National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism: An Assessment

Q3 Social Sciences Homeland Security Affairs Pub Date : 2006-06-30 DOI:10.21236/ada443609
N. Morag
{"title":"National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism: An Assessment","authors":"N. Morag","doi":"10.21236/ada443609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (hereinafter referred to as the NMSP or Plan), released by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) on February 1, 2006, sets out the Pentagon's broad strategy for executing, and presumably winning, the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The NMSP can be viewed as an elaboration of part of the larger and more holistic set of policies spelled out by the Department of Defense (DoD) in its June 2005 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support. The Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support envisions a layered approach towards homeland defense and security based on a distinction between: Forward Regions, Approaches to the U.S., the U.S. Homeland and the Global Commons (space and cyberspace). 1 Although the NMSP does not specifically position itself within the rubric of the larger June 2005 strategy paper, its focus on attacking terrorist networks abroad, strengthening international governance and creating a global environment inhospitable to terrorists suggest that it should be viewed as a DoD articulation of the \"Forward Regions\" component of the overall strategy.This article will focus on the Pentagon's \"Forward Regions\" strategy through analysis of the NMSP. The Department of Defense, of course, recognizes that combating the terrorist threat to the United States and its allies requires an approach that differs in many critical ways from the approaches needed in order to effectively carry out conventional warfare and even counterinsurgency warfare. An effective homeland security strategy, first and foremost, requires the military to \"team-up\" with civilian intelligence, law-enforcement, and, for specific missions, with emergency service and public health agencies as well. With the exception of the National Guard, much of the military is largely unaccustomed to this effectively unprecedented role in which the Pentagon must \"share power\" with civilian entities. The Department of Defense has attempted to cope with this quandary by supporting the distinction between \"homeland defense\" and \"homeland security.\" A cynic might maintain that this distinction has been created in order to enable the Pentagon to retain \"ownership\" of a major part of the overall effort at securing the American homeland from terrorist threats and, at the same time, to enable it to play an important role under certain circumstances as the lead agency and under others as a supporting agency in domestic security and response activities. Of course, the DoD must also comply with U.S. law (which limits the military's domestic role) and, equally importantly, avoid irritating public and congressional sensibilities with respect to the power and influence, real or perceived, exercised by the military.Potential motives aside, it is doubtful that many would argue that protecting the United States from terrorism should not require a holistic approach in which the firefighter trained to deal with a possible chemical attack in an American city and the special forces soldier trained to attack terrorist hideouts in some remote corner of the globe are viewed as part of the same overall mission. The National Strategy for Homeland Security recognizes this continuum in its emphasis on prevention, reduction of vulnerability to attacks that do occur, and swift recovery from attacks. 2 Homeland Defense and Homeland Security should not, therefore, be viewed as different strategies, but rather different ends of a continuum that moves from the international arena, to the North American land-mass (and associated offshore areas), to the domestic arena.Nevertheless, if we attempt to somewhat artificially separate Homeland Defense from Homeland Security, we are still confronted with a lack of clarity as to the precise role the military must play. The DoD's Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support places the military in the lead role with respect to \"defending the maritime and air approaches to the United States and protecting U. …","PeriodicalId":30057,"journal":{"name":"Homeland Security Affairs","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Homeland Security Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21236/ada443609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

The National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (hereinafter referred to as the NMSP or Plan), released by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) on February 1, 2006, sets out the Pentagon's broad strategy for executing, and presumably winning, the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The NMSP can be viewed as an elaboration of part of the larger and more holistic set of policies spelled out by the Department of Defense (DoD) in its June 2005 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support. The Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support envisions a layered approach towards homeland defense and security based on a distinction between: Forward Regions, Approaches to the U.S., the U.S. Homeland and the Global Commons (space and cyberspace). 1 Although the NMSP does not specifically position itself within the rubric of the larger June 2005 strategy paper, its focus on attacking terrorist networks abroad, strengthening international governance and creating a global environment inhospitable to terrorists suggest that it should be viewed as a DoD articulation of the "Forward Regions" component of the overall strategy.This article will focus on the Pentagon's "Forward Regions" strategy through analysis of the NMSP. The Department of Defense, of course, recognizes that combating the terrorist threat to the United States and its allies requires an approach that differs in many critical ways from the approaches needed in order to effectively carry out conventional warfare and even counterinsurgency warfare. An effective homeland security strategy, first and foremost, requires the military to "team-up" with civilian intelligence, law-enforcement, and, for specific missions, with emergency service and public health agencies as well. With the exception of the National Guard, much of the military is largely unaccustomed to this effectively unprecedented role in which the Pentagon must "share power" with civilian entities. The Department of Defense has attempted to cope with this quandary by supporting the distinction between "homeland defense" and "homeland security." A cynic might maintain that this distinction has been created in order to enable the Pentagon to retain "ownership" of a major part of the overall effort at securing the American homeland from terrorist threats and, at the same time, to enable it to play an important role under certain circumstances as the lead agency and under others as a supporting agency in domestic security and response activities. Of course, the DoD must also comply with U.S. law (which limits the military's domestic role) and, equally importantly, avoid irritating public and congressional sensibilities with respect to the power and influence, real or perceived, exercised by the military.Potential motives aside, it is doubtful that many would argue that protecting the United States from terrorism should not require a holistic approach in which the firefighter trained to deal with a possible chemical attack in an American city and the special forces soldier trained to attack terrorist hideouts in some remote corner of the globe are viewed as part of the same overall mission. The National Strategy for Homeland Security recognizes this continuum in its emphasis on prevention, reduction of vulnerability to attacks that do occur, and swift recovery from attacks. 2 Homeland Defense and Homeland Security should not, therefore, be viewed as different strategies, but rather different ends of a continuum that moves from the international arena, to the North American land-mass (and associated offshore areas), to the domestic arena.Nevertheless, if we attempt to somewhat artificially separate Homeland Defense from Homeland Security, we are still confronted with a lack of clarity as to the precise role the military must play. The DoD's Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support places the military in the lead role with respect to "defending the maritime and air approaches to the United States and protecting U. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反恐战争国家军事战略计划:评估
2006年2月1日,参谋长联席会议(CJCS)主席发布了《反恐战争国家军事战略计划》(以下简称NMSP或计划),列出了五角大楼执行并可能赢得全球反恐战争(GWOT)的广泛战略。新战略计划可以被看作是国防部在2005年6月的《国土防御和民事支持战略》中阐述的更大、更全面的一整套政策的一部分。《国土防御和民事支持战略》设想了一种分层的国土防御和安全方法,该方法基于以下区分:前沿地区、美国方法、美国国土和全球公域(空间和网络空间)。尽管《新战略战略计划》并未明确将自己置于2005年6月的更大的战略文件的标题中,但其对海外恐怖主义网络的攻击、加强国际治理和创造对恐怖分子不利的全球环境的关注表明,它应被视为国防部对整体战略中“前沿地区”组成部分的阐述。本文将通过对NMSP的分析,重点关注五角大楼的“前沿地区”战略。当然,国防部认识到,打击恐怖主义对美国及其盟国的威胁,需要一种在许多关键方面不同于有效开展常规战争甚至反叛乱战争所需的方法。一项有效的国土安全战略首先要求军方与民间情报部门、执法部门“合作”,在执行特定任务时,还需要与应急服务和公共卫生机构合作。除了国民警卫队外,大部分军队基本上不习惯五角大楼必须与民间实体“分享权力”这一实际上前所未有的角色。国防部试图通过支持区分“国土防御”和“国土安全”来解决这一困境。愤世嫉俗的人可能会认为,建立这种区别是为了使五角大楼能够保留对保护美国本土免受恐怖主义威胁的整体努力的主要部分的“所有权”,同时使其能够在某些情况下作为领导机构发挥重要作用,在其他情况下作为国内安全和响应活动的支持机构。当然,国防部也必须遵守美国法律(它限制了军方在国内的角色),同样重要的是,避免激怒公众和国会对军方行使的权力和影响的敏感,无论是实际的还是想象的。抛开潜在的动机不谈,很多人会认为,保护美国不受恐怖主义侵害不应该需要一种整体的方法,即把训练有素的消防员用于应对美国城市可能发生的化学袭击,和训练有素的特种部队士兵用于袭击全球某个偏远角落的恐怖分子藏身处,视为同一项整体任务的一部分,这一点值得怀疑。《国家国土安全战略》承认了这一连续性,强调预防、减少确实发生的攻击的脆弱性以及从攻击中迅速恢复。因此,国土防御和国土安全不应被视为不同的战略,而应被视为从国际舞台到北美大陆(及相关近海地区)再到国内舞台的连续统一体的不同末端。然而,如果我们试图在某种程度上人为地将国土防御与国土安全分开,我们仍然面临着军队必须发挥的确切作用缺乏明确性的问题。国防部的《国土防御和民事支持战略》将军队置于“保卫通往美国的海上和空中通道并保护U. ...”的主导地位
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊最新文献
FEMA, Response, and Recovery Training and Exercises in Homeland Security Risk Management, Threats, and Hazards Homeland Security Law, Regulations, and Budgeting Border Security, U.S. Citizenship, and Immigration Services
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1