Posted on 03/17/2014 12:37:23 PM PDT by xzins
Robert Farley, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky, wants to ground the U.S. Air Force, for good.
In his book, Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the US Air Force, Farley argues the United States does not need an independent Air Force in order to effectively wield military air power. Farley, an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, came to his conclusion after studying the conflict between the Army and the Air Force over which military branch was primarily responsible for winning the first Gulf War.
“I slowly became more aware that these arguments between the Army and the Air Force have broken out along virtually identical lines after every conflict we’ve fought since World War II,” Farley said. “Each service, each capability, claims its own decisive role.”
We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content? Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now. (Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)
Absolutely! Sign Me Up!
Forget the Trial … Make Me a Member!
Already a Member? Login Now
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
Farley argues that inter-service rivalries and different interpretations of combat effectiveness have had such a negative effect on both doctrine and weapons system acquisition over the decades that the Army and the Air Force are unprepared to cooperate with each other next time America goes to war.
“That got me thinking, why not just re-marry these organizations rather than maintain their distinction?” he said.
The U.S. Air Force, originally the Army Air Corps, was established as an independent military service in 1947. Over the next four decades, as conflicts over Army and Air Force roles and missions emerged, Congress stepped in and passed the Goldwater-Nichols DoD Reorganization Act of 1986, the most far-reaching legislation affecting the U.S. military since the National Security Act of 1947. By vesting operational command of U.S. forces with a joint commander, Goldwater-Nichols sought to mitigate much of the inter-service rivalry.
But, according to Farley, Goldwater-Nichols failed to solve the dual problems of procurement and training. By law, the services have their own budgets for acquiring weapons and recruiting and training personnel.
“The primary responsibility of an Air Force aviator still lies with the … parochial interests of the Air Force and for a soldier with [those] of the Army,” Farley said. “And that’s a position that I think inevitably creates friction during wartime, which we’ve seen even in conflicts that come after the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols reform.”
Piecemeal approaches to transferring missions and capabilities from the Air Force to the Army have been proposed before, particularly with close-air support aircraft like drones, and the A-10, which the Air Force wants to retire.
“It would seem to be a fabulous idea to take away these capabilities that the Air Force is unenthusiastic about,” Farley said. But the Air Force routinely opposes giving them up. “There’s a general Air Force lack of enthusiasm about drones unless there’s a prospect of the Army having them,” he said.
The best solution to such problems—and the proverbial “elephant in the room”—is to rejoin the Air Force with the Army, Farley said. Although not likely in the short term, Farley thinks it might eventually become a reality.
“I’m trying to reopen the question of whether the reform we did in 1947 was really the appropriate reform and whether we should return to it and rethink it,” he said.
It’s like I went back in time. I swear 5 or 6 years ago there was an article very similar talking about disbanding the Air Force and rolling it into Navy.
Close Air Support with the A-10....a superior weapons system.
Why do the Marines need an air arm when they have naval air and the air force?
You are right.
You are in a time warp. Lol.
Because Marines won’t let anyone else do it.
Stupid argument all the way around. Do you frequently support the arguments of leftists?
No wonder conservatives are losing, we fight amongst ourselves while the left sits back and laughs.
The unfortunate side of this story is that the United States Air Force has spent the entire period of its existence touting the wonders of its pilots, fighter pilots mostly, but others when it is convenient.
The unfortunate reality is that the human contribution of the Air Force is almost exclusively in the enlisted ranks. They are doing the dirty work and making a real difference. The pilots are looking like pampered elitists, although that is certainly an unfair characterization. The Air Force is not the 8th Air Force crossing the IP before their bomb run over Berlin. The have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and they have become technocrats. The Air Force is no longer the tale that they love to tell.
That’s not to say that they aren’t useful and in fact they are essential. But the glamor is gone, except for the enlisted guys who are still slugging it out with the ground pounders and they are magnificent. It drives the elitist pilots crazy.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
This is not an argument of leftists...that’s silly. It’s been getting argued for decades.
The issue is the best way to organize land, sea, and air power...all of which are realities. No one says air power isn’t necessary. They wonder how best to organize the battle.
The Marines are a land force...but they need an air arm.
The Army is a land force...and for some reason they don’t.
Seems like a contradiction to me.
That was an excellent post, thanks.
People forget, or don't know, that Reagan was Cavalry.
From an article:
At President Reagan’s June, 2004 state funeral in Washington, there were huge crowds of mourners and dignitaries. Military and police honor guards. There were limousines, 21 Air Force F-15 Eagle fighters flying over in a “Missing Man” formation, and Army cannon booming away in salute to their fallen Commander-in-Chief. But if one looked towards the caisson, the Army artillery cart traditionally used to bear the coffin in military funerals, there was a truly rare and moving sight that will never occur again in American history. The caisson was pulled by four magnificent Army horses. Close to them, to the sound of slowly beating, muffled drums, a soldier on foot led a riderless horse named Sergeant York, to represent the fallen Commander-in-Chief. There in the stirrups, turned backwards, were Reagan’s Model 1940 US Cavalry riding boots and spurs. This old Cavalry practice continued a Roman tradition in which a slain leader symbolically faces and salutes his men on the way to his final resting place,
(snip)
But to get a sense of the man, look for a humble pair of his broken-in, well-worn Model 1940 US Cavalry boots and spurs. His Cavalry service was a source of pride, to the end of his life. Although Reagan later transferred to the Army Air Corps during World War Two, his Cavalry service was a source of pride for the rest of his long life. Decades later, when he was President, the US Cavalry Association at Fort Riley, Kansas was thrilled to receive his membership application. Reagan (who would also serve as honorary director of the veterans’ organization) had taken the time to carefully detail his Cavalry service, in his own handwriting.
As I faced Reagan’s coffin, even in my grief I had to smile: if there’s a special heaven for old Cavalry soldiers, Trooper Reagan, our last President from the old Horse Cavalry, will be in very good company. As a newly enlisted Private in 1937, Reagan had been told of a glorious pantheon of Cavalry heroes. Now, he was joining them.
yes but when under the army to say that stuff didn’t occur would be wrong, too. the air division was underfunded and scoffed at from the beginning. all the problems don’t go away folding them back into another branch.
I agree. I’ve always thought the Army should have the A-10 and the AC-130’s instead the Air Force.
Who wrote the article?
“Nothing angry about me. I present the facts. The Army has it’s role, the Marines has it’s role, the Navy has it’s role, and the Air Force has it’s role”.
The USAF articulates its core functions as Nuclear Deterrence Operations, Special Operations, Air Superiority, Global Integrated ISR, Space Superiority, Command and Control, Cyberspace Superiority, Personnel Recovery, Global Precision Attack, Building Partnerships, Rapid Global Mobility and Agile Combat Support.
Was it the Army or the Air Force flying those B-52’s that bombed the hell out of North Vietnam for all those years. Or how about the 20,000 sorties that were flown by Air Force C-123’s. “Ranch Hand” involved spraying an estimated 20 million U.S. gallons of defoliants and herbicides over rural areas of South Vietnam in an attempt to deprive the Viet Cong of food and vegetation cover.
And let’s not forget the US Army has no weather service.
Since the formation of the United States Air Force in 1947, The United States Air Weather Service has had the responsibility of worldwide weather reporting and forecasting for both the Air Force and the Army. Or how about all those Air Force PJs that saved thousands of downed pilots, from all branches, during the war. USAF PJs were some of the most decorated enlisted personnel of the war. Seven PJs were awarded the Medal of Honor and 10 were awarded the Air Force Cross.
Hadn’t crossed my mind about *Spooky*. I fully agree.
You didn’t present facts, you mentioned POWs in Vietnam.
Now you are basically redundantly describing what we are discussing by listing what the Air Force responsibilities are, we already know all this.
Did you think the vets and military people here are discussing shifting those Air Force duties, without knowing what the Air Force is?
What do you think the Army Air forces did during the almost first 40 years, and two World Wars?
>>Google Global Strike Command.
Interesting. Never heard of them. They’re the ones who have had the scandals lately for the launch officers. I’d stil give it to the Navy.
This article was written by a reporter for the conservative Christian magazine “World”
No. This article is from conservative World magazine. It was written by one of their reporters, a guy named Michael Cochrane. Just look at the info at the top of the page.
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.