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 ...
I think it's time for a Foxhole thread. You seem in the mood to type.
bump for later
Silly argument for budgets is what it boils down to.
All weapons systems have their proper uses and times to be used.
The Navy, same as always. That way they get to meet SAILORS.
If anything, the AF is more relevant today than ever. In fact, the AF is morphing into Space Command. This is the same boneheaded thinking that prevailed when they talked about missiles eliminating the need for guns on fighters.
Like strategic bombing will never be required ever again.
“But there have been times where the Air Force has done lots of bombing and it was ineffective.”
Neither the Air Force nor any of the other services can do much from a distance against enemies entrenched beneath many meters of rock. However, if today’s Air Force had hit the beach at Normandy, the landing force wouldn’t have encountered much opposition. ;-)
Yeah, that's a non-rate's job in Navair.
As the mom of a newly minted Airman, I’m glad to see at least some sensible and supportive comments on this thread.
Abolish the University of Kentucky.
Thank you Natural Law! One of my friends who is a Marine, served in Viet Nom said the same thing! GO AF!
From the halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli,
We fight our country’s battles
In the air, on land, and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean,
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Naval Infantry.
Nah...that doesn’t work.
“If a single strike is called for against Iranian targets to halt production of nuclear weapons - you can bet it will be USAF with their B1’s will called to get er done.”
B-2s. :-)
(BTW, only the B-52 and B-2 are qualified to carry the new 30,000 lb. MOP bunker busters.)
I’ll bet most here didn’t know it it was RAF. My last assignment was supposed to be at Upper Heyford but I separated instead.
Jerry Pournelle has advocated exactly that, for quite some time, along with a return to how thing generally worked up until WWII. That is, the President gets Dept of the Navy (includes the Marines) to take care of business that doesn’t require a declaration of war. Anything requiring the Dept. of War (Army + Air Force), requires a declaration.
We should have declared war on Iraq before going in.
I work with an Air Force Unit that evaluates Air Force units from around the world on how they do CAS. I have never heard ONE pilot say the mission "was not sexy enough." To a man, trying to use PGMs and perform CAS is a proud mission for them. I have been doing this for over ten years. I would say from my actual experience that your army buddies are dead wrong.
Maybe not just yet but soon. Plus the Air Force is real good at dropping a number of these sorts of munitions and burrowing in to waste the rats in their holes.
Leave the bleedin’ air force alone. In this kind of warfare the enemy can pick the time and place to hit us. Air power, properly utilized, give us a very nice quick response that can equalize a hairy ground situation quickly. Combat Law. IF it aint broke, don’t fix it.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/penetrator-bomb.html Penetrator Bomb Ready in 2008
Typical paper exercise. First, let us pretend we can read the future. Heck, we do not even know what is going to happen tomorrow.
“Never make O-6 that way...”
Didn’t stop me and a whole bunch of others, several of whom were runners.
I can think of darn few O-6s who golf frequently.
Most of the runners now have crappy knees in their 60s.
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.