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.

[DesScorp]

Interesting article from a liberal magazine (though the author, a professor at the University of Kentucky, has also made this argument in conservative circles as well). Though I don't necessarily want to see USAF abolished wholesale, I think we'd be better served if the Department of the Air Force was abolished and USAF was tied to the hip of the Army in the same manner that the Marine Corps is part of a sharply focused seapower force with the Navy, and subordinate to it. 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.

[fweingart]

Let’s abolish DOE, OSHA, FEMA, ATF, COE, staffers for congressrats, (along with free haircuts, lunches, retirement programs and expense money as well!)

[joe fonebone]

well, everybody knows the air farce is not the real military......

[snippy_about_it]

They’d be more useful if we would LET THEM BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF OUR ENEMIES. Apparantly that is no longer pc./sarc

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Abolish the Air Force, get UFOs instead.

[darkangel82]

I’m not going to read this left-wing crap. What an ungrateful, anti-military whackjob this “guy” is.

[Vision]

Nuts!

[He Rides A White Horse]

All branches serve a purpose; I would be more concerned that they adapt to the times (here and in the future).

[Berlin_Freeper]

Abolish this thread.

[llevrok]

Hey! We need our brothers in blue and gray cammo. Who else could gas up the ground pounder’s UAV’s in the future?

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

LOL.....well my husband was in the air force, he said it was the “intellectual branch”.

[neodad]

But what about all of the nice golf courses?

[Natural Law]

As a former combat infantryman I have a deep and lasting appreciation for the guys in the "Big Blue Wrecking Crew". The next most beautiful picture to me, after my wife and kids, is the image of an F4 in a close air support Napalm drop. No body can bring hurt in an enemy like they can!

The problem today is not with the Air Force, but with the policy makers. When you park the B52's you are telling the enemy and the world that there are things more important to you than military victory. More rubble means less trouble.

[ODC-GIRL]

I respectfully disagree. While the current enemy may not require a well-trained, well-equipped Air Force, tomorrow’s may be another story.

This kind of short-sightedness ALWAYS gets us in to trouble. If we had not down-sized air defense as part of the “peace dividend” at the close of the Cold War, 9-11 might not have been so tragically effective.

[FredHead47]

Thoughts?

[GreyFriar]

Back to the past?

[arthurus]

We have the Iran fight coming up and there are advocates for “boots on the ground” as being sufficient? or eeven a large component? We do not have and do not have the prospect of having sufficient boots for this concept to be viable beyond specialized applications.

[rbmillerjr]

Ok, this gets my vote for most ignorant idea of the month.

[elcid1970]

Well... the air arm had been part of the U.S. Army until the National Defense Act of 1947. Reintegrating the Air Force into the Army is a good idea, IMHO.

Of course, the AmPros lefty who wrote this wants to ultimately abolish the entire American military (how `sixties’ of him), so I say,

Chuck you, Farley!

;^)

[SolidWood]

In the upcoming war with Iran, the AirForce and Navy, both so often deemed unnescessairy for the WoT, will do the lions share of fighting.