The Warden Collection (merged thread)

[Cliff]

Then he is arguing to fundamentally change the "American Way of War" which is that we employ military forces worldwide as the stick behind or diplomatic and economic carrots. It also begs the question of what constitutes a "threat to our survival"? Was WWII really a threat to OUR survival? WWI certainly wasn't. None of the wars since have been.

World War II was most definitely a threat to our survival. In the short term I agree that Germany and Japan could not threaten the US directly. In the long term, had the UK and Russia been knocked out, do you think we would have lasted long? Also, Hitler was working on his own nukes and a capability to either bomb the US or use intercontinental rockets to hit us. I would say we could not ignore the threat.

If you are only going to war against existential threats why not just maintain a an ICBM force and tell the world, any country that threatens my existence goes away. You then don't need an Air Force.

Except that the USAF runs the land-based ICBMs... we tried this, it was called the New Look - i.e. use nuclear deterrence to allow conventional reductions. I think we are headed to a similar place now - manpower reductions to cut people will result in greater reliance on the deterrent power of nukes, along with the USN and USAF's ability to project power without boots on the ground.

Which doesn't answer the question of what is broken with the current system? And why it is better to assume the Air Force can do everything and rule things out, rather than look at the joint force as a whole, and decide which service is most effective and efficient at providing desired capabilities?

I'm not sure what Col Warden would say, but I think his point would be that Iraq and Afghanistan cost a lot of money and weren't exactly winners. He seeks to reduce costs by using the most efficient and effective force, and posits that as technology improves that will increasingly be airpower (again service neutral). I don't think he'd say the USAF can do everything... but that it can do more than we give it credit for, and we should continue to improve.

I think that as directed energy weapons are fielded, you will see a massive increase in the ability of airpower to affect situations. The fact that you can use a laser as both a sensor and a weapon helps, as does the incredible ability to discriminate (very precise effects).

I think, listening to SECDEF's speeches and the deficit talk, that we will see the Libya model (air but no boots on the ground) increasingly become our preferred model for conflict. Not saying there won't be FID, some COIN, etc. but large scale nation building is off the books as long as we're in a serious fiscal crisis- it just costs too much. Before I get scoffed by the masses, think about the math- yes an aircraft is expensive. But take ONW/OSW as an example- while they cost a lot, we didn't lose any folks or aircraft, and we deterred Saddam from attacking his neighbors and his minorities. That alone saves billions over the long run in health care and replacement procurement costs. We were able to impose our will and generally achieve our objectives at a lower cost than the alternatives.

It's really a back to the future type thing, as we return to the 1990s model of using airpower to project our will.

V/R,

Cliff

[Ken White]

It's really a back to the future type thing, as we return to the 1990s model of using airpower to project our will.

How did that work out for us?

Consider also that if your conjectures of what might have been are removed and what was is considered, WW II was not existential. The only existential war the US has fought was our own Civil War -- which also and not coincidentally had the highest per capita casualty rate. All our other wars have been to disrupt, delay, deter or remove potential threats (think about WW II...). Old JMA on other threads lambastes our obvious lack of consistent policy -- but we do have a few and that one has been around for 220+ years -- we're pretty easy going but we do not tolerate potential threats. Just make noise and no problem, get bothersome and get hurt a bit (and not necessarily militarily...), get too serious and get removed...

[Cliff]

How did that work out for us?

It generally achieved our strategic objectives (Saddam contained/not slaughtering Kurds, helped end genocide in FRY (once we chose to actually use airpower), Serbs withdrew from Kosovo)... without resorting to ground combat. I'm not saying it was effective in resolving the situations completely, but like I said, you do what you can afford to when it isn't an existential threat.

Consider also that if your conjectures of what might have been are removed and what was is considered, WW II was not existential. The only existential war the US has fought was our own Civil War -- which also and not coincidentally had the highest per capita casualty rate. All our other wars have been to disrupt, delay, deter or remove potential threats (think about WW II...). Old JMA on other threads lambastes our obvious lack of consistent policy -- but we do have a few and that one has been around for 220+ years -- we're pretty easy going but we do not tolerate potential threats. Just make noise and no problem, get bothersome and get hurt a bit (and not necessarily militarily...), get too serious and get removed...

Agree that WWI probably wasn't, Civil War definitely was. I stand by my words on WWII - I don't think we would have co-existed with the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the Third Reich for long. I agree that in 1941 we were not threatened with immediate destruction... but how long before someone pulls the trigger do they become a deadly threat to you?

V/R,

Cliff

[Ken White]

I'm not saying it was effective in resolving the situations completely, but like I said, you do what you can afford to when it isn't an existential threat.

I agree with that last but suggest that both your cases cite minor aims and part way solutions to the problems -- and the Kosovo thing is subject to the qualification of the KLA entry on the ground. Not to mention that in that operation the US -- indeed, the West in general -- got totally snookered by the Albanian Kosovars...

Agree that WWI probably wasn't, Civil War definitely was. I stand by my words on WWII - I don't think we would have co-existed with the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the Third Reich for long. I agree that in 1941 we were not threatened with immediate destruction... but how long before someone pulls the trigger do they become a deadly threat to you?

I think you just made my point.

IMO WW II was, for the US as opposed to many others, not existential -- in our case it was a contrived, indeed almost forced, entry (by FDR, devious old Dude...) into an ongoing war where we were not at the time threatened but which we entered in order to insure the removal or at least disruption of potential threats of great significance.

Both points more academic than of real import...

[Fuchs]

Old JMA on other threads lambastes our obvious lack of consistent policy -- but we do have a few and that one has been around for 220+ years -- we're pretty easy going but we do not tolerate potential threats.

a) U better not call others "old"!

b) "pretty easy going" depends 100% on the definition of "threats"
That's where the real problem is.

Allende, Germany '17, Spain, Grenada and Mossadegh were never actual threats.

[Ken White]

a) U better not call others "old"!

Relative, all things are relative...

b) "pretty easy going" depends 100% on the definition of "threats" That's where the real problem is.

Allende, Germany '17, Spain, Grenada and Mossadegh were never actual threats.

Very true. Germany '17 was more a Wilsonian reaction, a liberal 'do gooder' effort to aid those 'friends' perceived as in need of magnanimous US assistance.

It was if not misplaced certainly not aimed at a real threat -- though the infamous Zimmerman Note lent credence to the potential and British propaganda had an effect. As for the others (and a few more...), more Wilsonian zeal and foolishness to tell others how to think. All were IMO rather stupid and unnecessary, though the Grenadians appear happy with the result in their case...

You're gonna have to change your tag line yet...

[Fuchs]

Will do.

This one is related to what you wrote about intolerance to threats, with a bit historical analogy:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....t-warfare.html

[Ken White]

Good, perceptive article. Also agree with it and would add that late 1944 and early 1945 in western Europe allowed the US Army to 'learn' some really, really bad lessons (so did Viet Nam and so will Afghanistan and Iraq but that's another thread...).

I enjoyed your last Commenters post on that article with the Liddel Hart quote. Recalled it from my own readings a few days (eons?) ago. Accurate and eminently logical...

[Fuchs]

I actually changed the signature already. I was just more subtle in changing it than usual.

[Marc]

Not saying there won't be FID, some COIN, etc. but large scale nation building is off the books as long as we're in a serious fiscal crisis- it just costs too much.

Not necessarily. Nation building is not expensive if you do it right. Operation Just Cause in Panama is a good example.

[slapout9]

The late 1950's Mike Wallace interview of Alexander de Seversky sponsored by Phillip Morris cigarettes.



http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia...xander_de.html