http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2007/12/17/in-afghanistan-its-about-air-power-too/ Dr Dolman's place in cyberspace Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:22:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2007/12/17/in-afghanistan-its-about-air-power-too/comment-page-1/#comment-790 Frank the Academic Tank Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:07:11 +0000 http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2007/12/17/in-afghanistan-its-about-air-power-too/#comment-790 Arkina nd Scales represent the twin pillars in oppostion to each other. Scales presents us with a history of warfare , especially American warfare, that ignores the incredibly valuable role artillery and airpower have played in making American arms superior. Scales argues for close combat and Arkin illustrates how bankrupt this type of combat is in the war we are fighting now and in the more conventional fights we must also prepare for. Why should the US Army and Marines fight in close? Yes, boots are needed to provide a presence and policing function side by siude with nation building to counter insurgents. Yet, they need infomration, logisitcs, and on call fire support to help. All these things are best supplied by air and space. Two areas the Army would neglect if it controlled them. As the custodian for American airpower, the Air Force needs to do a better job of telling what we are doing to win the long war and not how much we are flying. We need to stress that we provide ISR that helps us pin point adversaries and then provide precision firepower to eliminate them while simultaneously supporting the soldier in the field and the entire force that is deployed to a landlocked place like Aftghanistan. The Army may think it wants to close and fight, but the reality is the All Volunteer Force, and the Previous iteration of the Army, really doesn't want to do that. Since we can engage with precision and keep our infantry safer, why not do that? The ISraelis did not lose in one sense in Lebanon since the UN and the Lebanese are now among Hezbollah. However, they may have to fight Hezbollah later, and they had better be ready. Arkina nd Scales represent the twin pillars in oppostion to each other. Scales presents us with a history of warfare , especially American warfare, that ignores the incredibly valuable role artillery and airpower have played in making American arms superior. Scales argues for close combat and Arkin illustrates how bankrupt this type of combat is in the war we are fighting now and in the more conventional fights we must also prepare for. Why should the US Army and Marines fight in close? Yes, boots are needed to provide a presence and policing function side by siude with nation building to counter insurgents. Yet, they need infomration, logisitcs, and on call fire support to help. All these things are best supplied by air and space. Two areas the Army would neglect if it controlled them. As the custodian for American airpower, the Air Force needs to do a better job of telling what we are doing to win the long war and not how much we are flying. We need to stress that we provide ISR that helps us pin point adversaries and then provide precision firepower to eliminate them while simultaneously supporting the soldier in the field and the entire force that is deployed to a landlocked place like Aftghanistan.
The Army may think it wants to close and fight, but the reality is the All Volunteer Force, and the Previous iteration of the Army, really doesn’t want to do that. Since we can engage with precision and keep our infantry safer, why not do that? The ISraelis did not lose in one sense in Lebanon since the UN and the Lebanese are now among Hezbollah. However, they may have to fight Hezbollah later, and they had better be ready.

]]>