributed mightily to this successful air campaign.
Timeliness
The general said:
3. Victory in battle is gained by the side that operates at the faster tempo or rhythm. The timeliness of intelligence contributes directly to the commander's ability to observe, orient, decide, and act. With timely intelligence, the commander is able to act at a faster tempo, generate confusion and disorder in the adversary, and achieve victory. Without timely intelligence, the commander's observation and orientation is delayed. His decisions and actions, therefore, are slower, and initiative and leverage are lost to the enemy.6
The engineer: The delivery of evermore timely intelligence was a central focus of the intelligence-engineering community in the two decades following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Our initial combat successes following Desert Storm were based on collocating the intelligence collection and communications assets of the Air Force Intelligence Agency (AFIA) with the air operations center of the Air Combat Command forces.7 When the 366th Wing at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, deployed to Tunisia in 1995 in response to the Libyan incursion, AFIA's specialists worked side by side with the wing's own intelligence and planning staff. With an organic collection capability and on-line access to national intelligence networks, timely intelligence kept the commander's decisions and actions inside Libya's own decision cycle. Our greatest successes, however, flowed from the engineering breakthroughs at the turn of the century. When we solved the data compaction problem of the multispectral imaging satellites, we could at last take full advantage of virtual reality (VR).8 It had all come together before the Iranian military launched the Second Gulf War in 2010.9 Timely intelligence produced a dramatic impact on operational planning and tactical execution. In the battle cab at the Air Operations Center in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, the joint force air component commander (JFACC) swiveled into a VR depiction of his next day's air tasking order. The image generators driven by a direct digitized satellite feed produced a detailed, three-dimensional image of the air campaign. By selecting the appropriate icons, the commander viewed Iranian air defenses, advancing divisions, and ballistic missile trajectories. He then overlaid the friendly air attacks accelerated in time.
In addition to allowing the commander to see his own air forces move across the border to attack Iranian targets, virtual reality enabled him to move in space and to have a "God's eye" view of how his incoming air and missile attack looked from the Iranian commander's perspective.10 Not only did timely intelligence aid his observation and orientation by creating a telepresence of our attack from the Iranian viewpoint, the JFACC could "get inside the mind" of his opposing commander.11
Results at the squadron level were equally impressive. The virtual reality advanced planning system was based on near-real-time threat data. The imagery intelligence and signals intelligence feeds were linked with weather information and merged with the mapping data base. In short, aircrews could plan and rehearse the mission and select weapons employment alternatives based on intelligence data collected just minutes prior to takeoff.12 Timely intelligence successfully contributed to an even faster decision-making tempo. Sustained across the first weeks of the campaign, the tempo forced the Iranian offensive to collapse into itself.13 The remaining leaders in Tehran complied with all coalition demands for conflict termination.
Usability
The general said:
4. Intelligence must be usable to have value. If it is not tailored to meet the needs of the commander, intelligence has no usability and makes no contribution to military planning and execution.
5. Intelligence is a product. Users of intelligence are customers. If the product delivered to the customer is unusable, then the customer's intelligence needs go unsatisfied, and the production costs of creating the product are wasted.
6. Making intelligence usable is a part of effective marketing. First, determine what the customer wants and needs. Wants and needs are not often identical. Second, tailor the intelligence-production process to create the agreed-upon product. Third, deliver an accurate and timely product in a usable format. Fourth, ask the customer for feedback on the product's usability. Fifth, absorb the feedback and begin again.
The executive officer: I first worked for the general in Omaha. He was a brutal editor, or that's what his intelligence analysts and middle managers first thought. In fact, his harsh editorial comments were consistently aimed at making the array of intelligence products more usable to the customer. He developed this simple "Usability Checklist":
1. Does this intelligence product meet the customer's needs? How do you know? How do you know you know?
2. Does it answer the question asked?
3. Is the main point "up front"?
4. Is it as concise as you can get it?
Across the spectrum of intelligence products, the general sought to make them usable to the customer. Does the draft of the National Intelligence Estimate provide a focused analysis of the issue so the National Security Council can develop a new policy option? Does the estimate of an enemy weapon have sufficient detail to enable the USAF research and development community to plan the Air Force's next-generation system? Does the current intelligence briefing provide unique insights or information to aid the commander in deciding on a course of action? Is the myriad of electronic order-of-battle information delivered in a usable format to the mission planner, the electronic warfare officer, or the pilot? Is the threat data streaming into the cockpit of the orbiting F-22 usable in aiding the pilot to conduct his or her defensive counterair mission?
A trivial example illustrates the principle of usability. The general shocked his Pentagon intelligence staff the day he directed that all written replies to the chief's questions would be limited to two data screens or one printed page. He hammered the point. The customer needed concise, to-the-point replies directly answering the question--no room to showcase personal knowledge of air and space power in the twenty-first century, and no room to provide flowing prose amplifications of supporting data. Understand the need. Answer directly. Get the main point "up front." Be concise and be done.
Fusion
The general said:
7. Fused intelligence is a finished intelligence product produced from more than one source of intelligence information. Fusion draws upon the complementary strengths of signals intelligence (what they said or what their radars emanated), imagery intelligence (what it looks like), human intelligence (information derived from a human source revealed through overt or covert collection).
8. Fused intelligence creates the most accurate and complete picture of what is known about an activity. In the absence of fused intelligence, products are one-dimensional. While the level of detail in single-source reports may be sufficient to meet narrowly defined customer needs, fused reports are essential to gain an in-depth understanding.
9. Because the enemy will try to deceive you, guard against placing unquestioned trust in a single-source intelligence report. What you hear, what you see, or what you are told may be a lie or a fabrication. It is far more difficult to be deceived when you rely on fused intelligence.
The historian: On 1 January 1945, the Luftwaffe conducted a highly successful attack (Operation Goldregen) against Allied aircraft located on liberated Belgium airfields. In a postattack assessment, the intelligence staff of the 12th Army Group Headquarters realized they had received adequate SIGINT and HUMINT reporting to have provided tactical warning to the commander. The reports, however, were not fused. Highly compartmented Ultra intercepts received before the German attack indicated Operation Goldregen was being launched. The SIGINT specialist had no knowledge from his source of an Operation Goldregen. Filed elsewhere in the headquarters, a prisoner of war interrogation report (an aspect of HUMINT) of a former Luftwaffe clerk in Berlin described aspects of Operation Goldregen--a plan to employ low-flying aircraft in large numbers. No fusion. Extensive compartmentalization. Single-source intelligence information held within "stovepiped" structures. Airmen died. Aircraft were destroyed.14
Relevancy
The general said:
10. Intelligence has relevancy if it contributes to the commander's ability to execute his mission at his level of military operation. No matter how accurate, timely, or fused the intelligence is, if it is not germane to the commander's needs, it could detract from overall mission accomplishment.
11. What is highly relevant intelligence at one level of military activity may be of limited relevance at another level. Intelligence production, therefore, must be geared to meet the distinctive needs of commanders across the full spectrum of military operations.
The wing commander: As the wartime commander of an F-125 fighter-bomber wing, I faced similar challenges in the Second Gulf War that my predecessors faced in 1991. Intelligence must be relevant to the mission it supports. If the intelligence lacks relevancy, it extracts a price in time required to read it, watch it, or be briefed on it. Twenty years ago, field commanders criticized much of the Desert Storm intelligence as being designed for high-level policymakers. It was too general, too broad-gauged. Much of what they got at the wing, division, and brigade level wasn't relevant to mission planning and execution.15
At my level, I wanted to know about Iranian targets. When your mission is to kill road-mobile Khomeini intermediate-range ballistic missiles at night, you need intelligence on camouflage and concealment techniques, dummy launchers, reload and refire capability, and relocation schemes. Therefore, incoming reports on international political developments and domestic reactions in foreign capitals are not my ideal of relevant intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of such intelligence at other levels. But when you're in the thick of it, if intelligence isn't contributing to putting ordnance on target, then I don't want to hear it!
Consider what my wing's intelligence needs were when the senior Iranian military leadership relocated to the Shiite religious center of Qom. Nondestructive or "disabling" munitions were the only option to drive them out.16 High explosives, even from our best precision guided munitions, were absolutely out of the question. The task, then, was to shut down the entire electrical grid in the city. You've heard the old adage "Precision weapons need precision intelligence."17 We needed it. We got it. And it was relevant: precise coordinates for every power station and substation serving the city, detailed engineering reports from the Japanese contractors who built the transformers, and satellite imagery that drove the image generator in our virtual reality advanced planning system. We got it all. Then we planned the mission, rehearsed it in VR, and executed. We completely "put their lights out!" With relevant and precise intelligence contributing to mission success, the Iranian generals were driven out of the sanctuary of Qom and back to Tehran.
Intellectual Honesty
The general said:
12. Intellectual honesty must be a cardinal element in intelligence reporting. Accuracy and honesty are not the same. Accuracy is the absence of factual mistakes or errors. Honesty, however, is the adherence to facts and truthfulness with which those facts are interpreted and presented.
13. Moral courage is required to remain intellectually honest and to resist the pressure to reach intelligence "conclusions" that are not supported by facts. The same moral courage and intellectual honesty must extend to reporting even what you do not know, no matter how unpleasant that may be in the short term.
14. Intellectual honesty must drive the intelligence professional to distinguish for the commander those conclusions that are solidly grounded in fact and those that are extrapolations or extensions of the fact. The commander cannot be left with uncertainty in his mind regarding what is fact, what is an estimate, and what is opinion.
The mentor: My colleagues at the agency always knew I was an Air Force intelligence analyst in the Pentagon of the 1970s. Occasionally, one of them who had studied the record would ask, "Was the Air Force estimate that the Soviet Backfire bomber had intercontinental capability intellectually honest?" I have concluded over the years that the answer to the question must be no. Let me explain.
When the new supersonic bomber appeared at the Kazan aircraft plant in 1969, it validated the long-held Air Force prediction of a new Soviet bomber. In 1971, the aircraft, now designated the Backfire, was noted in aerial refueling from a tanker near the test center of Ramenskoye, just east of Moscow. The mission of the bomber, peripheral attack or intercontinental attack, now became one of the most fiercely contested intelligence debates of the cold war. The predominant view of the Washington intelligence community was that the Backfire was a peripheral attack weapon and would not play a significant role in a strategic air attack on the United States. Supporting this position was the Backfire's limited payload, modest self-defense capabilities, and anticipated difficulty in staging the aircraft from far northern Siberian bases.18 The Air Force strongly dissented and consistently argued the Backfire could be used for intercontinental attack--even if the aircraft flew one-way missions.19 The key variable was the estimate of the range of the aircraft. A series of competitive analyses to determine the range produced dissimilar results and failed to conclusively end the debate.20
In short, though we lacked hard evidence that the Soviet Long Range Aviation Backfires ever rehearsed intercontinental strikes, the Air Force estimate of range and intent drove our institutional position that it could and would be used in an attack on the United States.21
The most troublesome aspect about the "intellectal honesty" of our intelligence estimate was the connection between the threat estimate and Air Force hardware procurement. At the time, the Air Force was fighting for the B-1 as a replacement for the aging B-52. F-15 fighter production was expanding to produce large numbers of highly capable air-to-air fighters.
There is an ethical difference between "worst-case analysis" of the threat and the prudent planning and procurement that flows from the analysis and the deliberate overstatement of the threat to drive budget increases for expanded weapon buys. In the first case, intelligence serves to warn the nation's leaders in sufficient time to respond deliberately. In the second case, intelligence is prostituted to the goal of "buying more metal." While the end result may be the same, one end is derived at honestly and the other dishonestly.
Communication
The general said:
15. The power of intelligence to aid the commander in planning and executing military missions is nothing if the intelligence is not communicated. Knowledge of the enemy's intent, capabilities, and location has no worth until the commander receives, understands, and acts upon the intelligence.
16. It is the responsibility of the intelligence professional to choose the most effective way to inform the commander. Choosing the spoken word, the written word, the picture, or the map is a critical decision. Only by knowing well the commander whom he or she serves can the intelligence officer choose wisely.
The teacher: If my students fail to communicate, they fail to serve. Behind the delivery of an accurate and timely intelligence product is a vast, multibillion-dollar structure designed to manage, collect, process, and analyze information. Yet, decades of technological and human investment are wasted if the intelligence officer cannot communicate.
In the schoolhouse, I teach my students to think critically. I teach them to write with precision. I teach them to brief with clarity and conciseness. When the teaching stops, it is their responsibility to learn and to do. To do well is to communicate.
The intelligence officers who most effectively serve their commanders develop a persona. Some are scholars. Some are showmen. Some take on the outward appearances of the commander they serve. The particular persona that develops is irrelevant. What is important is that the style they adopt helps them communicate the intelligence.
When they engage the mind of the one they serve, they can successfully influence the formulation of a policy or plan or the execution of a dangerous mission. They can be an aid to victory and a contributor to saving lives. If they fail to communicate the intelligence well, the commander will continue toward the objective but without the full power of foreknowledge.
What is called "foreknowledge" cannot be elicited from spirits, nor from gods, nor by analogy with past events, nor from calculations. It must be obtained from men who know the enemy situation. --Sun Tzu
The general said:
Intelligence is an art and not a science because it is a creation of people, not nature. People collect intelligence. People analyze intelligence. People make human judgments as an intelligence product is created. And, ultimately, a person communicates the intelligence to the commander.
Thus far, I have described the principles of intelligence as the fundamental truths of the art. Accuracy, timeliness, usability, fusion, relevancy, intellectual honesty, and the requirement to be communicated are all principles inherent in intelligence and are not bounded by time or changing technology. While these principles form the basics of the art, they are complemented by the supporting tenets of politics, timing, and the multilevel nature of military operations. These tenets further characterize intelligence as art.
Intelligence is a political process. It involves the judicious relay of intelligence from a person to a commander who is empowered to act upon the intelligence. It involves interaction between groups of people who represent powerful institutions. Typically, these interactions are between intelligence professionals and operations professionals. And, ultimately, the success of the intelligence process may rest on the personal relationship developed over time between the intelligence officer and the commander whom he or she serves. To work best, this relationship must involve trust, mutual respect, and a shared dedication to the mission.
To have the greatest impact on the commander, the timing of the delivery of the intelligence is crucial. The principle of timeliness and the tenet of timing are not the same. Timing involves the calculation of when to present the intelligence to the commander. If the timing is wrong and the commander is unable to focus on the intelligence, the impact of the information delivered may be diminished. It is the responsibility of the intelligence officer to pick the best timing for the delivery of the most important intelligence.
Finally, intelligence has a multilevel character as it supports missions at the tactical, operational, or strategic levels of warfare.22 When supporting tactical operations, intelligence is highly perishable. The usability of the information may be measured in hours, minutes, and increasingly in seconds. Should intelligence fail, the impact, while deadly and locally dramatic, can be offset with other local victories. At the operational or theater level, intelligence has a lengthier period of usability. With an emphasis on enemy force disposition and capability, the gravity of operational intelligence greatly exceeds that of the tactical level. Should major intelligence errors occur, the impact on the theater campaign may be disastrous and not recoverable. At the strategic level, intelligence supporting national security decision making has a much longer usability. Likewise, it must reflect the political, economic, as well as the military characteristics of the adversary nation. At this highest level, the consequences of misestimation are nationally profound.
Intelligence, then, is art created by people. And, the impact of that art on the decisions of the commander is greater than that of any other input he receives. Indeed, the "words, numbers, images, suggestions, appraisals, (and) incitements" describe the enemy and help the commander "optimize" his action to accomplish the mission. And, in the victory that follows, the commander can claim he was served well by the art of intelligence.
Washington D.C.
19 April 2017
Notes
1. Joe West, "Specialty Codes to be Renumbered November 1," Air Force Times 53 (29 March 1993): 3.
2. Susan B. Gibson, chief of intelligence, 48th Tactical Fighter Wing, RAF Lakenheath, U. K., interview with author, 4 April 1993.
3. Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict: An Interim Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991), 338.
4. Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla, War: Ends and Means (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1989), 185.
5. Benjamin S. Lambeth, "Moscow's Lessons from the 1982 Lebanon Air War," in War in the Third Dimension: Essays in Contemporary Air Power, ed. R. A. Mason (London: Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1986), 127-48.
6. John R. Boyd, "A Discourse on Winning and Losing," Air War College seminar, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 6-8 April 1993.
7. Julie Bird, "Battle Planned without Middleman," Air Force Times 53 (29 March 1993): 16.
8. Jenish D'Arcy, "Fantastic Voyages," Maclean's 105 (14 December 1992): 43-46.
9. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," Parameters 2, no. 4 (Winter 1992-1993): 11.
10. Alan D. Campen, "Communications Support to Intelligence," in The First Information War: The Story of Communications, Computers, and Intelligence Systems in the Persian Gulf War, ed. Alan D. Campen (Fairfax, Va.: AFCEA International Press, 1992), 58.
11. William Safire, "Virtual Reality," New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1992, 20.
12. Louisa Griffin, "U.S. Mission Planning Systems Strive for Portability," Defense Electronics 24, no. 2 (February 1992): 38-41.
13. Boyd seminar.
14. "Notes on Strategic Air Intelligence in World War II (ETO)," Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., October 1949, 32, cited in Charles N. Culbertson, "Air Intelligence and the Search for the Center of Gravity," Research Report (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College, April 1988), 24.
15. Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict, 340-42.
16. Alan W. Debban, "Disabling Systems: War-Fighting Option for the Future," Airpower Journal 7, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 45.
17. Campen, 53.
18. John Prados, The Soviet Estimate: U.S. Intelligence Analysis and Soviet Strategic Forces (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986), 257-68.
19. William E. Colby and Peter Forbath, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 424.
20. Bonner Day, "Soviet Bombers: A Growing Threat," Air Force Magazine 61 (November 1978): 85-86.
21. "Cassandra and the Cold War," Newsweek 89 (10 January 1977): 24.
22. Michael I. Handel, "Intelligence and Military Operations," in Intelligence and Military Operations, ed. Michael I. Handel (London: Frank Cass and Company, Ltd., 1990), 27.
Contributor
Col Gary D. Payton (BS, USAFA; MAS, Johns Hopkins University; MA, Georgetown University) is commander, 17th Technical Training Group, Goodfellow AFB, Texas. A career intelligence officer, his assignments have included commander, 6988th Electronic Security Squadron, Royal Air Force Mildenhall, United Kingdom, during operations Desert Storm and Provide Comfort; and he has had staff duties at Randolph AFB, Texas; Camp H. M. Smith, Hawaii; Ramstein AB, Germany; and Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Colonel Payton is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College.
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.
[ Back Issues | Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]