« A Little Slice O' Jersey | Main | Hey New Hampshire »

May 24, 2007

Turf Battle?

Jules Crittenden links to a very interesting and revealing discussion on how best to conduct a counter-insurgency campaign. What I think some of the commentators are missing is the audience to whom the various remarks are addressed: The Army/USMC folks who wrote the report are speaking to the troops who will be doing the brunt of the fighting; the Air Force general is writing to the Congress (and MSM) who will control the budgets.

Posted by Mr. Bingley at May 24, 2007 07:12 AM

Comments

I've been arguing for twenty years that the air force should be disbanded and returned to the army where it belongs. I'm glad to see others agree with me.

Air power is is too critical for warfighting to remove it from control of the army. The result of doing so is internecine fighting that forces the army to only have helicopters, which are generally poorly suited for offensive operations, except as troop carriers. Note that the much vaunted Apaches were slaughtered by the pathetic Iraqi army defenses in the only time they've ever been used in a mass attack as they were designed to do. Had we needed to use them against a competent foe such as the USSR as originally intended, the results would have been even worse.

But the air force won't let the army have jets. And the air force doesn't much care about war unless it involves dog fighting or strategic bombing. The air force believes in anti-septic war fighting and thinks the army and the Marines are wrong. They believe only the air force can fight a war that will spare American lives, as though Marines and soldiers prefer dying and taking risks.

This is just another example of how the air force, as represented by their own chief of staff, Gen. Dunlap, is more concerned with his own chunk of the budget and building more high tech aircraft that are not needed than with winning the war.

The navy is largely irrelevent in this war because our enemy doesn't have combatant fleets. But at least the navy has the grace to take on a supporting role and help where it can. Would that the chief of staff of the air force could have so much class.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at May 24, 2007 08:56 AM

Nice cutting to the bone, Mr. Bingley! Alas, you have it right, the priorities of the Air Force are not those of the war fighters.

Mike, I expect that the Air Force is too large of an operation to simply disband. If they would emulate the Navy in that they specialize in aerial movement, stop trying to be the dominant military service (of which there is no such thing), and realize that, sooner or later, matters must be handled on the ground, I could live with having an Air Force.

Otherwise, they are a boat anchor, and not value added. In which case, I'd support disbanding it, although I suspect the aerospace industry would go apes**t if the idea were ever discussed seriously.

Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at May 24, 2007 10:05 AM