http://registan.net/index.php/2007/08/28/myopia-in-military-policy-planning/ All Central Asia, All The Time Fri, 25 May 2012 03:15:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://registan.net/index.php/2007/08/28/myopia-in-military-policy-planning/comment-page-1/#comment-375449 Péter Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:54:58 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/08/28/myopia-in-military-policy-planning/#comment-375449 That sounds fine, Michael, but to the best of my knowledge the Air Force is usually deeply offended by anyone suggesting that they shouldn't have that much of a role in a counterinsurgency, just like it happened when the new COIN manual came out recently. And if I understood some of their basic arguments correctly at the time, they were saying things like look, artillery can also be bad, so why shouldn't we be nasty? No need for discussing exactly how logical that reasoning really is, since the Air Force's ability to keep the number of Army and Marines KIAs low will always make their arguments kind of convincing. Soldiers on the gound will understandably always be happy to shout things like "JDAM m.f.!" when CAS comes in. Another issue then is that these next generation weapons programs take money that could be spent for other purposes. It's a vicious circle, since once you have a hi-tech Air Force like this, for several reasons you will tend to rely on it more for any kind of purpose, and so it will just perpetuate the above described situation. Fewer boots on the ground, fewer casualties, dependency on air power. But anyway, your suggestion that roles could be distinguished in more practical ways in the future, is definitely to be supported. That sounds fine, Michael, but to the best of my knowledge the Air Force is usually deeply offended by anyone suggesting that they shouldn’t have that much of a role in a counterinsurgency, just like it happened when the new COIN manual came out recently. And if I understood some of their basic arguments correctly at the time, they were saying things like look, artillery can also be bad, so why shouldn’t we be nasty?
No need for discussing exactly how logical that reasoning really is, since the Air Force’s ability to keep the number of Army and Marines KIAs low will always make their arguments kind of convincing. Soldiers on the gound will understandably always be happy to shout things like “JDAM m.f.!” when CAS comes in.
Another issue then is that these next generation weapons programs take money that could be spent for other purposes. It’s a vicious circle, since once you have a hi-tech Air Force like this, for several reasons you will tend to rely on it more for any kind of purpose, and so it will just perpetuate the above described situation. Fewer boots on the ground, fewer casualties, dependency on air power.
But anyway, your suggestion that roles could be distinguished in more practical ways in the future, is definitely to be supported.

]]> http://registan.net/index.php/2007/08/28/myopia-in-military-policy-planning/comment-page-1/#comment-375448 Michael Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:12:47 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/08/28/myopia-in-military-policy-planning/#comment-375448 Doesn't it follow then, that the Air Force should be buying the next-generation air superiority aircraft, because mission-wise the Air Force does not play a large role in counterinsurgency? The Army and Marines can buy small squad level UAVs, while the Air Force can concentrate on air superiority... close air support and anti-radar bombing... strat bombing etc Doesn’t it follow then, that the Air Force should be buying the next-generation air superiority aircraft, because mission-wise the Air Force does not play a large role in counterinsurgency? The Army and Marines can buy small squad level UAVs, while the Air Force can concentrate on air superiority… close air support and anti-radar bombing… strat bombing etc

]]>