Brief Commentary

In his formative years Eli went through a strange period of practical joking. As an example he once offered me a potato chip from a bag he was eating. I thanked him and ate it. He laughed hysterically and finally told me he had accidentally dropped it on the ground before he gave it to me.

I was raised, like most of us in good ole America, to believe in truth, honesty, compassion, fairness and justice. By the end of 1999 I felt naive and down right stupid. My civil rights had been blatantly violated over and over again. During those years I did research in an effort to understand the reality of national objectives as opposed to the myth I was taught as a child. I was sorely disappointed when I came across statements made by such men as George Kennan, one of the “Wise Men”:

Policy Planning Study 23 (PPS23), a top secret planning document written by George Kennan (head of the State Department Planning Staff) in 1948:

“we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. … In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity … To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. … We should cease to talk about vague and … unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

So, I asked myself, if Kennan’s statement reflects the true national objective, how does it play out in military matters? As Kennan said, “… we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.” It seems the military is in a position to do just that:

JUL 09, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DIRECTORS OF DEFENSE AGENCIES SUBJECT: Department of Defense Space Policy Introduction For over forty years, the United States has led the world in the national security uses of outer space. The last major revision of DoD Space Policy, however, was in 1987 during the Cold War. Major changes have taken place since that time which warrant a significant update to reflect new priorities and the nation’s evolving space policies and guidance. The increasing importance of space activities to the security and defense of the United States requires a comprehensive and coherent space policy. Such a policy is necessary to maintain the nation’s leadership role in space into the next century and achieve U.S. national security objectives. Accordingly, DoD Space Policy is updated by this memorandum and the issuance of DoD Directive 3100.10, “Space Policy.”

E2.1.3. Space Control. Combat and combat support operations to ensure freedom of action in space for the United States and its allies and, when directed, deny an adversary freedom of action in space. The space control mission area includes: surveillance of space; protection of U.S. and friendly space systems; prevention of an adversary’s ability to use space systems and services for purposes hostile to U.S. national security interests; negation of space systems and services used for purposes hostile to U.S. national security interests; and directly supporting battle management, command, control, communications, and intelligence. E2.1.4. Space Forces. The space and terrestrial systems, equipment, facilities, organizations, and personnel necessary to access, use, and, if directed, control space for national security. E2.1.5. Space Power. The total strength of a nation’s capabilities to conduct and influence activities to, in, through, and from the space medium to achieve its objectives. E2.1.6. Space Superiority. The degree of dominance in space of one force over another, which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, air, and space forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. E2.1.7. Space Support. Combat service support operations to deploy and sustain military and intelligence systems in space. The space support mission area includes launching and deploying space vehicles, maintaining and sustaining spacecraft on-orbit, and deorbiting and recovering space vehicles, if required. E2.1.8. Space Systems. All of the devices and organizations forming the space network. These consist of: spacecraft; mission package(s); ground stations; data links among spacecraft, ground stations, mission or user terminals, which may include initial reception, processing, and exploitation; launch systems; and directly related supporting infrastructure, including space surveillance and battle management/command, control, communications, and computers.

Anyone who thinks the AF isn’t flying assets in and out of space on an almost daily basis is dumber than I am.

So, who is the AIA Bill Moore referred to? See Air Force Policy Directive 10-20, 1 October 1998, operations, Air Force Defensive Counter Information Operations at http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/10/afpd10-20/afpd10-20.pdf . These guys are as serious as death. In late 1999 I had two goals. One, to weather the storm as the pyschologist Rick said. And two, try to get the monkey (the bad guys) off my back. Easier said than done on both accounts.