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 ...
Granted, the USAF wears postal uniforms and has confused military bases with country clubs, but we don’t go around disbanding an entire military branch because we might be able to get by without it for the next 15 minutes.
Enzyte. Look into it.
(Of course, I'm not a runner, either.)
:-)
“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 spent time in the USAF and while its not perfect I cannot see that attitude. IMO its just another hit piece trying to be divisive.
On another note I once saw a cartoon comparing the different services. Starts with a marine in a muddy hole with bullets and bombs whizzing over his head; he says “I love how it sucks here”.
The army soldier is in a similar hole and says “ boy it sucks here”
The navy guy is looking out his porthole and says “boy it sucks over there”.
The Air Force guy is sitting in his recliner watching TV and says “WHAT NO CABLE, THIS SUCKS!!!”
Point is the services have always fought for a bigger role in whatever conflict. The USAF does an amazing job and ideas to abolish it during a time of war are naive at best. Attaching it to the Army is just plain stupid. Lets remember the Army uses comic books for training manuals.
LOL!
Next time boots on the ground are called for it will be the USAF that softens the targets and claims the sky (while waiting for the Navy to arrive) so marines and the army survive long enough to engage. If China gets bold to the west it will be the USAF that will make them think twice.
America has dominance in the seas, in the sky and on the ground - the only place we don't do so well is with the policy makers.
A resounding yes.
Your complaints should be directed against the leaders of the Air Force, not the policy makers.
NAHHH!
We need the Air Force. Where else will all the hot girls who can’t get into college enlist?
F-16 killed Zarqawi, F-16s, F-15s, B-52s, B-1s and Navy craft bombed the caves the taliban hiding in Afghanistan.
UCAVs have killed terrorists in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanitan, and Iraq.
I would bet the enemy forces have suffered the most casualties due to airstrikes.
JJ
“Sorry, but nothing says power like an F-22 Raptor demo or a Thunderbirds fly-by.”
How about a B52 carpet bombing. Or the F111 or B2 taking out targets before anyone knows they are under attack. Or the forward air controllers that land before the first wave of troops.
The runners are the ones who end up caddying for the O-7 - O-10s....
Did China and Russia disappear in the night?
Hey, I did! BTW, no American military member has been attacked from the air since 1951. That’s called Air Supremacy, and it comes from an independent air arm. But then, if you’ve read your ACSC materials, you already know that!
Colonel, USAFR
I’m not a Major but I’ve caddied on many USAF golf courses as a kid.
Forgot A-10 in the list.
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.