Robert Farley has a thought-provoking article in the 11/01/07 issue of The American Prospect, Abolish the Air Force. His proposal that is the basis of the provocative title is to roll all air power under the authority of the Army and Navy, instead of having a separate branch of the armed services, as it has had since 1947.Toward the end, he briefly acknowledges that organizational solutions can't prevent bad policy choices. But his article is a good brief summary of the dubious record of "strategic bombing", which is the core of the Air Force's claim to having a separate, specialized service. There are a couple of points I would have described differently, but it's still a good summary. Strategic bombing is aimed at damaging the economic and physical infrastructure that supports the war effort of an enemy state, as distinct from "tactical" air power, which is used against enemy armed forces in order to support ground and sea combat operations by the Army and Navy.
Two factors in his argument I find particularly important. One is that the effective of strategic bombing has always been grossly overrated by the devotees of the air power faith. Another is something that rarely gets mentioned in public discussions though it's very much a major part of the consciousness of military officers: the fact that inter-service rivalry plays a big role in military policy decisions. As Farley puts it, "Although we won't have a complete picture until full campaign histories are written, the need to produce work for the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan has probably led to overuse of airpower."
This kind of article is the kind of thing of which we need to see much, much more in the coming years. Especially those taking a hard look at the actual effectiveness of air power.
Tags: air power, air war, robert farley
No comments:
Post a Comment