Quote Originally Posted by qp4 View Post
Throughout this and a few other threads I've been reading about the risk aversion in operations, particularly in OEF and OIF, but having developed over the last several decades (there was at least one reference to Desert Storm).
The bad thing is the excessive. That excessive dependence is mostly due to the risk aversion factor, a little less to a lack of trust. A lot of that risk aversion is due to the mistaken idea that the American public will not accept casualties in combat. I have not seen that; they aren't stupid and they know that combat means casualties. I believe they will accept casualties as long as some progress is being made. Little progress will get them upset but the Army has --and far more importantly the Politicians have -- this idea that the people do not want any casualties. So they pin units to support to minimize casualties.That stupidity started in Viet Nam when an edict that no US unit could operate outside the supporting fan of US artillery was promulgated.
I pose these questions as response. Why not back off and call for "support"? If "support" is available, be it ISR, CAS, AA, or IDFs, why not use it? Isn't the guy on the ground using his best judgement and determination on whether he is losing the initiative by waiting up to "90 minutes" for some AH-1s (or whatever)? In "COIN" or even HIC in 2010 isn't using aviation nearly the same as calling immediate suppression in wars past?
The answers IMO are:

(1) Agreed, why not -- provided that support is needed and not an excuse to do nothing (that happens...) or because the guy on the ground doesn't know what else to do next and wants the time to think and plan (that also happens).

(2) No reason not to use it provided METT-TC, the infamous 'situation,' calls for it. OTOH, it is not wise to use it as a crutch or due to inability to decide on another course of action, due to fear (risk avoidance...) or because it is directed from above (risk avoidance) or expected at ANY contact (risk avoidance) or if as happens all too often that guy on the ground is not trusted by his Boss or that Bosses staff (risk avoidance) or where it is just inappropriate.

(3) Generally yes and the system should defer to that guy on the ground; not to some Staff type who's concerned with 'protecting' his boss (who may not need or want that kind of protection...).

(4) If it is, it should not be. That due to the fact that it's a bad habit to get into and air can be weathered out, diverted to a higher priority mission or out of weapons or fuel; IOW it is not reliable enough to use in lieu of immediate suppression (which rarely works well against good opponents anyway...).

Bold aggressive action should be the norm; waiting for fires should be avoided. Yet, it is not avoided, it is encouraged. That's excessive dependence. That's also the result of poor training.