|
|
Forum |
 |
|
|
| | | |
Crossposted to EM CoP - Attack vs. Terrorist Attack
Posted: 03 Apr 07 11:19 AM (United States) |
| | |
Perhaps this is so simple I'm missing it entirely, but I'm grappling with right and wrong when it comes to the Annex C tailoring of the CEMP 10-2.
Previously, AFMC had exempted us from using this annex because it was geared for OCONUS locations. However, with the new template, this requirement has changed.
The guidance that I received from HHQ was that the annex should be geared toward response to a 9/11 style attack on our installation.
Problem? 9/11 was carried out by terrorists. Annex D deals with this sort of scenario.
While I believe that my Annex C overhaul is going to be acceptable, it's leading me to ask the following questions:
What constitutes a "full-scale" attack on American soil within the parameters of this annex in the present global climate? If 9/11 is considered a full-scale attack, why haven't we officially declared it an act of war as opposed to an act of terrorism?
Acts of terrorism and acts of war, as I understand them, are not the same. The current threat faced here is that of terrorism, not of an invasion that would require stateside installations to posture themselves in a combat-ready stance a la decades past.
Granted, when I went to 7-level school in 2005, we were still talking about Cold War TTPs. Have definitions changed? If terrorism is war or war is terrorism at this stage of the game, why have both annexes for stateside use? Why continually cut back on CONUS resources and manning? Why the never ending push forward for a corporate CONUS mindset?
Ideas?
I think too much. |
| |
| | |  Elements Plans and Operations Crossposted to EM CoP - Attack vs. Terrorist Attack | |
| | | | | |
| | | |
| |
|
If there is a topic or information or changes that you think should be added or done, leave us an email and we will see what we can do about it. Thanks, Jon and Cole.
|