You'll never hear me say the AF is perfect. I will welcome any constructive criticism aimed at improving the AF and assisting it in making a better contribution to our security. However, when the discussion turns to unwarranted criticism of the dedication of Airmen in general, I have to say something because that type of critisism is not warranted. After all, aren't we all on the same team? At least that's what I routinely hear when others call an airpower advocate to task for ignoring ground contributions. Although I almost always enjoy a combative debate, I'll follow Bill Moore's example and resist the temptation unless challenged.

Steve Blair hit the nail on the head. Our leadership (and no I don't mean the lone guy in a jet) is stuck in the Cold War mindset. As a result, they view war through that prism and ignore all else. I agree that this is a fault. However, there is a new breed coming along that sees the need for change in AF thinking to meet the challenges of small wars. Just recently a Viper driver told me that he believes airlift plays a more important role than he in small wars. For those that understand the pecking order in the AF flying community, you know this is a huge statement. I've also had these conversations with rated leadership and essentially been told to shut up and color. It'll take time, but we'll get there. Those dedicated junior officers will make sure we do.

The change in mindset that Bill Moore speaks of is beginning to happen. The steps have been small, but at least its in the right direction. We're adding more combat skills training and placing more emphasis of physical training. It's a start.

Bill Moore, I'll take you up on your offer. I've been toying with an idea and your thoughts (as well as anyone else's) would be welcome. I think we can all agree that security is job one in a post-conflict environment and many argue that a constabulary-type force could be what is needed. If such a force had been in place and functioning just prior to the looting after the fall of Baghdad, we might have a different Iraq.

Since the Army and Marines aren't trained in law enforcement, we could adapt Air Force security forces to handle this job. They already have law enforcement training that could be adapted to account for the differences between military and civilian law. This serves at least tworposes: (1) it provides a much needed reduction in the mission for Army and Marines (yes, I realized they are extremely overtasked) and (2) it puts a ifferent face to the indigenous population. Let me explain. As we know, infantry is trained to fight an dwin battles. This often requires maximum firepower downrange. This also creates a mindset that isn't necessarily conducive to the hearts and minds campaign (please don;t read this as a swipe at infantry as it isn't intended). By using AF in a constabulary role, the public sees a different uniform that clearly demonstrates differing roles. While the constabulary force is employed in fighting crime and maintaining law and order, the infantry would be used as backup as needed to handle insurgent groups and to secure the borders against foreign intrusion. I would also augment the constabulary with teams to assist in setting up the court system and try cases. Thus, the law enforcement would initially be done by US military but transition to civilian control as people are trained and ready.

Thsi is a nut shell description. I actually have some other ideas to fill it out, but you get the idea.