Tuesday, August 24, 2004
A New Unified Command for Terrorism
Since intelligence services are meant to "serve" other parts of the government, and in particular its defense commands, the first step in reorganizing our response to terrorist threats such as what we loosely refer to as al-Qaida is to establish a organizing point within the command structure that will be able to more effectively use and discipline the intelligence services to assist the carrying out of their (new) responsibilities. Let us first note the command structure that exists at present.
The United States has nine "Unified Combatant Commands". The commanders in chief of these commands are expected to be the leaders in military actions that occur in their areas of responsibility. The commands (with their area of responsibility briefly noted in parenthesis) are: European (West Africa, Europe, Russia), Pacific (Pacific Ocean, Japan, East and South Asia, Indonesia), Southern (Caribbean and South America), Northern (North America), Central (East Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan), Strategic (Strategic Nuclear War, Space), Joint Forces (training, force structuring, and force provision ), Transportation (transportation ), and Special Operations (training and deployment of special operations forces). The first five are "action commands". The next four are "support commands". Special Operations might also be considered an action command, yet its responsibilities are primarily the training and provision of forces for missions as determined and overseen by one or another of the action commands.
This leads us to wondering who in the military structure is responsible for countering the al-Qaida or Jihadist threat? In so far as al-Qaida exists only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the responsibility is that of the Central Command, assisted by Special Forces in particular areas. Elsewhere, the military commands are on the sidelines, with the lead taken presumably by the intelligence services. The fight is also the responsibility of the FBI (a quasi-police service operating mainly but not exclusively in the United States) and the CIA (an intelligence service with an "enforcement" branch operating mainly but not exclusively outside the United States). One might think this is also the responsibility of Homeland Security. But this is a civilian agency concerned primarily with organization and training. Homeland Security is certainly not prepared to be the leader in the fight against al-Qaida or similar groups. The conclusion might be drawn that the lack of a responsible military command to meet this new threat is a major reason for the irresponsibility and confusion in the availability, analysis, and usefulness of intelligence in this struggle.
If we are to take the terrorist threat as seriously as we took the threat of major nuclear attack in the past, it is time that we created a command analogous to the Strategic Command that takes on itself the unique responsibility of defending the country against the new threat. Let us note the responsibilities of the Strategic Command as described on their web site:
Thus, this command coordinates and assesses intelligence, prepares the plans, and executes the plans where necessary to meet the threat. If we are to take the Jihadist or al-Qaida threat with equal seriousness, we must develop a command structure that reflects this seriousness. This new command would then be in a position to demand from all intelligence services coordinated and actionable intelligence that would make possible the accomplishment of its mission to assess and respond to danger of terrorist attack in a timely fashion. This command should be in direct communication with the President at all times. And when intelligence is not up to its responsibility to serve this command, the command will be in a position to change that equation.
The United States has nine "Unified Combatant Commands". The commanders in chief of these commands are expected to be the leaders in military actions that occur in their areas of responsibility. The commands (with their area of responsibility briefly noted in parenthesis) are: European (West Africa, Europe, Russia), Pacific (Pacific Ocean, Japan, East and South Asia, Indonesia), Southern (Caribbean and South America), Northern (North America), Central (East Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan), Strategic (Strategic Nuclear War, Space), Joint Forces (training, force structuring, and force provision ), Transportation (transportation ), and Special Operations (training and deployment of special operations forces). The first five are "action commands". The next four are "support commands". Special Operations might also be considered an action command, yet its responsibilities are primarily the training and provision of forces for missions as determined and overseen by one or another of the action commands.
This leads us to wondering who in the military structure is responsible for countering the al-Qaida or Jihadist threat? In so far as al-Qaida exists only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the responsibility is that of the Central Command, assisted by Special Forces in particular areas. Elsewhere, the military commands are on the sidelines, with the lead taken presumably by the intelligence services. The fight is also the responsibility of the FBI (a quasi-police service operating mainly but not exclusively in the United States) and the CIA (an intelligence service with an "enforcement" branch operating mainly but not exclusively outside the United States). One might think this is also the responsibility of Homeland Security. But this is a civilian agency concerned primarily with organization and training. Homeland Security is certainly not prepared to be the leader in the fight against al-Qaida or similar groups. The conclusion might be drawn that the lack of a responsible military command to meet this new threat is a major reason for the irresponsibility and confusion in the availability, analysis, and usefulness of intelligence in this struggle.
If we are to take the terrorist threat as seriously as we took the threat of major nuclear attack in the past, it is time that we created a command analogous to the Strategic Command that takes on itself the unique responsibility of defending the country against the new threat. Let us note the responsibilities of the Strategic Command as described on their web site:
"USSTRATCOM is the command and control center for U.S. strategic forces and controls military space operations, computer network operations, information operations, strategic warning and intelligence assessments as well as global strategic planning.
The command is responsible for both early warning of and defense against missile attack and long-range conventional attacks. The command is charged with deterring and defending against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Thus, this command coordinates and assesses intelligence, prepares the plans, and executes the plans where necessary to meet the threat. If we are to take the Jihadist or al-Qaida threat with equal seriousness, we must develop a command structure that reflects this seriousness. This new command would then be in a position to demand from all intelligence services coordinated and actionable intelligence that would make possible the accomplishment of its mission to assess and respond to danger of terrorist attack in a timely fashion. This command should be in direct communication with the President at all times. And when intelligence is not up to its responsibility to serve this command, the command will be in a position to change that equation.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
