November 3, 2007
WHERE ARE THE PORKBUSTERS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?:
Abolish the Air Force: What it does on its own -- strategic bombing -- isn't suited to modern warfare. What it does well -- its tactical support missions -- could be better managed by the Army and Navy. It's time to break up the Air Force (Robert Farley, November 1, 2007, American Prospect)
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 a long 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.
The Right has never been able to wrap its collective head around the fact that the military is just another bureaucracy and that the arguments conservatives ape in favor of services and systems are primarily those of bureaucrats trying to protect their bailiwicks. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 3, 2007 11:43 AM
A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
-Ronald Reagan
Posted by: Gideon at November 3, 2007 1:19 PMIt is true that the military is "another bureaucracy": it is also irrelevant.
But I say, on the contrary, continued global air supremacy is essential to the maintenance of the world government.
This is how it works. Global air supremacy provides the umbrella, both tactically and strategically, under which the force projection capabilities of the world govenment can operate.
In the first sense, we could not conduct the necessary savage wars of peace with acceptable loss ratios without tactical air supremacy.
Beyond that, we demand credible counter-value strategic deterrence to preserve the foregoing tactical assets from attack by weapons of mas destruction.
Perhaps I should spell it out. We need the Air Force to attain and maintain superior terror lest rogue states threaten our law-enforcement assets with their own weapons of mass destruction. The world has not yet attained the level of organization which would allow us to dispense with strategic deterrence.
Now, the cynic might suggest that this is a position of nostalgia, sort of like that of the ralroad buff who pines for a bygone era of transportation technology. It is more than that, however. It is still necessary that the world know that we can come for them and that we cannot be stopped.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 3, 2007 1:23 PMAh, we can see now your confusion. You think American force is primarily and preferably human. A key error on the military side.
Posted by: oj at November 3, 2007 2:33 PMThis is a silly argument, that focus' too much on the current conflict. Dilution of force has never been a law of warfare.
Posted by: Peter at November 3, 2007 2:53 PMWhat Lou and Peter said and all the rest that could be added. To quote the "profit" ..."The debate is over."
Posted by: Genecis at November 3, 2007 4:05 PMDilution of force has been a law of American history, which is why we've been so successful. We always reinvented the wheel instead of using the old ones.
Posted by: oj at November 3, 2007 5:23 PMThe author has some points, and I agree the A-10s should be turned over to the Army, but he goes too far for the reasons Lou states. And turning all strategic nuclear capability over to the Navy make as much sense as giving all aircraft carriers to the Air Force.
Posted by: PapayaSF at November 3, 2007 11:14 PM