The Warden Collection (merged thread)

[slapout9]

Forgive me, but I will not be fooled by your statement that army operations are some kind of subset to Warden's five-ring/parallel attack strategy.

I don't expect you to be fooled. And no it isn't a subset, it is the same set, just by another name.

FIRST, If you truly study Air and Space Power, you should do so with an open mind. This means that you have to be aware of the Air Power capabilities as well as its shortfalls. Warden's article demonstrates an unjustified optimism with regard to the former and a complete blindness for the latter. Read the quote below.

I have a very open mind, perhaps you should open your's to some Army Aviation history. Link is posted below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFg9...eature=related

The first part is overall summary and description of capabilities of the time period, about 1958 I think. At around the 19 minute mark things will start to get interesting. Some of the quotes from this section. The goal was to create an "Air Task Force completley independant of the ground." "The Army Commander will no longer be attached to the ground." "Flying Soldiers moving in all 3 dimensions."

Offhand, I can think of several things that airpower cannot do and that some other form of military power can: nation building for instance, or conduct counterinsurgency operations in Colombia and the Philippines, or remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The most important thing Air Power cannot do is terminate conflict. Sorry, but I do not see how Air Power alone could have successfully concluded the conflicts in 1991 en 2003 in Iraq or the conflict in Panama in 1989.

Airpower alone couldn't have and Warden would not argue that it could have, but in the future that may not be the case. The Air Force could be better at nation building (as far as the physical aspect) than a lot of people believe. They did extensive studies in the 1950's on how to rapidly rebuild a nation after a nuclear attack.

SECOND, there is a strong tendency to turn this debate into an Air Force - Army pissing contest. Those opposed to Warden's arguments often hear things like "the Army has nothing to fear from Warden's strategy". Sorry, but the fact that the Army has something or nothing to fear from Warden is irrelevant. It does not increase or decrease the validity of his reasoning.

I certanly agree on that. It's supposed to be a discussion/debate not a contest.