New Air Force Doctrine Pub
Just saw this on the Secrecy News Blog:
Quote:
"Counterland Operations" (pdf), Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.3, 11 September 2006, refers to the use of U.S. air and space assets against enemy land-based forces.
MG Dunlap: Airstrike (Response to Collins)
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/10/2101598
Quote:
Professor Collins' spirited defense of the ground perspective is exactly the kind of discussion I hoped my article would catalyze. His views are predictable, and not just because he is a retired career Army officer. Beginning in 2001, he served as a special assistant to former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz for, of all things, "stability operations." During his watch, the Pentagon made decisions that produced the "stability" issues we have in Iraq today. I evaluate Collins' assessments of the future in that context. Regardless, he is a respected pundit who provides much worth considering.
Quote:
Collins makes the weird claim that "colossal" boots-on-the-ground efforts are "likely" in the next decade. Yikes! Is that the "likely" scenario they are teaching at the National War College? If so, here's a reality check: Given Iraq and the budget, it is abundantly clear that neither the American people nor their elected leadership are "likely" to green-light a "colossal" deployment of American troops abroad, especially in the near term.
The Air Force is support. Part of the support provided is similar to the indirect fire provided by Field Artillery. However, the planes only major advantage over the field artillery pieces is mobility. Another part of the support provided by the Air Force is airlift capability. Another part of the support is the capability that UAVs and other ISR assets contribute. Finally, the Air Force provides specialized personnel such as Combat Controllers and JTACs, PJs, meteorological specialists, and other low density skills that directly and indirectly support the Soldiers and Marines (and Sailors and other Airmen) on the ground. Yes, they provide valuable support, but they are still just support.
COIN/Small Wars require boots on the ground interaction, lethal and non-lethal. Cops cannot do effective police work without leaving the squad car and the military cannot accomplish COIN/Small Wars without being on the ground.
Concerning the writing of the piece, I do not like the disrespectful tone. Words like "yikes!" and "weird" to describe the points raised by Collins and the use of the pejorative label "pundit" to describe him take away from the article. Mr. Collins is a professor and a retired officer, the author should treat him with the respect he deserves.
PGMs Equal Efficiency Rather Than Precision
Quote:
Frankly, even the most "precise" PGM results in exploitable "collateral damage" which is used by the terrorists/insurgents/whomever to drum up anti-US sentiment.
Good point 120mm. Also there has been much intellectual drift on the subject of PGMs as they were designed and as they are now used, or at least advertised.
The drive to develop PGMs was as much based on efficiency in costs and lives as anything else. That is to say how many missions and how many aircrew lives did it take to destroy a target. As the accuracy increased, the standard language of "surgical" strikes racheted up, tied to the idea of limiting collateral damage and thereby making the use of PGMs more acceptable, especially when advocating or defending their use.
But when it is all said and done, a precision guided 1000 pound bomb has the blast radius of a 1000 pound bomb just as a rifle grenade has the blast radius (roughly) of a grenade. Inside that blast radius, there is no such thing as precision. Yet we continually hear that advanced aircraft with PGMs can put a bomb through a window, suggesting that such a strike is "precise" because it may indeed go through the window. It is precise in that it only took one bomb to destroy the target; it is not precise as in "surgical" if civilians or friendly forces are within the blast area.
All of this assumes as well that PGM guidance systems are unerring in their accuracy; they are better but they like any mechanical-electronic system do fail, partially or totally.
Best
Tom