A new Air Control policy?

[LawVol]

I seem to recall that this has been tried before. Yet another demonstration of the fact that lessons are usually encountered rather than learned.

Iraq: Easier to occupy from the air?
BY: Ali Al-Fadhily, Inter Press Service
08/06/2007


Many Iraqis believe the dramatic escalation in U.S. military use of air power is a sign of defeat for the occupation forces on the ground.

"Going back to air raids is an alarming sign of defeat," Salim Rahman, an Iraqi political analyst from Baghdad told IPS. "To bombard an area only means that it is in the hands of the enemy."

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=20437

One can only hope that this isn't the proposed post-surge solution...

[Steve Blair]

I seem to recall that this has been tried before. Yet another demonstration of the fact that lessons are usually encountered rather than learned.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=20437

One can only hope that this isn't the proposed post-surge solution...

One can indeed hope, and it is a shame that corporate memory on this stuff seems to be only a couple of years long....

Sometimes I fear that the air power advocates in all services forget that you need to control the GROUND in many cases, COIN being one of them. Being able to put bombs on target (or rockets) isn't the same thing as controlling the target zone.

And no worries...I deleted the duplicate post.

[carl]

The recent increase in the use of airpower seems to me to be the USAF looking to get in on the potential success of the recent change in strategy; an artful dodge by a cagey bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, it results in episodes like the one I read about in Stars and Stripes last month; the saga of how the air force destroyed several footbridges south of Baghdad using only 9,500 pounds of bombs.

A capability looking for a purpose.

[LawVol]

The recent increase in the use of airpower seems to me to be the USAF looking to get in on the potential success of the recent change in strategy; an artful dodge by a cagey bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, it results in episodes like the one I read about in Stars and Stripes last month; the saga of how the air force destroyed several footbridges south of Baghdad using only 9,500 pounds of bombs.

A capability looking for a purpose.

I assume you are referring to the recent good news out of Iraq regarding the surge? If so, I think you are way off mark. The AF isn't a sniveling politician merely looking for votes. Whether you agree or not, the AF command has consistently argued that airpower (at least its lethal component) can contribute significantly to COIN or Irregular Warfare, as the AF calls it. I personnally disagree with the emphasis on lethal airpower, but I have to concede that the AF command has been consistent regardless of the news out of Iraq. Your last comment may be a little more on target (pardon the pun).

[Steve Blair]

I assume you are referring to the recent good news out of Iraq regarding the surge? If so, I think you are way off mark. The AF isn't a sniveling politician merely looking for votes. Whether you agree or not, the AF command has consistently argued that airpower (at least its lethal component) can contribute significantly to COIN or Irregular Warfare, as the AF calls it. I personnally disagree with the emphasis on lethal airpower, but I have to concede that the AF command has been consistent regardless of the news out of Iraq. Your last comment may be a little more on target (pardon the pun).

AF command has been consistent with their emphasis on the lethal air power component since before Vietnam. The more things change....

Seriously, I wish sometimes that they would actually WATCH that Berlin Airlift footage they cram into AFROTC courses and absorb the COIN lessons therein. The lethal component is important, but not as important as the immediate humanitarian surge capability that good airlift can provide.

[carl]

I assume you are referring to the recent good news out of Iraq regarding the surge? If so, I think you are way off mark. The AF isn't a sniveling politician merely looking for votes. Whether you agree or not, the AF command has consistently argued that airpower (at least its lethal component) can contribute significantly to COIN or Irregular Warfare, as the AF calls it. I personnally disagree with the emphasis on lethal airpower, but I have to concede that the AF command has been consistent regardless of the news out of Iraq. Your last comment may be a little more on target (pardon the pun).

I hope I am off the mark, and I admit my comment was a bit sardonic. But it seems very curious that the AF has substantially increased their forces in country (if I remember reading the stories right) at a time when fast movers toting big bombs are probably less needed than ever.

True the AF isn't a politician looking for votes, but it is a bureaucracy looking for money,and "bureaucracy will do its thing." (that is a paraphrase from the title of a book.)

[LawVol]

The AF operates many of the bases that the Army uses (Kirkuk comes to mind since I was there). It would seem that an increase in Army personnel would lead to an increase in personnel to run the bases. I would also assume that more airlift is need to move the troops and this would mean a need for more aircraft maintainers. Just guessing...

I agree that fast movers aren't needed as much, but I'm not sure the increase can be attributed to just that platform.

Steve Blair: You are absolutely right! If we could get our senior officers to look more toward the Berlin airlift as a model (rather than, say, Dresden), I think the AF would prove to be an invaluable asset in the types of operations we are likely to see in the future. Take Darfur for example. It's like Bosnia part two. So far the public attention has resulted in Prime Minister Gordon's plan. We'll be there soon, I'm sure. The world has plenty of failed or fragile states that could easily turn into terrorist havens. Using airpower to deliver specialized teams equipped to fulfill basic security and humanitarian needs would greatly increase the chance of avoiding the creation of another Afghanistan. We need to stop playing whack-a-mole after these places actually become problems and start thinking about how we can take preventive action. Airpower isn't the one-size fits all solution, but I do think that some unconventional uses of our equipment and personnel might be useful. I'm just a voice in the wilderness though.

[Culpeper]

I hope I am off the mark, and I admit my comment was a bit sardonic. But it seems very curious that the AF has substantially increased their forces in country (if I remember reading the stories right) at a time when fast movers toting big bombs are probably less needed than ever.

True the AF isn't a politician looking for votes, but it is a bureaucracy looking for money,and "bureaucracy will do its thing." (that is a paraphrase from the title of a book.)

Uh, these guns on target are a lot easier for the ground troops dealing with a problem than having a platoon leader order one of his squads to deal with the problem. The fight doesn't have to be fair. I'm an advocate of CAS and the increase of USAF personnel taking on more and more of an on the ground approach to getting guns and bombs on target. The Air Force doesn't mind the Army calling in a strike from the ground but the Air Force would prefer an Air Force grunt such as a ROMAD or CCT doing this work. The USMC wrote the book on CAS and so if there is more USAF assets being used than you can bet the Marines are way ahead in this department. Now, in the old days you had an Air Force ALO, which was a fighter pilot on the ground, usually at battalion level and above, calling in strikes. You might recall in the movie, "Platoon", the scene during the final battle a NVA sapper running into the USAV TOC and blowing up the ALO (played by Oliver Stone) and his ROMAD. But that was the way they used to do it. Today, every level within the Army has Air Force personnel working much closer to the fighting trained not only in Air Force doctrine and tactics but Army doctrine and tactics as well. In fact, most of these Air Force guys are so deep into the Army that the minority find themselves stationed on USAF air bases and most have completely lost the work "9 to 5" Air Force mentality. I don't think anyone is stealing the show and I doubt you will find a single grunt complaining about an A-10 Thunderbolt using his guns and bombs to give a guy a break. We are either going to learn to master joint operation with sister services or we will go back to the days when the Air Force couldn't direct a Navy or Marine CAS strike because the Air Force don't understand the company language. One step forward. Two steps back. I have a little practical experience in this area. When I was in we got rid of Carter and Reagan broke the plate on the old ways. We had to start getting up before sunrise and run five miles, jump out of air planes, actually inspect, maintain, and operate our equipment, learn to shoot, go through Army infantry training. It was truly the beginning of joint special operation training. Only they forgot to tell us that. So, as you can see, my viewpoint is that anything that has to do with small wars today has special operations at its core. And that includes exclusive and deadly use of of air assets. I whole heartedly disagree that the use of air power is a sign of weakness or a Plan B. With today's precision guided weaponry air assets are here to stay. This is something that has been ongoing since the days of bombing during WWII when only 20% of a strategic bomb load got within a thousand yards of the intended target. CAS wasn't much better during that period as well. Baby, we have come a long way since then. For the average grunt, CAS is death on call.