Quote Originally Posted by pvebber View Post
Then he is arguing to fundamentally change the "American Way of War" which is that we employ military forces worldwide as the stick behind or diplomatic and economic carrots. It also begs the question of what constitutes a "threat to our survival"? Was WWII really a threat to OUR survival? WWI certainly wasn't. None of the wars since have been.
World War II was most definitely a threat to our survival. In the short term I agree that Germany and Japan could not threaten the US directly. In the long term, had the UK and Russia been knocked out, do you think we would have lasted long? Also, Hitler was working on his own nukes and a capability to either bomb the US or use intercontinental rockets to hit us. I would say we could not ignore the threat.

If you are only going to war against existential threats why not just maintain a an ICBM force and tell the world, any country that threatens my existence goes away. You then don't need an Air Force.
Except that the USAF runs the land-based ICBMs... we tried this, it was called the New Look - i.e. use nuclear deterrence to allow conventional reductions. I think we are headed to a similar place now - manpower reductions to cut people will result in greater reliance on the deterrent power of nukes, along with the USN and USAF's ability to project power without boots on the ground.

Which doesn't answer the question of what is broken with the current system? And why it is better to assume the Air Force can do everything and rule things out, rather than look at the joint force as a whole, and decide which service is most effective and efficient at providing desired capabilities?
I'm not sure what Col Warden would say, but I think his point would be that Iraq and Afghanistan cost a lot of money and weren't exactly winners. He seeks to reduce costs by using the most efficient and effective force, and posits that as technology improves that will increasingly be airpower (again service neutral). I don't think he'd say the USAF can do everything... but that it can do more than we give it credit for, and we should continue to improve.

I think that as directed energy weapons are fielded, you will see a massive increase in the ability of airpower to affect situations. The fact that you can use a laser as both a sensor and a weapon helps, as does the incredible ability to discriminate (very precise effects).

I think, listening to SECDEF's speeches and the deficit talk, that we will see the Libya model (air but no boots on the ground) increasingly become our preferred model for conflict. Not saying there won't be FID, some COIN, etc. but large scale nation building is off the books as long as we're in a serious fiscal crisis- it just costs too much. Before I get scoffed by the masses, think about the math- yes an aircraft is expensive. But take ONW/OSW as an example- while they cost a lot, we didn't lose any folks or aircraft, and we deterred Saddam from attacking his neighbors and his minorities. That alone saves billions over the long run in health care and replacement procurement costs. We were able to impose our will and generally achieve our objectives at a lower cost than the alternatives.

It's really a back to the future type thing, as we return to the 1990s model of using airpower to project our will.

V/R,

Cliff