Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror THE ROLE OF NAVAL FORCES IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR ABBREVIATED VERSION Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-05-G-0288, DO #3 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10179-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10179-4 Additional copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror COMMITTEE ON THE ROLE OF NAVAL FORCES IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Co-chair RICHARD L. WADE, Exponent, Co-chair H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, San Antonio, Texas NOEL K. CUNNINGHAM, Glendora, California KEVIN P. GREEN, IBM Global Business Services RODNEY GREGORY, IBM Global Business Services LEE HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University PAUL W. HOFF, Bedford, New Hampshire JAMES D. HULL, Annapolis, Maryland HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., Gainesville, Virginia RONALD R. LUMAN, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANN K. MILLER, University of Missouri, Rolla JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Solvang, California GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia BRAD ROBERTS, Institute for Defense Analyses ANNETTE L. SOBEL, Sandia National Laboratories H. EUGENE STANLEY, Boston University MARLIN U. THOMAS, Air Force Institute of Technology DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company ELIHU ZIMET, Gaithersburg, Maryland Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Study Director EUGENE J. CHOI, Program Officer (through May 18, 2007) IAN M. CAMERON, Associate Program Officer (through May 21, 2007) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant (through June 9, 2006) SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Consultant
OCR for page R5
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror NAVAL STUDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies LEE HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., Gainesville, Virginia EDWARD H. KAPLAN, Yale University THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Solvang, California GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia J. PAUL REASON, Washington, D.C. JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Exponent JAMES WARD, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, Gaithersburg, Maryland Navy Liaison Representatives RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through October 13, 2005) RDML DAN W. DAVENPORT, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of October 14, 2005) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 (through January 19, 2006) RADM WILLIAM E. LANDAY III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 (as of January 20, 2006) Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through August 3, 2006) LTGEN JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of August 4, 2006)
OCR for page R6
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer EUGENE J. CHOI, Program Officer (through May 18, 2007) IAN M. CAMERON, Associate Program Officer (through May 21, 2007) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant (through June 9, 2006)
OCR for page R7
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror Preface In December 2004 the Naval Studies Board was briefed on the Navy’s Maritime Intercept Operations in support of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which seeks to stop the flow of weapons of mass destruction as cargo in the open sea. Given the historic roles of the Navy and the Marine Corps in conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and offensive forward operations to deter and prevent terrorist actions against the homeland, this briefing was the genesis of the present study on the naval forces’ role in the Global War on Terror.1 The United States is a maritime nation whose survival and economic vitality depend on the free flow of commerce, whether in energy, food, or consumer products. The maritime infrastructure abroad as well as at home is thus critical to U.S. strategic interests, particularly since more than 90 percent of U.S. trade moves by water. The Department of the Navy has defined for itself several missions for the Global War on Terror (GWOT): to establish foundations for cooperative interactions with other agencies and nations; to provide the ISR needed for integrated maritime surveillance; to protect U.S. forces and infrastructure; and to conduct maritime interdiction in areas beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.2 The Department of the Navy has participated in GWOT military operations most heavily through the Marine Corps and the Navy’s Special Operations Forces, providing close air support; conducting strike operations and facilitating 1 The study’s use of the terminology “Global War on Terror” is discussed in the Prologue. 2 Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Michael Mullen, USN). 2005. CNO Guidance for 2006: Meeting the Challenge of a New Era, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., October 30; Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN). 2006. Navy Strategic Plan in Support of Program Objective Memorandum 08, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., May.
OCR for page R8
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror maneuvers in theater; providing other support such as explosive ordnance disposal and work on improvised explosive devices; establishing a Marine Corps special brigade and the Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force; and operating the National Maritime Intelligence Center. The importance of maritime activities and vulnerabilities to the GWOT, particularly with respect to homeland defense, has been increasingly recognized in recent directives. The Department of Defense (DOD) has given the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) responsibility for military aspects of homeland defense. The maritime component commander for NORTHCOM is the Commander of the Fleet Forces Command, and the Navy’s Third Fleet provides the Joint Force Maritime Component. The NORTHCOM Katrina Task Force was an example of the military’s involvement in humanitarian operations, and it demonstrated how the military can contribute to recovery from a large-scale disaster. Although that task force was not set up in response to the GWOT, it embodies an approach that might help deter terrorist activity. Naval forces deployed to support tsunami disaster relief have demonstrated how humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations overseas can help to dampen anti-American sentiment abroad. Maritime security aspects of the GWOT have recently received top-level emphasis as national, DOD, and Service strategies have been drawn up.3 Though the Navy has been slower than the other Services to step up to the GWOT challenges, it is starting to realign priorities to catch up. Its greatest challenge is building global maritime domain awareness (MDA) in order to prosecute the GWOT as far forward as possible. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the attacks of 9/11, and earlier on the USS Cole, were executed from land. It must also be recognized that the maritime aspects of the GWOT involve operations with short notice, and that there is heavy dependence on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) to provide MDA that is adequate to support timely decisions on naval force allocations and dispositions for conducting a range of maritime operations. In response to a request from the former Chief of Naval Operations,4 the Naval Studies Board through the National Research Council (NRC) established the Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror to conduct an assessment of the adequacy of and prospects for improving the role of 3 White House (George W. Bush), 2005, The National Strategy for Maritime Security, Washington, D.C., September (DOD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are developing eight supporting implementation plans); Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (Gen Peter Pace, USMC), 2006, National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., February 1. 4 ADM Vern Clark, USN, CNO, letter dated April 18, 2005, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences.
OCR for page R9
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror. The committee’s approach in responding to the study’s terms of reference is outlined below.5 THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH IN RESPONDING TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE The Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror (see Appendix B for biographies of committee members) convened in July 2005 and held meetings over a period of 6 months to gather input from the relevant communities and then to discuss the committee’s findings (summarized agendas of the meetings are provided in Appendix C).6 The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the report were spent drafting the manuscript, gathering additional information, reviewing and responding to external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the security/public release review required to produce this version of the report that does not disclose information as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b). It was mutually determined by the Department of the Navy and the National Research Council that the full report contained information as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and therefore could not be released to the public in its entirety. The initial approach of the committee was to identify specific operational, policy, and technical areas necessary to fulfill the tasks in the terms of reference. However, briefings soon revealed that Navy thinking and activities related to the GWOT were continuing to evolve. For example, while most of the topics in the terms of reference focus on operational and technical capabilities for maritime security operations, the CNO Guidance for 2006 reflected a much broader perspective on the GWOT.7 The committee therefore believed that to carry out its charge to assess the adequacy of and prospects for improvement of the role of naval forces in the GWOT, it had to adopt a broad interpretation of the terms of reference. Lacking a Naval Services-generated framework comprehensive enough to delineate the spectrum of threats, environments, and missions pertinent to naval forces, the committee developed a Defense-in-Depth framework (see Figure ES.1 in the Executive Summary) to address the issues of operational and technical capabilities called for in the terms of reference and by the CNO guidance. The committee spent considerable time debating the approach and then developing the framework as the organizing construct for assessing needed capabilities, status, and gaps. Its members came to believe that the Navy must do the same in a “top-down” fashion that maps the full problem and mission space across the 5 The terms of reference for this study are listed in Appendix A. 6 During the entire course of its study, the committee held meetings in which it received (and discussed) materials that are exempt from release under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). 7 Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Michael Mullen, USN). 2005. CNO Guidance for 2006: Meeting the Challenge of a New Era, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., October 30.
OCR for page R10
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror continuum of GWOT operations. Such a framework would address the problem end-to-end by integrating operations in disparate theaters of warfare into a continuous maritime whole. Furthermore, the Defense-in-Depth framework was developed by the committee to better convey the messages that attach to the naval forces’ GWOT mission. Because the committee’s examination of the principal elements of the Defense-in-Depth framework resulted in findings and recommendations that could be grouped into seven areas for priority action, the Executive Summary summarizes the recommendations under these seven priority areas. Finally, the committee emphasizes the Navy’s roles and missions in the GWOT because the Navy has trailed the other Naval Services in this area, but due attention to activities of the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard has been given where appropriate. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror thanks the many briefers who presented information essential to the writing of this report. Special acknowledgment goes to RADM Samuel J. Locklear III, USN, and RDML Dan W. Davenport, USN, and their staff at the Assessment Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Requirements, and Assessments (N81), who helped the committee coordinate numerous briefings and facilitated information gathering throughout this study. The committee also thanks VADM Kevin Cosgriff, USN, and his staff for hosting the committee and arranging for briefings during the meeting on November 1-2, 2005, at the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and CAPT Karl Heinz, USN, and his staff for hosting the committee and arranging for briefings during the meeting on September 26-27, 2005, at the Naval Special Warfare Command. The committee acknowledges and thanks ADM Dennis C. Blair, USN (retired), for his valuable insights while he was a member of the committee during the drafting of the report. Finally, the committee thanks the dedicated staff of the Naval Studies Board: Dixie Gordon, who facilitated the handling of the information associated with this study; Susan Campbell, who capably saw to the logistics for our many meetings over a short period of time and helped with report production; Ian Cameron, who added to the exceptionally smooth conduct of the meetings and the production of the report; Eugene Choi, who supported the response to report review; Sidney Reed, who supported report development and review through document research and cogent observations; Raymond Widmayer, who compiled the meeting agendas and arranged for site visits; and, in particular, our study director, Arul Mozhi, who kept the study on track and provided invaluable support to us and to the committee members. Miriam E. John and Richard L. Wade, Co-chairs Committee on the Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror
OCR for page R11
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror Acknowledgment of Reviewers National Research Council (NRC) reports are reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published reports as sound as possible and to ensure that the reports meet institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscripts remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. Although the reviewers provide many constructive comments and suggestions, they are not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor do they see the final draft of reports before release. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of the draft report: Lewis M. Branscomb, Harvard University, RADM Erroll Brown, USCG (retired), IBM Global Business Services, Ruth A. David, ANSER, Seymour J. Deitchman, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Gen Alfred M. Gray, USMC (retired), The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Catherine M. Kelleher, University of Maryland, Jerry A. Krill, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, ADM Donald L. Pilling, USN (retired), LMI, Edward Wenk, Jr., University of Washington, and George M. Whitesides, Harvard University.
OCR for page R12
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror The review of the draft report was overseen by Alexander H. Flax, Potomac, Maryland. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the draft report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of NRC reports rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R13
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror Contents PROLOGUE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 APPENDIXES A Terms of Reference 21 B Committee and Staff Biographies 23 C Summary of Committee Meeting Agendas 29 D Acronyms and Abbreviations 31
OCR for page R14
The Role of Naval Forces in the Global War on Terror This page intentionally left blank.