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.
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 separation of the Army and Air Force happened before my time in the military. However, it was always a matter of discussion. The Army, my service, was interested in air power as "fire support". In other words, the operation receives timely and targeted air support to advance any particular operation ongoing at that time. That is a good argument for having left the two services as one, but I think the answer touched on in this article is better.
Inter-operability is one thing, but interoperability is really about unity of effort.
There is a huge argument to be made for unity so that we truly train as we fight.
A combined service did not hurt WWII at all. They managed in less than 4 years what we've not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan.
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.
You left the commercial in the text. I thought I had a stroke for minute. Whoa!
I disagree. The lessons of World War II, which many are forgetting, demonstrate precisely why an independent Air Force is essential to this country’s defense. Talk of folding it back into the Army is just stupid.
Inter-service rivalry has been wasteful and counter-productive.
“A combined service did not hurt WWII at all. They managed in less than 4 years what we’ve not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan.”
It has absolutely nothing to do with that, and I think you know it.
Not talking about folding it into the Army. We’re talking about there being one unified force.
For the past year or so, it appears that the long knives are out for the Air Force Scalps.
Rebuttal to Mr. Farley ... http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/why-america-needs-the-air-force-rebuttal-to-prof-farley/
The Navy has more planes than the Air Force, the Army has more small craft than the Navy, and the Navy has the better ground combat unit that either the Marines or the Army.
So yeah, who needs the Air Force?
I’m no expert on the matter. So, for what it is worth.... I believe Vietnam is the worst example of the effects of separate forces. But I also believe Iraq to be the best example of the effects of separate forces. I think technology has a lot to do with it. Note that the Army, Navy and Marines all run their own fixed wing (and helicopter) units in support of their mission.
Most importantly, leadership is the key to any military success. And out POTUS has put all the best and brightest out to pasture to protect us from our warriors.
I notified the mod that I’d made a mistake with the copy/paste. Thanks. I don’t know if they cut sections or not.
I do like the idea of giving the A-10 to the Army instead of retiring the A-10.
Please provide examples- I am interested... I recall the Army in WW2 did not use the b-25 correctly in Africa and Europe and was ready to scrape the plane. Dolittle had to retrain the Army how to use the plane...
“They managed in less than 4 years what we’ve not been able to accomplish yet in Afghanistan. “
In WWII we had political will and the backing of the American people and the press. Most importantly, the object was to KILL the ENEMY. In Afghanistan we have none of the will, the backing or the support of the press. We’ve sent our soldiers into war with both hands tied behind their backs and instructions not to kill anybody. We need to get out of that war as we can’t possibly win it with the current administration and we’ll never win it without acknowledging who and WHAT the enemy is.
Ah, getting back to the US Army Air Force. Nah, we got rid of them in 1947, let them stay separate.
My understanding is that they have always tried to scrap the A 10, but it comes back to fight another day, with multitasking properties unheard of in the other attack/fighter group.
It is not lucrative for the M/I Complex, as it is not currently a huge manufacturing deal for the industry. to scrap it is corporate greed in action
I don’t know, just my view.
Stopped reading right there.
All A-10s to the Army!
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.