{
  "id": "RL32737",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32737",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 311915,
      "date": "2006-01-27",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:16:56.632029",
      "title": "Military Aviation: Issues and Options for Combating Terrorism and Counterinsurgency",
      "summary": "By all accounts, the U.S. military dominates state-on-state conflict. In the past, non-state actors\n(terrorists, guerrillas, drug traffickers) appeared to be less threatening to U.S. national security than\nthe well funded, well organized, and potent armed forces of an enemy nation-state. The terrorist\nattacks of September 11, 2001 illustrate, however, that small groups of non-state actors can exploit\nrelatively inexpensive and commercially available technology to conduct very destructive attacks\nover great distances.\n Today's U.S. armed forces were developed principally with state-on-state conflict in mind.\nCombating non-state actors, however, presents a number of distinct challenges in terms of\noperations, cost, and mindset. Non-state actors generally strive to hide within civilian populations.\nWhile U.S. policy makers typically seek quick and decisive victories, non-state actors seek protracted\nwar. Non-state actors often employ cheap, commercially available weapons, that often result in\nexpensive responses by the United States.\n Many of the weapons and methods employed today by U.S. armed forces can be used against\nnon-state actors. Some, however, are more directly applicable than others. U.S. experience in\nconducting close air support (CAS), employing special operations forces (SOF) and advising friendly\ngovernments in using aviation to defend themselves from insurgents and terrorists may form a basis\nfor building capabilities against non-state actors.\n Pursuing objectives against non-state actors while \"winning the hearts and minds\" of local\npopulations, or at least not alienating them, appears to be a key consideration. Recent military action\nhas killed or captured prominent terrorists, but it is unclear whether this action actually degraded the\nterrorist organization's capabilities. In some cases, these actions may have even strengthened them.\n There is a consensus view that airpower is one of the United States' great military advantages.\nSome are increasingly concerned, however, that military aviation is focused too much on the\ndemands of fighting conventional foes to the detriment of irregular warfare (also called MOOTWA\n-- military operations other than war), and that the Department of Defense (DOD) must re-shape its\naviation forces to increase their relevance in small wars, while maintaining the capability to win\nmajor conflicts.\n \nDetermination of DOD needs for combating non-state actors and fielding more relevant forces\nraises a number of acquisition issues. Some argue that DoD's overall acquisition priorities are still\ntoo oriented toward large, \"high tech\" acquisition programs most applicable to fighting or deterring\na peer competitor in state-on-state conflict. Equally important, however, are the mindset changes\nthat may be required to transition to a force equally adept at fighting conventional and non\nconventional foes. These mindset changes could include changes to training, doctrine, planning and\norganization. This report will be updated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32737",
          "sha1": "7a1267ec35de084fe00b34879613829d92814463",
          "filename": "files/20060127_RL32737_7a1267ec35de084fe00b34879613829d92814463.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32737",
          "sha1": "15be14f27327ab1ddcb14fb8aaf56704832f2f76",
          "filename": "files/20060127_RL32737_15be14f27327ab1ddcb14fb8aaf56704832f2f76.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6193/",
      "id": "RL32737 2005-01-24",
      "date": "2005-01-24",
      "retrieved": "2005-06-11T05:10:00",
      "title": "Military Aviation: Issues and Options for Combating Terrorism and Counterinsurgency",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050124_RL32737_60e048e09a0085eac4ed3b887c0aafa3c8e3e4a9.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050124_RL32737_60e048e09a0085eac4ed3b887c0aafa3c8e3e4a9.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Defense policy",
          "name": "Defense policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Terrorism",
          "name": "Terrorism"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Military aviation",
          "name": "Military aviation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Criminal justice",
          "name": "Criminal justice"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}