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.
Bookmarks