Abolish the Air Force

The American Prospect ^ | Nov. 1, 2007 | Robert Farley

[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.

[Tired of Taxes]

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.

That's a good point. I know a guy who's been in the Air Force Reserves for around 20 years. He may not be pilot material, but someone has to put the missiles together and load them onto the flight. Different jobs for different people. Everyone plays an important role.

[VOA]

Abolish this thread.

I agree! (except for some decent comments on this thread!)
As a dirt-farming Okie for the early part of my life, my heart
is with the "ground-pounder", e.g., the 45th Infantry or
the 25th Infantry that my father did a tour with.

But my brain tells me that the USAF is an necessary and integral part
of keeping the USA AND our friends safe.

Even if we can make some modestly tacky jokes about the USAF
as the country-club set of the US Military!

(Folks who REALLY slap the USAF just haven't read enough about
the terror of American aviators/crews during WWII, Korea or
the Vietnam War, IMHO.)

[The Duke]

Is “Robert Farley” Putin’s new pen name?

[stevem]

My problem with the Air Force is that too many of their brain trust still have Billy Mitchell’s mentality...

Obviously, any Air Force creature that thinks that is as retarded as an infantry officer that thinks infantry is God's gift to the world, and you just don't need any more than that. Something tells me the Air Force didn't invent parochialism, nor is it the sole repository of such.

My thing is, all brances of the service have been necessary in the defense of this nation, and all branches have filfilled important missions at various times, as have federal and state policing organizations. I've seen nothing yet to suggest that only one means of defense or one way of thinking will always get the job done for all time.

I would think long and hard before cancelling the Air Force just as I would cancelling any version of Special Forces. Not only are they useful in defense, they provide sort of a version of checks and balances at a time when weapons are so frightfully powerful that checks and balances provide their own little piece of the defense pie.

[Smokin' Joe]

Air Force?

Aren't they the guys in the missile silo control rooms?

THere is more to the mission than close air suport, imho.

I agree, the idea of organic (USMC, Army, Navy) air capability seems to work well, but it seems the separate service has a role, too.

[driftdiver]

“I take it you’ve never seen an Artillery Battery fire a Battery 4 Mission, nor been 2 klicks from the impact as the concussion shakes your track.”

No I haven’t done that. Have heard the SAMS, Vulcans, and AA cannon used during an exercise.

Most impressive thing I have seen is two squadrons of F-16s on the runway in rows of 4. All 4 rolling and taking off in pairs. Then all of those planes doing a mock attack on the airbase as I was standing on the roof of HQ. It was an amazing display of power, precision, and technology. Made me darn glad they were on my side and they weren’t dropping bombs on me. I’ve seen the blue angels and the thunderbirds multiple times. This was far far far better.

[Ditto]

25 years ago, I recall a similar stupid argument being made about the USMC.

To a man, my Army friends, past and present, think USAF does a lousy job of air support in ground combat situations because they think the mission isn't sexy enough.

I'd bet none of your Army friends have been where some of these Air Force guys went.

An USAF CCT with Afghan militia calling in and coordinating air attacks. Presented by Military Photos. U.S. Air Force Combat Controllers in Afghanistan

Air Force A1C James Blair coordinates air cover for Army 10th Mountain Division soldiers during an operation in the Sroghar Mountains of Afghanistan. Official USAF Photo

Combat controllers BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Iraq -- OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM -- Senior Airman Nate, Staff Sgts. Mike and Sal, and Capts. Justin and Jay, combat control pararescuemen and officers, perform operational readiness checks on their equipment before deploying to an undisclosed location in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom March 27.

Master Sgt. Mike West, 720th Operational Support Squadron superintendent of weapons and tactics, is featured in the second volume of the Air Force Chief of Staff's "Portraits in Courage" book. Sergeant West is credited with coordinating a successful special operations mission that allowed coalition forces to take control of a stragetic mountain position in Afghanistan. He is one of 13 Airmen featured in the book.

[ravingnutter]

I say abolish DesScorp, tie him to the hip of this liberal author, throw them into ground combat and then watch them beg the AF for cover.

[Muleteam1]

Muleteam1: Please spell check next time. I meant “Ridiculous.”

[art_rocks]

But there have been times where the Air Force has done lots of bombing and it was ineffective.

The beaches of Normandy and plenty of islands in the Pacific were bombed by the Army Air Corp and Navy. Bombing isn’t always effective if the enemy has the right defenses.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

There’s a renewed emphasis on its ground attack capability in Congress,

More ground forces means more causalities. What better way for the Dems to cry our troops are getting killed on the ground. Face it, the more folks we have on the ground the more targets the enemy has.

[SAMWolf]

If you tell a Marine officer to “secure the building,” but give him no more instruction, he will plan an assault. His troops will come in from two perpendicular directions, preceded by mortar and artillery fire, with F-18s flying close air support overhead. They will rain destruction on the structure, and then under the concealment of smoke, move into the building with two platoons, clearing each room of the building with grenades and bursts of small arms fire. When every room has been cleared they will go to the roof and raise a flag. Then the Marine officer will return and declare that the building has been secured.

If you tell an Army officer to “secure the building,” he will lead his men to the building, they will enter it and start knocking out the windows. Filling each opening with sandbags, they will surround the structure with barbed wire and claymores (these are directional command detonated mines). He will personally emplace his machineguns in the best locations to cover the “likely avenues of enemy approach,” and after 24 hours the structure will be fit to hold off an attack from a force three times the size of the Army unit inside. He will then report that the building has been secured.

If you tell a Navy officer to “secure the building,” he shuts down the computers, spins the dial on the lock of the file cabinet, turns off the lights and locks the front door.

If you tell an Air Force officer to “secure the building,” he looks it up on Google Maps, gets his contracting agent, and heads down to the local real estate agent where he takes out a 20 year lease with an option to buy. Nuff said. ;-)

[RoadTest]

#1 You CAN”T get rid of an agency, bureau or entitlement once it’s established.

#2 Air power is, if not decisive, very overpowering in modern battle, whether you attach it to the Army or it flies off a carrier.

[art_rocks]

Lets be honest. There are those in the Air Force who would to get rid of the Ground Support Role. Wasn’t it right before the first Gulf War that the Air Force wanted to get rid of the A10 and had no replacement for it.

How successful would an Air Force officer be for completing his job as the ALO with an army unit. I’m sure if we look at the AF promotion rates in the 90s, the pilots did better than the ALOs when both were in combat roles.

[snippy_about_it]

General Spaatz in a speech to the Aviation Writers Assoc. March 1946:

Why should we have a Navy at all? The Russians have little or no Navy; the Japanese Navy has been sunk, the navies of the rest of the world are negligible; the Germans never did have much of a Navy. The point I am getting at is who is the big Navy being planned to fight.

There are no enemies for it to fight except apparently the Army Air Force. In this day and age to talk of fighting the next war on the oceans is a ridiculous assumption. The only reason for us to have a Navy is just because someon else has a Navy and we certainly do not need to wast money on that.

Spaatz was wrong but who can see the future? Certainly not the fella that wrote this article for this thread.

As I said earlier the problem is we don't let our forces, any of them, do what they are trained to do. We've become to PC.

[ODC-GIRL]

Got news for you, things ARE changing. My unit is just starting the process to convert FROM F-16’s TO A-10’s. This aircraft has proven itself beyond all the whining and will remain a vital part of the Air Force for some time to come.

In the meantime, there will be a significant portion remaining proficient in air-to-air tactics, if only to deter the development of an enemy to challenge us in that arena. Ya know... part of the BIG STICK? Without that deterrence, other countries just might get funny ideas.

[vigilence]

Historically we are perpetually guity of planning future war(s) based upon the parameters of the current/last one. To scrap the USAF now because it doesn’t play a dominant role in the day to day battles of the War on Terror fails to account for the next possible war. It’s akin to saying “since all I’m doing is plumbing jobs I should scrap all of my automotive tools”. The USAF is a tool to be used for the right job ie: deterring Russian revisionism and nationalism (just to name one instance). Scrapping the B-1, B-2, B-52 etc. in favour of more A-10’s would only limit the number of arrows in our quiver. Besides, who was it that softened up Iraq’s vaunted Republican Guard so Swartzkoff and the Army could win the 100 hour war in the early ‘90’s?

[ODC-GIRL]

“B52 carpet bombing. Or the F111 or B2 taking out targets before anyone knows they are under attack”

And, cluster bombs from an AC-130, a thing of beauty.

[snippy_about_it]

Don’t take the jabs too seriously. Believe me, our Armed Forces love to pick on each other, been doing it for years. You should hear the Navy and Marines go at it. LOL.

[The Pack Knight]

I hate using acronyms, but....

LOL!