"Non Cents"

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I understand that all institutions are founded on myth, but in the case of the AF they appear all too often to allow those myths to clog their perception of what's really going on. I tend to compare them to the Army during Vietnam in that sense (the Army as an institution, not individual segments that adapted well).

I think that's a good analogy. What I was trying to get at, in my ham fisted way, was that at some points in time, all institutions founding myths get them in trouble with reality.

Another factor with the AF is the legacy of both the breakaway from the Army and the dominance of Curtis LeMay and SAC for many years within their own organizational structure. This left them wedded (at least in terms of presentation) to high tech and certain mantras (if you will). I'm not sure why they have proven so unable to tweak their own myths (as the navy managed to do with steam power, the carrier, and so on), unless it's part of their short history as an organization and limited leadership "generations" that they can draw from, but it's really going to end up doing them more harm than good in the long run.

Honestly, it may be a result of too few generations. I'd also forgotten that your AF started out as, what was it called, the Army Air Corps? I've noticed the tech mantra as well, which was certainly appropriate during the LeMay Imperium but, I have serious duobts about it's current validity.

On that note, I just finished MG Dunlap's Comment and I feel I have to point out something that he slipped in

and by "airpower" I mean air, space, and cyberspace

Since when is cyberspace part of the USAF Imperium? As we about to see a raft of articles on "The usage of Strategic Bombing (DDOS) in Cyberspace" and new Hollywood / USAF productions such as "Top Mouse"?

The internalization of a Technology mantra should not, to my mind, include an automatic assumption that one technology equals another and that, therefore, cyberspace is part of the USAFs balliwick.

The call for joint doctrine isn't surprising, either, considering that there are segments within the AF who are convinced that they are the only service that "gets" joint warfare. It will be interesting to see what community ends up dominating their leadership corps once the current fighter generals disappear. That might be what it takes to break their public rhetoric in COIN.

I agree.

And as an aside to Jimbo's post, I would fall into the NO category here as well. People join the services for different reasons, and each attracts a certain personality type in many cases. Just as some of the folks who join the Army would go nuts in the AF, there are some who join the AF that aren't suited for other work. We have some here who are on the officer track that I wouldn't trust with an M-16 if my life depended on it. And that's not what they join for. So it would be a bad fit all around.

Me too - one of my brother-in-laws is a 22 year USAF veteran and I would not want to see him running around with an M16 (beer bottles at the Oak island beach are bad enough!).

Marc