Friday
24 March 2000
0830-1130 (S)
America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect us.
The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century September, 1999
Protecting the territory of the United States and its citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic is the principal task of government. The primary reason for the increased emphasis on homeland defense is the change, both in type and degree, in the threats to the United States.
Transforming Defense, National Security in the 21st Century, Report of the National Defense Panel, December 1997
... we also have responsibilities for homeland defense, whatever that is.
Senior US military officer addressing NWC Class of 2000
Purpose
The purpose of this lesson is to comprehend why "homeland defense" has recently become a topic for debate, understand the difficulty defining it, analyze its national security implications, and evaluate its impact on current US military strategy.
Learning Objectives
1. Comprehend the evolving debate as to the definitions of homeland defense.
2. Evaluate the range of threats and potential threats that give rise to the concept of homeland defense.
3. Compare and contrast the utility of deterrence between a cold war environment between super powers and a world of one dominate superpower facing state and non-state actors armed with weapons of mass destruction.
4. Analyze homeland defense to identify its civil, civil-military and uniquely military requirements and problems.
Discussion
Since the 1997 QDR, there have been frequent discussions in the press and in military circles about the idea of "homeland defense." Often, this term has been used interchangeably with national missile defense, counter-terrorism, "consequence management" or the after-effects of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, military support to civil authorities and information warfare. Such mixing of terms has political/legal repercussions because to some the discussion connotes "the military" being intimately involved in the country's domestic affairs. Less than a year ago, Senator John Warner (R-Va), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen were openly discussing the idea of a CINC Homeland Defense. A strong and well-coordinated response from civil-libertarians, supported by many on Capitol Hill, quickly killed this idea. Instead, in November 1999, a "Joint Task Force-Civil Support," commanded by a brigadier general, was created under US Joint Forces Command. The dramatic change in less than a year from serious discussion of a four-star command to a brigadier general with a small staff and a narrowly defined mission demonstrated the sensitivity of the American public to the role of the military in domestic affairs.
But how did we get to this debate in the first place? Why all this talk about homeland defense? What changed?
There was a period following World War II when America spent more money on aerospace defense than it did on nuclear retaliation. One could certainly argue that this was homeland defense. However, the practicality of defense against Soviet missiles became so problematic that the best defense became no defense. In theory, a balance of terror became the most effective means of protecting the American homeland. As we studied in 5602, "mutually assured destruction" meant that the superpowers could hold each other's cities hostage during the Cold War confrontation.
The Soviet Union no longer exists, but the Russian Federation maintains the very large remnant of its nuclear arsenal. Today's threats, including massive levels of destruction, can also come from smaller, less technologically sophisticated, less predictable nations, and in some cases from non-state actors. As we have seen, in addition to intercontinental ballistic missiles, more anonymous threats, such as cyber, biological and even nuclear attacks, can now be conducted, or even made to look like an attack from a third party (so called "false flag" operations).
Detection of threats has also become more difficult. In the past 40 years, the intelligence community has had difficulty assessing intentions of hostile nations, but has had considerably better success in accessing capabilities. In the 21st Century assessing capabilities may become as difficult as assessing intentions. Even after four years of the most intrusive arms control inspections ever implemented, the United Nations Special Commission did not learn of Iraq's extensive BW program until a key official (Saddam's son-in-law) defected. Likewise, the International Atomic Energy Agency had certified Iraq to be in compliance with all treaties and guidelines just months before their invasion of Kuwait. Following the Gulf War, a UN inspection team discovered that Iraq was well down the road to becoming a nuclear power. The disturbing result of their discovery was that Iraq was not building one or two nuclear weapons; the Iraqi program was designed to build more than 100.
The proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them, combined with the United States' increased dependence (hence increased vulnerability) on information systems, has renewed the debate on homeland defense. But what is homeland defense? Our first priority will be to define the term. It has many definitions. Some definitions range from ballistic missile defense to the war on drugs and illegal immigration. Others use a very narrow definition focusing on terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. Some say it only applies to foreign threats, while others say, "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Some say homeland defense should only apply to political acts against the U.S while others say modern transnational criminal organizations pose a serious threat to national security and should be included. American corporations say it should include protecting American citizens and companies in overseas locations. Should it include our satellites in space and our embassies abroad? Embassies are considered to be on American soil. What are the boundaries of homeland defense?
There are no definitive answers to these questions. Therefore, it will be up to each seminar to first define what they mean by "homeland defense." This will be no easy task. A recent workshop hosted by the National War College spent more than three hours working on a definition that would satisfy the diverse audience represented: military and civilian universities, several international corporations, a former New York City police commissioner, and representatives from several federal agencies and departments.
One might begin to define homeland defense in terms of national interests. What is it we are trying to defend: the survival of our constitutional government, our territory and population, our economy, our values, our prestige, our ability to deploy military forces? Is America's homeland defense in the 21st Century still limited by its geographic borders? Or has our globalized economy and superpower status changed these 19th and 20th Century concepts of national security? And what are the military implications of our definition? How do the potential threats and the concept of homeland defense bear on the problems of national and theater military strategy? Should we focus our discussions on crisis management and consequence management or should we take a more holistic approach including deterrence, detection, preemption, crisis management, consequence management and retaliation?
Despite the wide variations in the definitions and perceived boundaries of homeland defense, there is no debate that the Department of Defense will play an integral role in this mission. What effect will this new responsibility have on DoD's roles and missions, budget priorities, interagency processes and the linkages between the national military strategy and national security strategy? There are many questions yet to be answered.
Issues for Consideration
1. Define homeland defense.
2. Is homeland defense a subset of national security or has it become merely a synonym?
3. What are the ... "changes, both in type and degree," that have created this new debate on homeland defense?
4. Who should be responsible for homeland defense? The national government exclusively, or state and local governments as well? What about the private sector? More than 90 percent of America's critical information infrastructure is in the private sector. The Department of Defense cannot go to war without this information system. Who is responsible for protecting it?
5. What impact could asymmetric attacks on America's homeland have on DoD's ability to successfully implement its military strategy?
6. Does the structure created by the National Security Act of 1947, and its amendments including Goldwater-Nichols and PDD 56, provide the means to defend the American homeland in the 21st Century, or do we need a new national security structure?
7. Archer - Both the DPRK and Iraq pose direct threats to the United States. North Korea has a missile with the potential of delivering nuclear weapons on parts of Alaska. Iraq and probably North Korea could attack United States information systems. Iraq sponsors terrorist groups that could attack the United States. Do these capabilities affect the U.S. ability to project combat power? Do they affect your calculation of strategic risk?
Required Readings
1. Fred C. Ikle, "An Argument for Homeland Defense," The Washington Quarterly (Spring, 1998), pp. 8-10. (Reprint)
2. Remarks by the President on Keeping America Secure for the 21st Century, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., January 22, 1999, pp. 1-5 (Reprint)
3. "Transforming Defense, National Security in the 21st Century," Report on the National Defense Panel, December 1997, Executive Summary, pp. i - vii; Introduction, p. 1; and Homeland Defense sections, pp. 25-28. (Reprint)
4. Chuck McCutcheon, "Homeland Defense: Mobilizing Against Terrorism," CQ Weekly (March 6, 1999), pp. 522-528. (Reprint)
5. "Supporting Homeland Defense," US Army Training and Doctrine Command White Paper, April 1999, pp. 1-27.
6. Elizabeth Becker, "Military Terrorism Operation Has a Civilian Focus," New York Times, January 9, 2000. (Reprint)
Recommended Readings
1. Richard D. Falkenrath, America's Achilles' Heel: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
2. Thomas R. Lujan, "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army," Parameters, Autumn 1997, pp. 82-97. (Reprint)
 |
 |
 |