Excellent read and the argument is hardly nailed-shut. In fact, airpower can be effective as the ONLY force used. . .heck, we saw that back when Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear facilities. . . knocked them off that track.
And Gulf War I we had a strategic air campaign that cut-off and destroyed a huge standing army. . .so much destroyed it that the ground campaign was essentially there to physically push them out of Kuwait. They couldn't move because if they did, they died.
The ground campaign was in support of the air campaign.
First time in history, I believe.
I saw a heck of a lot on intact armor withdrawing from Kosovo at the time. Clinton punished Serbia proper. So severely the Wall Street Journal reported at the time that Serbia would take 12-15 years to recover economically from it. Bridges. RR. And of course the "CNN" of Serbia. And not to mention the Chinese embassy.
If air power alone is so effective in breaking the will of the enemy then why are we still in 'Stan?
You are correct. I was part of BOTH campaigns. All services need each other though. Ground units would be decimated without air cover, our forces have not had to fight a major conflict in the last 60 years without air supremacy.
However, you can never replace boots on the ground if you actually want the territory.
Airpower is great at punishing enemy on the ground. I was present for some interrogations after Gulf War I and the Iraqis were terrified of our Air Force. The ones that survived had to watch most of their buddies blow up a few at a time with no warning at all. Very demoralizing for the folks on the receiving end.
The Iraqis also hated the MLRS from the Army. They got a glazed look in their eyes when they spoke about it. They called it a name that basically translated to “steel rain”.