| Carnegie Corporation of New York Vol. 1/No. 4 Spring 2002 |
|
|
|
Preventing "Dark
Winter"The Public Health Systems Muslims in America:
Nonprofits at Ground Zero: Struggling to Survive, Their Missions Point the Way Also in this issue: The New Nuclear Nightmare: Nukes on The Black Market? $10 Million Anonymous Gift Given to Carnegie Corporation to Help Struggling Arts Organization Carnegie Forum on Homeland Security Two High Schools Near Ground Zero, Afterwards: May 21, 2002 Past Issues: Request a free subscription to the print edition |
Admiral Bill Owens
an interview
BO: ItÕs very tough. We probably should have had 50 unmanned Predator surveillance aircraft over Afghanistan, for instance, not two. We should have bought them five to ten years ago, and we should have them linked together with satellite systems and other kinds of sensors to really see the battlefield. With such an information umbrella deployed early we might, in the future, detect the Osama bin Ladens of the world and deal with them in the first days of the war. In Afghanistan, if we had been much more responsive and ÒseenÓ the battlefield, we might have been able to catch the bad guys a lot sooner. But I think the military is reluctant to change its doctrine and culture and has a penchant for not implementing new ideas, even those that are not high-tech. SK: And to make new ideas happen, it also takes leadership. President Bush, right now, has a lot of currency in the country, with the political bureaucracy and the military. If you had his ear, what would you tell him? HeÕs going to be arguing for more money for defense. What does he need to know? BO:
Well, I think the kinds of things that he needs to know about include
the capability of technologyÑparticularly the concept known as C4ISR,
which stands for the integration of command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The capacity
of all the equipment and systems that have already been bought for the
military is tremendousÑif you change the culture, tie them together and
use them optimally. And that means you have to do joint things; you have
to put some money into making ÒjointnessÓ happenÑbut those are fighting
words in many parts of the Pentagon. SK: Those are fighting words for the lobbyists in the halls of Washington, to say that defense is not just Boeing, Lockheed and the big guysÕ turf. BO: ItÕs absolutely true, those are fighting words. We have a powerful constituency in President EisenhowerÕs Òmilitary industrial complexÓ: the big companies that we see flourishing in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. ItÕs probably right that they should get more money. But you also see many other companies that were developing very important technologies relevant to information technology, biowarfare, or dirty nukes that are failing because money is not being made available to them as funds pour into the big companies for traditional spending. Some of this is inevitable, but we have to identify the problem and try to create a better system for supporting both weapons and integrated technology development. SK: On another subject, how dangerous is the idea of militarizing space? We all get satellite television, we all are connected on the Internet, we know that space presents an opportunity for communications. What happens if we do militarize space? BO:
Well, I think it is an issue and the time to think about it is right now.
As a result of the Strategic Defense Initiative and the Reagan years,
weÕve developed a lot of the technologies that give you precise locating
information on the surface of the earth, which is no small thing. When
you have the imagery and you have that kind of knowledge of the globe
and now you have laser and other capabilities orbiting above us, itÕs
inevitable that innovative people will start to think about how you can
kill things from space.
| |