Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abolish the Air Force
The American Prospect ^ | Nov. 1, 2007 | Robert Farley

Posted on 11/02/2007 1:36:49 PM PDT by DesScorp

Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post–September 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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: force; military; navair; usaf; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 361-376 next last
To: Squantos

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.


281 posted on 11/03/2007 8:14:34 AM PDT by donnab (saving liberals brains....one moron at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The Golf Course on Hickam AFB was almost heaven.... The Navy/Marine Course at Pearl wasn’t too bad either....


282 posted on 11/03/2007 8:16:11 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
In WW2 the Mustang was touted as multi-role, but everyone who flew it knew it's first and best purpose was to shoot down German planes.

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.

283 posted on 11/03/2007 8:19:38 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: stevem
Would we be better off with just one branch of the military?

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.

284 posted on 11/03/2007 8:25:37 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Actually this is not the case.

Actually, it is. The Mustang pilot's #1 mission was to stop the German air force from shooting down American bombers. They did that by doing unto the German pilots before they could do unto us. That was the reason those aircraft were sent. Once the bombers were safe, the Mustangs were released to attack targets of opportunity. While they were good at this sort of thing, the Mustang wasn't specifically designed for it (discounting the low production numbers A-36, which saw very little action) and that can be seen in the aircraft's design specifications. For one, aircraft with in-line liquid cooled engines as the Mustang was weren't as well suited to air to ground attack as radial engine aircraft. Radial engines were extraordinarily durable and could suffer significant damage from ground fire tend to catch from low altitude bombing and strafing and still run. In line liquid cooled engines weren't so durable and reliable. Also, the strike type fighters tended to be larger and more armored (the Thunderbolt was the epitome of this) as opposed to the relatively light and nimble Mustang.

Granted, anything armed with 6 .50-cal BMGs and can carry a couple of bombs or rockets can lay some serious hurt on anyone on the ground. My point is that this was a secondary function; the Mustang was introduced primarily to protect American and British bombers from German fighter aircraft. It was, for the most part, optimized for that role and it was very effective.

The F-22 is much the same way. It's designed to hunt enemy aircraft. It can carry air to ground ordnance and its stealth and speed means it can put some serious pain on anyone on the ground. However, that's not really its first mission.
285 posted on 11/03/2007 8:54:09 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Those Navy sayings are compelling. We have similar ones in the Air Force too.

“Our mission is to fly and fight…and don’t 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 I’ve been to seem to be on a par with AFB’s, 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 AFB’s 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 wouldn’t start an issue of uniforms along with wasting tax payer dollars.

286 posted on 11/03/2007 10:32:16 AM PDT by NYFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
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.

You make a powerful argument. I hadn't considered the video game and sci-fi angle.

287 posted on 11/03/2007 11:03:21 AM PDT by SIDENET (Hubba Hubba...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: nnn0jeh

ping


288 posted on 11/03/2007 11:06:57 AM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

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.


289 posted on 11/03/2007 11:09:44 AM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
I'm not for us doing that but I just wanted to point out that's what Canada did.

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.

290 posted on 11/03/2007 11:25:29 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

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.


291 posted on 11/03/2007 12:42:08 PM PDT by snippy_about_it (Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul. WWPD (what would Patton do))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf; snippy_about_it; Peanut Gallery
One of those idiots called him Pilot, and he has been sittin on his ass barkin ever since.”

ROFLMAO

292 posted on 11/03/2007 2:42:29 PM PDT by Professional Engineer (when you're the geek nobody likes you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

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.


293 posted on 11/03/2007 2:49:33 PM PDT by Portcall24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

There is a movement afoot (albeit small) to re-integrate the Air Force back into the Army.


294 posted on 11/03/2007 2:52:11 PM PDT by roaddog727 (BS does not get bridges built)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke

Thank you.

Wow, this thread has really brought out the History Channel generals, hasn't it?

295 posted on 11/03/2007 3:21:29 PM PDT by SIDENET (Hubba Hubba...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; DesScorp
What we are missing here in our light-hearted fun (I hopes) is that there has been an absolute quantum leap in our ability to actually hit the targets; to excise the enemy assets that we have to.

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.

296 posted on 11/03/2007 3:21:51 PM PDT by Zerodown (Draft Petraeus. Or how about Pace? What do you say we win this one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: snippy_about_it; AndyJackson

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.


297 posted on 11/03/2007 4:21:12 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I'm agnostic on evolution, but sit ups are from Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

I’d say abolish the idiot entity that wrote this piece of F-ing CRAP!! Man they really tick me off!


298 posted on 11/03/2007 4:25:38 PM PDT by Dadofmany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; snippy_about_it

“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.


299 posted on 11/03/2007 4:28:07 PM PDT by donnab (saving liberals brains....one moron at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Dadofmany; All

Also abolish the idiots here who support this idiotic idea..


300 posted on 11/03/2007 4:33:35 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Mitt Romney 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 361-376 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson