I'll answer this one from my perspective: If he was an Air Force pilot, I'd still dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about. As an Air Force lawyer his abilities to enter COIN at the pointy tip of the spear, especially as a Major General, are non-existant. He simply has no frame of reference to base his claims on.Originally Posted by LawVol
This pretty much nails it for me. Along with some personal bias I have based on JAGs providing worthless advice in a combat zone.
When the original aspects of transformation started I watched in terror as once again the disbanding of the Marines was discussed. What I don't understand is why the Air Force exists. I know it is likely a result of the successes of World War 2, and that there was a consistent theme of air, sea, land to re-create the services. I was reminded recently that it takes an officer to drive a jet and a private to shoot a stinger. Cost effectiveness is definitely not balanced.
The existence of the AF is wrapped up pretty tightly in politics, which explains why they are to this day the most political of the branches. The roots do back to World War II, and even the interwar period, but the main thrust came after World War II and the dawn of the atomic era. Many factors went into it, including the perceived cost of maintaining a large standing army as opposed to the "cost savings" of an airborne atomic deterrent.
And as yet another aside, the concept of officers only flying is something of an American aviation deal. Both the Germans and the British had flying sergeants in both World Wars, and the Marines did the same up until the first part of World War II. One could also argue that the high concentrations of officers in the AF has created its own problems (among them an NCO corps that is fairly weak when compared to those of the other branches), but this is way major tangent time...
In any case, it's high time someone made the AF look at MOOTW/COIN in a serious way. NK bomb tests aside, it's really what we will be doing for the foreseeable future.
air mobility
What about using air mobility for resupply rather than convoys? In attempting to win hearts and minds, the hard hand some take in getting convoys to their destinations probably doesn't help. While it would probably be more expensive, it could potentially result in less casualties and less of a negative effect on the population we're trying to win over.
I appreciate the responses and hope you don't mind the questions.
Also, since COIN seems to be a multi-disciplinary endeavor, perhaps the JAG (with some small wars learning) could prove valuable, especially in light of the growing number of legal issues encountered in COIN.
Last edited by LawVol; 10-10-2006 at 05:37 PM. Reason: typos
It would be extremely expensive and we simply do not have anywhere near enough helicopters to replace trucks as logistics haulers.
SFC W
A JAG officer, perhaps especially an air force JAG, would have a lot of important input as to the legal ramifications of COIN and Small Wars. Unfortunately, the author of the piece hasn't offered a legal opinion at all! Instead, he's talking grand strategy - and it's one we've heard before.
Air power has an important role to play in all wars. Manned fighters and bombers will probably have their place no matter how advanced their robot counterparts become. But I don't think it's wise to believe that it can win wars all by itself. It's a nice bonus if it does, but it's foolish to count on that.
This may be preaching to the converted here, but consider the following question: what happens when we run into an enemy against whom we cannot achieve air superiority? Or who has air superiority versus the US? Do the Spartans still have the world's great land forces?
It's also a question of how much cargo can be carried and for what cost. It is possible to use helicopters to sustain combat units exclusively (it was done in Vietnam with the 1st Cavalry Division in 1965), but it requires a huge number of sorties and it's not practical in the long term. Some cargoes like fuel are simply easier to move via truck. There's also, as Uboat509 mentioned, the cost factor. It's much less expensive to run trucks than it is to get helicopters in the air. Doing solid airlift would also increase the logistics tail of the support element by a major amount.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks