thinking outside the traditional AF stovepipe
Your point is taken, but I'm just trying to figure out a way to get the AF to play a greater role in GWOT, which is essentially COIN. From where I sit, it seems the Marines and Army are shouldering nearly all the burden. I just want to lighten their load a little.
I'm still going to pursue the topic for my paper. Maybe if I can get it published at least it could get people to thinking about making the AF more joint. Hell, if we fielded a ground unit along the lines of a constabulary, it may even get some of our leadership to see a ground perspective that could help when you guys are trying to get air assistance.
how do air and ground power tackle these issues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
I also suspect you will have some difficulty with the emerging threats idea. The U.S. as a whole has never been very good at identifying these. Depending on who you ask you will hear China, Radicalized Islam, Chavez, narco-terrorism...the list goes on. Often the identification of these threats is influenced by politics (either related to budgets or system development).
Absolutely true, the issue of threat is often seen in the eyes of the beholder.
Nice segue: All of these threats require different approaches, each approach has a different human skill, technology and budgetary constraint. Which are interelated-which ones can have dual/multi-purpose tools? Which ones stand alone, with limited interoperability? What constraints do we impose upon ourselves when it comes to utilizing and integrating air and ground forces?
Guderian and Degaulle argued for their favorite platform as did Billy Mitchell. So too the Pete Ellis types for Amphib Ops and the Para-Marines and Commando-Raider crowds. The competition for dollars has always driven the debates. However, the arguments here should not be on who(service) should do what job but what jobs should be done.
-T