Posted on 11/02/2007 1:36:49 PM PDT by DesScorp
Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the postSeptember 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.
In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published an article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively" about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities.
Surely, this is not the way the United States Air Force had planned to celebrate its 60th anniversary. On Sept. 18, 1947, Congress granted independence to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), the branch of the U.S. Army that had coordinated the air campaigns against Germany and Japan.
But it's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
Thank You Sir. For both You and Your Sons Service.
Yes, the USN definitely has nuke and aviation experience, but to assume that they should take over the job done by platforms like the B-2 and Minuteman? Do you think that the USN would even want those missions? I doubt that they would. My point was that it would be ridiculous for the USN to absorb those missions from the USAF. I believe that is a valid point.
What about the rest of my argument? What about which service should get all of those other nice USAF aircraft? Please tell me if you have a good answer.
I reread the article and it reminds me of when someone (who doesn't know either platform) tells me with a straight face that the E-3 and E-2 are "the same" because they are both Airborne Early Warning and Control platforms.
The author is an idiot.
If I may add my bit about an observation of historical sci-fi films and video games set in the future almost no mention is given to the term “Air Force” other than some derivative of Space command or the sort I have frequently seen the tern=m “Navel or Navy” used.
I do think that the Air Force may very well get absorved into a combined asset in the future.
Amen!
Not actually true. They got rid of an airplane designed to do one thing, shoot the crap out of large Russian armor columns and replaced it with a multi purpose aircraft. And they did it because new technology has been developed for killing armor that are far better at it, and much better able to survive a hostile air envelope the the big slow A-10 with the big gun.
During the 2003 liberation of Iraq 2 F-16s flew to the support of a forward detachment facing an overwhelming attack by a battalion of Republican Guard armor. They each dropped 2 Self forging penetrators bombs and wasted half a battalion of Iraqi armor in about 1 minute. The rest of the battalion promptly soiled themselves, then surrendered. The F-16s could deliver that munition in a most timely fashion, the big slow A-10 couldn't have.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke.
Then logically, you could just go to one military service like the Chinese who have things like, The People's Liberation Army Navy Air Element.
However you want to structure it, the bureaucracy and end fighting remain, unless you do something very simple. That is make one service that has the primary role in theater dominant over the others. I assure you that the People's Liberation Army and the People's Liberation Army Navy and the People's Liberation Army Air Force have to solve the same problems.
That's nice. We have some sayings in the Navy,
"Tell the men to fire faster. Fight 'til she sinks, boys. Don't give up the ship."
"Never give up the ship!"
I have not yet begun to fight.
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!".
There is nothing I could find concerning finer linens or topiary. Taking care of your people is fine. Pampering them at the cost of squandering the taxpayer's money and reducing warfighting capability is negligence.
When I go to an Army base, I think the facilities are too rustic. When I go to a Navy base, I feel like I'm at a gritty factory getting the job done, without too much discomfort. When I go to an Air Force base, I wonder how perfectly manicured flower beds and an endless plethora of support billets are keeping me safe. When I go to a Marine Corpse base, I see completely focused warriors and a Spartan but neatly kept base of operations.
Bad facilities demotivate people, but pampering is a waste of taxpayer's dollars and detrimental to the warrior character.
“Leave the air force alone. They earn their pay.”
I wasn’t attacking the air force.
It varies from base to base. Quantico is a heck of a lot nicer and better kept than Edwards AFB (the base housing I lived in there had swamp coolers, walls that were crumbling, and my internet service managed to download at rates of 300-400 bytes/sec through the phone lines). Whidbey Island NAS is a heck of a lot prettier than Cannon AFB. And while I’ve only got 24 years in the USAF, I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of flower beds on USAF bases.
My experience with USAF bases is limited to the East Coast. I almost always stay at one if I can over a Navy or Army base, because they are nicer. As you said, it does depend on location. The Navy’s SSBN bases are very nice, and there are some great ocean side quarters at certain bases.
I’ve never been on a “nice” Army base, but I’m sure a few exist.
Perhaps we should start a forum on the best bases to visit ;-)
Thanks so much for that video. It gave me chills and made me weep with pride.
I once spent an hour, along with five other individuals, privately talking with Westmoreland, many years after he’d retired. When asked what one factor would have made a difference during the War, he said unrestricted use of B-52’s. Nothing makes your point like an Arc Light.
My pleasure...it is a good one.
I was on the Kennedy, and my brother ( a pampered air farce type ) met me at the pier when we came in, and I took him on board. After about half an hour on the ship, he said “ Man, I could never work in these conditions”..typical pampered puke...Navair, baby!!!!
This is the aggressive and really stupid counterproductive thinking that got us in a mess in Iraq. This is not how you win hearts and minds and has not worked as an effective civlian pacification strategy since the beginning of time
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.