Steven E. Ankerstar

Beyond Centralized Control and Decentralized Execution Steven E. Ankerstar

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the role of centralized execution in air power doctrine. However, research showed that the problem was much deeper than merely a shift toward centralized execution. The problem is in the use of the term "centralized execution" itself. This term is not clearly defined in doctrine and its sister term, decentralized execution, is incorrectly defined. These terms should really describe the level of control exercised by senior leaders over tactical operations. True centralized execution--using technology to literally execute tactical events from afar--presents its own set of problems. Doctrine needs to be clarified to remove this confusion. This discussion over what some would refer to as "simple semantics" is grounded in the strategic objectives sought when employing air power. The Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) is responsible for employing air power to achieve strategic effectiveness. Therefore, the trend toward close control (incorrectly referred to as centralized execution) stems from the desire and ability to control the strategic effects created by tactical operations. Air Force leaders seem to fully understand this, but tactical operators do not. Both doctrine and training emphasize tactical efficiency, duping war fighters into believing that tactical efficiency is critical to strategic effectiveness. In reality, history proves that often this is not the case. My research demonstrates that the Air Force needs to abandon the terminology in its master tenet of air power. Future JFACCs will determine the appropriate level of control required in their situation, and operators should not be surprised if the JFACC chooses close control. It is time for the Air Force to move beyond centralized control and decentralized execution to a deeper understanding of the contextual factors leading senior leaders to actively involve themselves into tactical operations.