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 ...
Some people are willing to serve, but not in a face to face combat role, nor do they want to spend their time stationed on a big boat.
The Air Force does have troops in physically demanding, battlefield combat roles, and not everyone enters the Air Force just because it is the "easiest" of the branches of service.
The Air Force has a lot of more technical positions available, as well as a lot of good educational opportunities available.
If you get rid of the Air Force, many people who would enter the Air Force would simply not join the Army. When you join the military you don't get to pick your assignment. You can request what you want to do, but there are no guarantees.
One size does not fit all, and if you want to maintain a volunteer military, you need to give people options they are willing to accept.
No offense, but it took years to get rid of that type of thought. Giving control of Air assets to ground units is a recipe for disaster. It dilutes their strength and makes theose assets unavailable for anything else.
The modern AF does a lot of air to ground missions. I can vouch for that personally.
“ACSC materials”
? You gonna make me Google....
The Air Force, the only branch of the military where the non-com’s pat the officers on the helmet and send THEM of to war.
lol
mrs
and yes, we’re air force
The Air Force, the only branch of the military where the non-com’s pat the officers on the helmet and send THEM off to war.
lol
mrs
and yes, we’re air force
The guy who wrote this article is just ignorant - or a liberal -take your choice.
The way he talks about air power as employed during Desert Storm is ludicrous. Seems to me the 1 1/2 months of constant bombing made the 100 hour cake walk for the Army/Marines.
We need ALL of our services -even the coasties!
“Would we be better off with just one branch of the military? What would you call it? The United States Military? Heck, maybe that’s the right direction.”
Canada tried that and it didn’t work real well. While they’re still a “unified” service, they backtracked and gave the branches separate uniforms again.
My problem with the Air Force is that too many of their brain trust still have Billy Mitchell’s mentality; air power alone can win wars, and other services are basically outmoded, should be shrunk, and have a portion of their budgets sent to the Air Force. That’s why I think absorbing a semi-independent USAF into the Department of the Army is a good idea. With the advent of submarine launched ballistic missiles, the Air Force lost exclusivity of the nuclear mission anyway, so that mission isn’t a reason for complete independence anymore. Also, both services should use West Point for officer training, and that would get their thinking on the same page, where it should be. There’s a place for independent strategic missions, but the vast majority of USAF’s job is in fact supporting Army objectives anyway; air superiority is for keeping enemy aircraft from doing harm to ground troops. Tactical air is for dropping bombs in support of those same troops. And transport is mainly for supplying those troops. The days when SAC took up half of USAF’s mission (and resources) are long gone, and are never coming back. USAF should return to some of its USAAF roots.
...and where in tarnation will the USN pilots make their emergency landings—at Naval Air Stations???!!!
Unacceptable.
Current rules of engagement more than any thing else limit the effectiveness of our air support.
Our system works best the way it is.
This stuff just writes itself. My work here is done.
Sorry - Air Command and Staff College, intermediate developmental education for the USAF officer. PITA (pain in the a**) to struggle through by correspondence or seminar, but overall worth it, if for no other reason than to strap on a whole new set of acronyms!
Colonel, USAFR
Ah, serves the zoomies right. What goes around comes around.
Wasn’t it the Air Force General Spaatz who once said “what do we need the Navy for anyway?”
The zoomies need to be taken down a notch. They (not just Spaatz) used to throw the idea around that they could replace the Navy. Their bombers have the range to overfly the oceans, etc.
Agreed!
Glad to see the USAF represented in all this drivel.
Thank you Colonel.
I am just shaking my head over some of these comments.
Thought for a minute I took a wrong turn.
Very proud mom of a USAF Crew Chief.
Rename it Starfleet Command and put it under NASA.
“F-16s, F-15s, B-52s, B-1” Thats what is referred to as Iraqi Bingo
But you have to respect a Service that can fight a years-long war and never get more than eight hours from a flush toilet. Besides, where else can you still find professionals who make house calls?
Thank you for your son’s service, ma’am. The “kids” make me proud.
Colonel, USAFR
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.