Not that I WANT to get "piled on", but someone has to do it, I suppose, to what extent do you suppose that airborne operations are conducted because of airborne's presence and influence within the Army as a whole? I would suggest that especially in the case of OIF, airborne ops "may" be conducted in order to say that airborne ops were conducted.

I would suggest that while Airborne Operations are a valid, and possibly even vital tool in the Army "toolbox", that Airborne, and Airborne Operations wield an influence way out of proportion of their/its importance. And this is not necessarily Good For The Army. It's kind of like a guy who's only tool is an Airborne Brigade; Everything starts looking like a combat drop.

To be sure, Airborne does a good job of IO campaign within the Army, and one of their key tactics is to make Airborne wings into a merit badge for young officers. Where their influence becomes less of an "interesting" thing, and more of a "seriously damages the Army" thing, is when the Airborne mafia tries to forces "C-130 deployable" on each and every piece of equipment's specification chart. This reduces equipment capability, adds unnecessary cost, and hardly ever results in a "C-130 deployable" piece of equipment.

I am now digging my hole and putting up 18 inches of overhead cover in preparation for the inevitable counter-battery fire.