AirSea Battle: A Politically Charged Doctrine?

Inside the Ring this week by Bill Gertz updates on some of the events surrounding AirSea Battle doctrine development. Most of it sounds political while the rest sounds unfamiliar.

The Pentagon is engaged in a behind-the-scenes political fight over efforts to soften, or entirely block, a new military-approved program to bolster U.S. forces in Asia.

The program is called the Air Sea Battle concept and was developed in response to more than 100 war games since the 1990s that showed U.S. forces, mainly air and naval power, are not aligned to win a future war with China.

A senior defense official said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is reviewing the new strategy.

“We want to do this right,” the official said. “The concept is on track and is being refined to ensure that we are able to implement it wherever we need to - including in the Asia-Pacific region, where American force projection is essential to our alliances and interests.”

The official noted that the program is “the product of unprecedented collaboration by the services.”

Pro-defense members of Congress aware of the political fight are ready to investigate. One aide said Congress knows very little about the concept and is awaiting details.

Officially, the Pentagon has said the new strategy is not directed at China.

But unofficially China is the focus, and everyone including China knows that. Here is where AirSea Battle is heading.

Officials in the Obama administration who fear upsetting China also are thought to have intervened, and their opposition led Mr. Panetta to hold up final approval.

The final directive in its current form would order the Air Force and the Navy to develop and implement specific programs as part of the concept. It also would include proposals for defense contractors to support the concept.

The "unprecedented collaboration by the services" doesn't include the nations largest service - the US Army. Oops, somehow we decided to develop Battle Doctrine for a Pacific region where most disputes involve territories, including islands, and skipped the part where meaningful contribution from the land service is needed. I've soured a great deal on AirSea Battle for several reasons, but primarily because the Navy and Air Force have made it as parochial as humanly possible by somehow ignoring the range of capabilities the Army brings to the table in warfighting. I hope I am very wrong on this, but from what I am hearing from the US Army folks, I don't think so.

For example, the Navy is going to operate fewer ships in the future, something I believe we all accept as a political and budget reality. We can also assume that no matter where in the world the next war breaks out, it won't be in the Middle of the Atlantic Ocean or over some abyss in the Pacific Ocean - it will be somewhere in littoral waters where objectives are consistently on or near land. I'm not sure what history officers of the US Navy is reading, but in my read of human history of naval warfare on planet Earth, the oldest tactic in naval warfare is to utilize ground forces on land - be it soldiers or Marines - to cover the flanks for naval forces - and mutually support those land capabilities with seapower. That is basically one of the most utilized tactical applications of military forces in history - to cover the flanks of land and sea forced dating back to times of Athens up until as recent as Libya (unless we are going to chalk up Malta as a footnote in the littoral battleplan executed by NATO off the Libyan coast). Please tell me AirSea Battle didn't skip that portion of battleplan development.

Until I hear how the Army and Marines are included as roles within AirSea Battle doctrinal development, I will remain a skeptic of AirSea Battle. Forward radar coverage, logistics, air defense, anti-ship strike, forward air station establishment/defense/support, and any number of other roles will require ground troops. If someone is suggesting the Marines will fill all of these roles, plus the amphibious role, plus all the other littoral roles all while being reduced in size in the future... well I'm throwing the penalty flag. Whether it is the Pacific or Persian Gulf, offshore infrastructure matters and will require Marines. In the future, the Army will be required to take up the slack and ultimately - hold territory until relieved, and yes that may include holding territory against an adversary like China.

Without land combat power, AirSea Battle sounds like Shock & Awe with a new car smell, or some perfect conditions framework for deploying over the horizon combat power to win wars without causalities as some have suggested has happened in Libya (I'm still skeptical we have done 'net good' in Libya, the war isn't over just because Gaddafi is no longer in Tripoli).

Bottom line, I look forward to AirSea Battle seeing the light of day in Congress, because it is either going to be welcomed as brilliant battle doctrine or it will flop as a parochial rock drill that appears specific to arguing a budget share.

I don't want to give the impression that AirSea Battle is somehow 'all bad' - I'm sure there is a lot of great in there, but I am very concerned that AirSea Battle isn't 'all there' yet.