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 ...
Good post.
I remember my dad shaking his head at a few people and saying,
“All book sense ...no common sense.”
Seems to be alot of that going around these days.
The Golf Course on Hickam AFB was almost heaven.... The Navy/Marine Course at Pearl wasn’t too bad either....
Actually this is not the case. By the time it was introduced massively, a significant part of the air war was over. After escorting bombers to their targets, the P51s were then detached to perform the other thing they were really good at - ground attack - shooting up trains, troops and equipment.
In fact, one of the conclusions of the Strategic Bombing Survey is that the collapse of the German army might have come a lot faster had the Army Air Corps been focused more on ground support and less on strategic bombing.
Actually, we have achieved much better blending of forces under the current structure that results from Goldwater-Nichols which did a lot to diminish the separate voices and competing demands of the separate services.
Our mission is to fly and fight and dont you forget it
"In God we trust: All others we monitor"
Peace Is Our Profession, War Is Our Hobby
Pampering them at the cost of squandering the taxpayer's money and reducing warfighting capability is negligence.
The Navy bases Ive been to seem to be on a par with AFBs, so I have seen a far share of flower beds on them too. It might seem like pampering to you, but taking care of the places where you live and work instills pride and shows self respect. However not all AFBs are the same and we have our rustic installations too.
BTW, you may think the AF may now have a uniform fit for a postman, but coming from a Navy guy, I wouldnt start an issue of uniforms along with wasting tax payer dollars.
You make a powerful argument. I hadn't considered the video game and sci-fi angle.
ping
Abolishing the USAF would be ridiculously short-sighted. Seems to me the author is advocating cutting everything that isn’t useful in Iraq at this very moment. Of course that is ridiculous because no one knows what will happen a year from now. You don’t plan your military for now. You plan it for the future.
I'm not for it, either. The point I was trying to make (weakly) is that members of the armed forces can be a bit parochial which is just as myopic as as any O-9 that insists always on fighting the last war.
It's very human to think, if we die, the world will crumble in no time. We can say with some justification that the world since 1941 owes the the United States Military (meaning men, women, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, etal), all branches, more that it can ever repay.
Now, at one time or another, every branch has played a part in making it a better world, and the job continues. Who knows what mix will be most needed for the next crisis, even while the present one goes on. Who knows whether the next hero will make all the papers or labor anonomously.
Each branch is tasked to keep accomplishing its mission with ever greater efficiency. All military people should stop worrying about trying to abolish the other guys' jobs and think about better ways to do the one assigned.
So my thinking is aggresive and stupid you say?
I’d rather we weren’t in this war to win hearts and minds.
We should be at war for one reason, to win it with the least possible casualties on our part. War is hell, let the other guy die for his country and his beliefs, not ours.
War is for killing enemies. If you want to win hearts and minds set a tea table. Kumbaya and all that.
Let’s see we won Germany and Japans hearts and minds by beating them into submission. Quickest way to do it.
We tried winning hearts and minds in Vietnam, didn’t work, took a very long time and huge losses in terms of dwindling away our troops lives while playing pussyfoot with the commies.
You say my type of aggressive thinking is the kind that “got us in a mess in Iraq”? Ha. Hello...We aggressively attacked and then stopped to win hearts and minds and look at it. Are we done yet? The mess was caused by your way of thinking not mine.
Advice for you, learn military history and then come on back and tell me how winning hearts and minds was ever achieved. Details please.
ROFLMAO
The first time that Falcons competed in Gunsmoke at Nellis that blew the others away. What was interesting was that the pilots were LTs and Capts flying against senior Majs and LTCs flying F-4s and A-10s. The difference was the avionics on the F-16s.
There is a movement afoot (albeit small) to re-integrate the Air Force back into the Army.
Thank you.
Wow, this thread has really brought out the History Channel generals, hasn't it?
In my day, the low-slow-high-loiter-time, practically bullet-proof AD1 was able to hit the right stuff in the CAS role ... a lot of the time anyway ...much more effectively than the fast-movers of the day. ANd BTW, we couldn't hang around overhead for 8 hours ... but damn close.
The F-16 is one hell of a CAS asset because of much more accurate bombs ... and new bomb types.
If your way worked, the Russians would have won Afghanistan. We’re using classic counter-insurgency tactics. It works. It worked when tried in Vietnam, too - but it was tried too little and too late.
Admittedly, a few nukes and Iraq would have been an easier problem to solve...but that isn’t the way Americans do business. We are as much in a war of ideas as a war of blood, and we’re winning it.
I’d say abolish the idiot entity that wrote this piece of F-ing CRAP!! Man they really tick me off!
“This is not how you win hearts and minds and has not worked as an effective civlian pacification strategy since the beginning of time”
Never saw an Islamic Radical whose hearts and minds could be won let alone pacified. This to me is really stupid, and thats how we lose our boys lives. Let the military do what they do best....beat the crap outta them, win the war and then we can talk about winning hearts and minds. To me that is effective. To hell with pacification.
Also abolish the idiots here who support this idiotic idea..
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.