Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: A new Air Control policy?

  1. #1
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default A new Air Control policy?

    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...
    Last edited by LawVol; 08-06-2007 at 03:03 PM. Reason: add link
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  2. #2
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Steve Blair; 08-06-2007 at 03:12 PM.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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).
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  5. #5
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    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.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #6
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    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.)

  7. #7
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by LawVol; 08-09-2007 at 12:50 PM.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  8. #8
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    LawVol, You are not completely alone. Col. Warden told me that it was just as easy for the Air Force to bomb somebody with FOOD as it is with a PGM. The difference is the effect you want to achieve. High altitude food drops were made in Afghanistan with great accuracy,the problem was that is was not the kind of food they like to eat. It was that Culture thing again.

  9. #9
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    LawVol, You are not completely alone. Col. Warden told me that it was just as easy for the Air Force to bomb somebody with FOOD as it is with a PGM. The difference is the effect you want to achieve. High altitude food drops were made in Afghanistan with great accuracy,the problem was that is was not the kind of food they like to eat. It was that Culture thing again.
    Slap

    I can tell you as a veteran of the 1994 Great Goma Bombing Raid that getting bombed with food can be very damn dangerous...

    Tom

  10. #10
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    LawVol, You are not completely alone. Col. Warden told me that it was just as easy for the Air Force to bomb somebody with FOOD as it is with a PGM. The difference is the effect you want to achieve. High altitude food drops were made in Afghanistan with great accuracy,the problem was that is was not the kind of food they like to eat. It was that Culture thing again.
    And this is why the AF senior leadership needs to break out of its mold. They KNOW they can do it, but they don't LIKE to. And there lies the critical difference. I suspect (though I could be wrong) that Warden (assuming this is the same Col Warden who wrote "The Air Campaign") would consider dropping food to be a waste of airframes and most likely not the effect he would want to achieve, even if it's the correct one for the circumstances. Sometimes the simple stuff DOES work.

    Within the training environment I see every day, they do talk about the Berlin Airlift. But they never really come out and say that they couldn't do something like that now, and there's always the presence of the bombers in the background. It does get a full class period, but then it disappears in the bomb guidance footage from Desert Storm. It's all reactive, and that really limits the air power vision to a single dimension or element (bombs on target).
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  11. #11
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Steve, same Col. Warden. I was serious when I said he said it to me, I mean we were face to face in his office! This poor guy has been slandered more than anybody I have ever seen, half or more of what he is supposed to have said he never said. He paid a terrible price for it to in his Air Force career. A little known fact about him is that he flew the OV-10 Broncos we have talked so much about here on SWC,266 missions I believe,alot for the 1ST Air Cav. he knows about being shot at.
    Last edited by slapout9; 08-09-2007 at 02:07 PM. Reason: 266 Missions

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    4

    Default Who Wrote the Article?

    Gentlemen,
    As a serving USAF officer and graduate of the USMC SAW I am concerned that your posts misunderstand the service's corporate viewpoint on the relevancy of airpower to the COIN fight. Take a look at Frank Hoffman's link posted 6 Aug to MGen Peck's article, "Airpower’s Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare." MGen Peck provides statistics showing airlift moved over 1M personnel and 90K pallets of cargo using 50K airlift sorties last year in OIF/OEF. USAF strategic and tactical airlift sorties overwhelmingly outnumber air-to-ground strike missions in support of worldwide operations in OIF/OEF. While, in my opinion, MGen Peck's article is still too focused on the kinetic effects of airpower in the COIN fight, the characterization of USAF senior leaders as focusing exclusively on how to get 'fast movers' into the fight is specious. Though published on a USAF website, I'm sure you noticed that the article you are basing your discussion upon was not written by a USAF officer and the only quote provided from a USAF officer related how the Army sometimes wished there was more combat power overhead. The service's evolving COIN/IW doctrine is much more nuanced and covers a broader spectrum of conflict than your discussion reflects.

  13. #13
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Jim Stratton,

    Thanks for the interjection but before labeling comments on an ongoing discussion as specious, do 2 things:

    A. Try reading a bit larger on this forum and you will find Frank Hoffman's blog entry under discussion and other related forums.

    B. Go here and introduce yourself.

    Thanks

    Tom

  14. #14
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    LawVol, You are not completely alone. Col. Warden told me that it was just as easy for the Air Force to bomb somebody with FOOD as it is with a PGM. The difference is the effect you want to achieve. High altitude food drops were made in Afghanistan with great accuracy,the problem was that is was not the kind of food they like to eat. It was that Culture thing again.
    Hey Slapout !
    Not only did the AF not hit the mark in Sub-Sahara, they also sent the wrong Sierra...baby winter clothes and extremely dry flour (sans water).

    Tom was on the "Ft. AP Hill" with the Swiss Bell Jet Ranger dudes as the 463Ls came a callin'

    BTW, I dunno if we to this day know what they wanted to achieve. Do you, Tom ?

  15. #15
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Chode

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Hey Slapout !
    Not only did the AF not hit the mark in Sub-Sahara, they also sent the wrong Sierra...baby winter clothes and extremely dry flour (sans water).

    Tom was on the "Ft. AP Hill" with the Swiss Bell Jet Ranger dudes as the 463Ls came a callin'

    BTW, I dunno if we to this day know what they wanted to achieve. Do you, Tom ?
    I had the opportunity to discuss via email with the lead pilots on that mission, plus the Squadron Commander was in my syndicate at CGSC, taught mne how to brew beer, and frame art prints. That would be Chode Scott now a BG.

    Chode was not there for the mission as he was TDY but he made it back in time to host an AAR in the Rhino Pub bar in the Kampala Sheraton.

    As the military objective was irrelevant--we already had open roads and I had to arm twist the UNHCR into diverting the MHE to handle the material to be dropped (supposedly disaster MREs and biscuits)--the real reason was the White House wanted an air show on CNN to demonstrate our resolve to help the Rwandans. That we were helping the wrong Rwandans was spun until it all looked the same--like the Rwandans.

    In any case the MC130 crews did their job but in the hurry up mission concepts were tiwsted, air drop pallets for Kosovo were pulled out and used (hence the winter baby clothes), and it was in a word, FUBAR. The mission was pure political bovine excreta (love that phrase--so much more intellectual than BS).

    By the way Stan, you know Chode. It was his crew that danced on the bar in the American Club in K-town with Blue Keller's SF team after an exercise with the 31st Paras.

    Tom

  16. #16
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    The mission was pure political bovine excreta (love that phrase--so much more intellectual than BS).

    By the way Stan, you know Chode. It was his crew that danced on the bar in the American Club in K-town with Blue Keller's SF team after an exercise with the 31st Paras.

    Tom
    I was actually trying to forget that MC crew (which BTW includes Chode and at times one SF LTC Blue )

    OK, the wrong Sierra was on the 3 pallets, and the Swiss helo dudes may have forgotten the near miss that day (it's that or they're all dead), but the banana plantation owner ? The biscuits were a nice touch

  17. #17
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    I personally loved the French Sergeant who wanted to go attack the refugees to save the pallet which landed in the midst of the main refugee flow. What an IO opportunity that was....

    Tom

  18. #18
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Hi Stan/Tom. OK dry baby food in the desert..... Great way to loose weight....sounds like a Paris Hilton diet plan

  19. #19
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Stratton View Post
    Gentlemen,
    As a serving USAF officer and graduate of the USMC SAW I am concerned that your posts misunderstand the service's corporate viewpoint on the relevancy of airpower to the COIN fight. Take a look at Frank Hoffman's link posted 6 Aug to MGen Peck's article, "Airpower’s Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare." MGen Peck provides statistics showing airlift moved over 1M personnel and 90K pallets of cargo using 50K airlift sorties last year in OIF/OEF. USAF strategic and tactical airlift sorties overwhelmingly outnumber air-to-ground strike missions in support of worldwide operations in OIF/OEF. While, in my opinion, MGen Peck's article is still too focused on the kinetic effects of airpower in the COIN fight, the characterization of USAF senior leaders as focusing exclusively on how to get 'fast movers' into the fight is specious. Though published on a USAF website, I'm sure you noticed that the article you are basing your discussion upon was not written by a USAF officer and the only quote provided from a USAF officer related how the Army sometimes wished there was more combat power overhead. The service's evolving COIN/IW doctrine is much more nuanced and covers a broader spectrum of conflict than your discussion reflects.
    It is true that the article we are discussing in this thread was not written by an Air Force officer. It is also irrelevant. The COIN fight is driven as much by perception as anything else. If the hearts and minds we are trying to win over believe that we are too quick to drop bombs, then we are not winning the fight.

    The airlift statistics you mention are notable, but how much of that is committed to humanitarian-type missions that will assist in winning over the populous? Given the increase in troops for the surge, I would expect airlift to increase and this certainly has apparently had a positive effect. However, I believe that we overemphasize kinetic effects to our detriment.

    That being said, welcome aboard. Although I tend to see COIN in the same light as many of the regulars here, I try to keep them in line when they do an AF pile on. (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2131 ) It'll be nice to have some help.
    Last edited by LawVol; 08-09-2007 at 04:18 PM.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  20. #20
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    And on key...RAND to the rescue....(well...sorta, anyhow).
    Airlift Capabilities for Future U.S. Counterinsurgency Operations

    It looks to be a good read with some balanced conclusions and a call for reevaluation of the AF lift fleet. It got a plug in "AF Times" this week, too.
    Last edited by Steve Blair; 08-09-2007 at 05:33 PM.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •