Humanitarian Aid: Winning the Terror War

[LawVol]

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about in another post of mine (U.S. Air Force Loses Out in Iraq War). The AF already conducts MEDFLAG ( a medical response exercise in Africa) each year. We could expand this to a more permanent thing to use as a preventive measure. The AF has the capability to enter a foreign country, set up a useable base from scratch and conduct medical and construction missions from almost day one of entering. Thsi would be an invaluable tool in swaying opinion to our side.

Africa right now is a complete mess. AIDS, poverty, weak central governments, and a growing disgruntled Muslim population are just a few of the things that make this area ripe for use as a terrorist haven. Increasing our use of the Air Force as a provider of humanitarian aid would allow us to preempt a terrorist foothold and create a positive view of the US (similar to our use of positive propaganda in the Cold War). This, in turn, better prepares the AF for assisting with stability operations. Imagine what Iraq would look like now if we had an AF that was trained, ready, able, and willing to enter Iraq to reestablish electrical power, water, medical facilities, and the like. We had a small window to meet the needs of the population post-OIF I, for a variety of reasons we failed. One of those could have been filled by the AF.

With Africa, we could prevent the next Operation Africa Freedom by laying the groundwork for positive change. Think of it as prepping the battlefield, only this time we're trying to avoid the battle a la Sun Tzu.

Let me know if this is completely out in left field or does this make sense?

[jcustis]

Increasing our use of the Air Force as a provider of humanitarian aid would allow us to preempt a terrorist foothold and create a positive view of the US (similar to our use of positive propaganda in the Cold War).

We'd need the AF to do a lot more work than just treat boo-boos and fill a few cavities. It's not that I disagree with your point, just that we are involved in strategic engagement all the time in Africa. Just look at the example of JTF-HOA.

Sometimes these initiatives can plant seeds that grow well, but these engagement efforts are by no means a guarantee for success. Could the AF be more involved? I don't know enough about its operational and exercise footprint to say yes or no. I do believe that the sense of purpose needs to be ingrained into it culturally, in order for it to remain relevant in times of Small Wars though. You don't get much of that, however, when you are worrying about the infrastructure, training, personnel, and O&M needed for a new fleet of Raptors.

[Steve Blair]

The AF just doesn't view the lift mission as being essential to their corporate identity, though they do like to teach AFROTC cadets about the Berlin Airlift. It's depressing to think that the AF couldn't muster such an effort today, and most likely wouldn't put the same value on it as they did then.

Personally, I think the AF should really look at its current operations (the real ones, not the ones they'd like to be doing) and reevaluate their structure and mindset accordingly. That would mean increasing the lift fleet substantially (even if that means cutting some F-22s and B-2s/B-3s), adding to their AFSOC capability, and investing in a good follow-on to the A-10 (not the F-35, but a less expensive aircraft with the same survivability as the A-10). They also need to look hard at their ability to operate in less-than-ideal conditions and perhaps draw lessons from other services. But that would involve a major shift in power and thinking within the AF as a whole, along with discarding some cherished myths about airpower. I'd love to see it, but I really have my doubts that we will in my lifetime.

[LawVol]

An increase in lift capacity coupled with more manpower in the Civil Engineering (CE) squadron capabilities would allow the AF to do more than "treat boo-boos and fill cavities." It would take some change in mindset, but it is entirely doable. New training would also be necessary, especially from the Security Forces side of the house since they are only just recently beginning off base patrols (in the past the Army provided security outside the wire, this is changing because of the strain).

Full up capabilities, as I would envision, would allow a force of something the size of a brigade combat team to go in and set up shop. Basically, your advance team would go in and assess the airfield and take care of what is needed to support aircraft. The next phase would consist of BEAR base assets to create a usable base. The last phase would bring in the actual mission personnel to perform what ever humanitarian mission (medical, etc.) is being run. While this is happening, CE assets could rebuild or build some infrastructure. Medical clinics, schools, power stations and the like would go a long way toward stabilizing the local area. Combine this with some support from other agencies or NGO's and we could get agriculture or other business up and going.

Although I am certainly an advocate of increasing the AF role in small wars, I do not believe the AF can ignore their primary mission (air superiority). While it is possible that no one will ever challenge us as a military peer, I don;t want to take that chance. We will always need strike capability, so Raptors and the like will be necessary. I just think we need to stop putting all of our eggs in one basket, especially given the strain on our sister services.

[Firestaller]

Africa right now is a complete mess. AIDS, poverty, weak central governments, and a growing disgruntled Muslim population are just a few of the things that make this area ripe for use as a terrorist haven. Increasing our use of the Air Force as a provider of humanitarian aid would allow us to preempt a terrorist foothold and create a positive view of the US (similar to our use of positive propaganda in the Cold War). This, in turn, better prepares the AF for assisting with stability operations. Imagine what Iraq would look like now if we had an AF that was trained, ready, able, and willing to enter Iraq to reestablish electrical power, water, medical facilities, and the like. We had a small window to meet the needs of the population post-OIF I, for a variety of reasons we failed. One of those could have been filled by the AF.

With Africa, we could prevent the next Operation Africa Freedom by laying the groundwork for positive change. Think of it as prepping the battlefield, only this time we're trying to avoid the battle a la Sun Tzu.

Let me know if this is completely out in left field or does this make sense?

I disagree.

Africa has been a mess for a long time now and there have been many foreign millitary interventions for humanitarian reasons.


I think that best thing for Africa is not to directly intervene and stop this cycle of dependency on the West whenever violence breaks out. Africans are going to have to learn as a group of nations to resolve conflicts in the region themselves. The recent creation of the African Union Peacekeeping Force is a step in the right direction and should be supported. Hopefully as the Africans are now directly involved and responsible for resolving conflicts, they will have an incentive not to allow conflicts to explode because it is they that will have to do the dirty work.

[Tom Odom]

I disagree.

Africa has been a mess for a long time now and there have been many foreign millitary interventions for humanitarian reasons.


I think that best thing for Africa is not to directly intervene and stop this cycle of dependency on the West whenever violence breaks out. Africans are going to have to learn as a group of nations to resolve conflicts in the region themselves. The recent creation of the African Union Peacekeeping Force is a step in the right direction and should be supported. Hopefully as the Africans are now directly involved and responsible for resolving conflicts, they will have an incentive not to allow conflicts to explode because it is they that will have to do the dirty work.

Agree and disagree.

Agree that Africa has been a mess for some time and that the countries on the continent must do more to resolve conflicts and crises on their own. The AU Peacekeeping Force is a good first step and I have friends (US and Rwandan) involved in that effort.

Disagree that all interventions spark dependency. It depends on the purpose of the intervention. We--the West--did multiple interventions as part of the Cold War and certainly Mobutu for one was quite happy to have that happen because it often kept him in power. Military interventions for a cause like stopping genocide are a different matter; failing to intervene in such crises has its own costs.

Also disagree in that what Law Vol is advocating is humanitarian assistance. Crises on the scale of Goma in 1994 absolutely dwarf any African country's capacity to respond. A self-sustaining, mission-configured , and trained brigade task force would have been ideal in Goma in 1994--especially if it had come with a mission to segregate and disarm hardliners. In a larger sense though, Goma-like operations are not the norm. Smaller or more grass roots programs like med caps, demining, and training are and they can be highly effective in developing and sustaining relationships. They are in my opinion and experience many times better than using high-dollar, high tech weaponry assistance programs to sustain relationships. The classic case in africa of the latter method is the Dem Rep of the Congo where we--West and East--spent millions of dollars in sustaining one of the worst militaries on the continent.

best

Tom

[TROUFION]

All I do not think you're seeing LAWVOL's point, perhaps he should have used broader terms vice starting out parochially, that said, his point that the US Navy Ship Mercy and the MEDFLAG operations have as much, perhaps more, value as capturing and killing insurgents is valid. It is a preventive measure, an innoculation against extremism, these are localized and visible efforts to boost the US perception in threat regions. This is entirely different from donating money to the UN or Red Cross, it is visible hands on effects based action. The fomentors of insurgency cannot just remove the Made in the USA label from a life saving surgery conducted on board the Mercy.

The point about aid dependency is a valid one. However, as these actions become more widespread they conduct training of indigenous medical and engineering personel. Teach how to fish vice doing the fishing. In some cases the talent and personel are in place locally (engineers and doctors) but they don't have the facilities and equipment.

The 'boo-boo' comment was unjustified and short sighted. The GWOT requires many different techniques, many different approaches. And this should not be dismissed out of hand. It is a complimentary activity that gives direct benefit to our struggle to diffuse the enmity that the Muslim world has towards the United States and the West. Would it work in Iraq NO. It is preventive in nature and requires benign environments.

For LAWVOL, if he can get the AF to conduct more of this great. I wouldn't hold my breath as in the current competition for the all powerful dollar big ticket tiems like Raptors and Aircraft Carriers trump mobile trauma centers and medical ships.

[Rob Thornton]

What I do like is that LawVol as USAF guy is advocating the use of USAF resources in ways other then what we traditionally asociate their position as. Probably not going to get major aquisition changes, based on where the priorities fall. However, getting the services to think outside regular military lines of operation is pretty significant.

We could leverage that to provide the things we cold not get on the outside. For example if its a lift & distribution issue, maybe we don't have to tap USN shipping and USAF lift for all of it, but only those parts that are critical to the military LOO.

I think with AFRICOM, SOCOM, and maybe even PACOM (anything but Iraq and Afghan) we're going to be hard pressed to free up forces and equipment for the forseeable future. So what are the bare bones military capabilities that can be used to facilitate and energize commercial shipping, air, NGOs, OGAs, HN or Regional Fores, maybe even PMCs used in a limited role so that conflict prevention actions like Humanitarian assistance get done? It might be mostly C2, or providing some critical capability that cannot be found except for inside the US Military. Consider the USAFs role in establishing and sustaining and expeditionary air field? A relatively small service commitment which no other service can provide could make all the difference.

Lets face it, our service resources are only so deep and our priorities for where those resources are at or supporting are fairly well defined. We have to find ways to use what is not commited to shape our other commitments so that they are not so painful down the road. This may mean an economy of force commitment, or the application of things that we are not using in roles that are compatible, but not really what they were intended for. The USN Mercy has answered the call numerous times, but if we did not have good facilities in Iraq, and quick air evac to Landstuhl, she'd be sitting in the Gulf. How many other assets across the services can be used to help shape other AORs? How large is the disonnect between the FS & other OGAs, COCOMS and Services in identifying and resourcing limited needs that could pay big dividends? Are we suffering from constrained thinking? Why? Is it Title Tenitus?

[goesh]

I always liked the idea of refurbishing some old Carriers and filling the guts with pre-packaged pallets of rice and wheat, water purification gear, cooking oil, ponchos and space blankets, first aid kids and other assorted things - A skeleton crew of Naval personnel at the helm with no offensive/defensive capabilities required, with civilian volunteers and contract personnel and some choppers on deck, ready to go with emergency rations that could be dropped off quickly within a matter of days any place on the world's coast lines and inward a couple hundred miles. The concept of solving the problem never seems to work out because political turf wars and reams of regulations invariably cause people to suffer and die. Perhaps a theoretical shift is needed to one of helping with Humanitarian problems only and not pretending to be able to solve the problems.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Goesh,
Funny you should mention it, but a friend of mine proposed about a year ago when the Navy was going out to turn a carrier into a reef, that we should consider an alternative to making combat vehicles conform to C-130 standards that they'd never meet and that there would never be enough air frames to move and sustain a BCT of armored vehicles in favor of ....

You guessed it - taking these retiring nuclear carriers and refitting them with the types of access and ramps that could download to theater sea lift such as the HSV catamarans that can move a company team set at a time. Out fit the carrier with the types of C4ISR and maint. bays to keep your equipment to the -10 standards and you have significant strategic mobility that delivers a BCT set of men and equipment in tact vs. trying to scrape frames from everywhere and find airports with a big enough capacity on both end, plus all the LOG involved with builidng an air bridge. A carrier is a pretty fast moving animal.

Hell, the Army could run the boats (or the Merchant Marine - or even a contractor).
The thing is we often turn down options without even considering them because it does not fit our perception of how something should be. Consider how something like that would free up cargo air for more flexibility.