Very much agree!NO!!!!
I'm arguing, as I've reiterated twice - that there are times when Warden's theory is applicable and times when it is not. Once again, I agree that airpower and airpower theory is necessary. We SHOULD improve airpower and airpower theory. Just not at the expense of giving up any and all alternatives.
I can't understand why one strategic method "has to" be the ONLY one we would want to use, or why airpower needs this manifest destiny to be the dominant means to use force in any and all situations.
Why can't we acknowledge that the more tools we have in our kitbag the better? Airpower will always have its limits, as will the "ends drives the means" strategic method. Land and seapower have their limits as does the "trail and error" approach to "wicked problems" and the maritime strategy focus on engagement to prevent problems before they become conflict.
All have their place, and their value. None are superior to the other in all cases and each needs to be the "supported" methodology when appropriate.
To do otherwise is to remove options and limits our ability to defend our nation and her interests abroad.
Bookmarks