Whither Air-Sea Battle?

I share Lazarus’s concerns regarding the decision to fold Air-Sea Battle into the new Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (or JAM-GC if you will). Disregarding JAM-GC’s ambiguously-worded name, I might feel differently about the move in general had a reasonably-clear definition of the concept been released last week. The absence of such a definition makes it difficult to understand whether this new concept truly encompasses the threat sets and operational-strategic challenges that gave rise to Air-Sea Battle in the first place. It also makes it more difficult to assess how JAM-GC might flow from or otherwise inform overarching strategic concepts for dealing with competitors and potential adversaries.

This goes beyond Air-Sea Battle’s fate. Beginning in January 2012, the Joint Staff publicly declared that Air-Sea Battle was a means of implementing the Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC). Unlike Air-Sea Battle’s authoritative documentation, the JOAC document publicly and unambiguously itemized specific capabilities and doctrinal tenets necessary for the Joint force to gain access to and establish freedom of maneuver within future combat theaters in spite of intense opposition by highly capable adversaries. Much serious thought concerning how the U.S. military should be configured for deterrence of major conventional wars has flowed from the parsing of JOAC.

It is not clear whether JAM-GC and JOAC are duplicative, or whether the former is intended to absorb (or render obsolete) the latter. This ought to be publicly addressed by those in a position to do so. The implications of these uncertainties and ambiguities risk affecting how Congress, not to mention leaders and opinion elites in allied/partner as well as potential adversary countries, ultimately interpret the apparent change in direction. The full details of JAM-GC need not be disclosed; they certainly were not for JOAC. Nevertheless, as we observed with Air-Sea Battle, the story the Defense Department and the services tell regarding future concepts for deterrence (and war-waging if necessary) matters immensely in terms of the support they can attract for making the requisite investments of national treasure and prestige.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the official positions of Systems Planning and Analysis, and to the author’s knowledge do not reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. Department of Defense, any U.S. armed service, or any other U.S. Government agency.