DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Document created: 1 June 2008
Air & Space Power Journal - Summer 2008

REMEMBERING ALMERISIO LOPES

On behalf of the Portuguese Air Force, former chief of staff Gen Manuel Taveira Martins and I would like to express our deepest sadness for the unexpected death of Almerisio Lopes, editor of the Air and Space Power Journal, Portuguese edition, and extend our sincere condolences to his family for such a terrible loss.

Gen Luís Evangelista Esteves de Araújo
Chief of Staff, Portuguese Air Force
Lisbon, Portugal

INTRODUCING THE CHINESE ASPJ

I read with interest the first and second issues of Air and Space Power Journal, Chinese edition, and concluded that this is a journal of value. First, I very much agree with the purpose and direction of the journal. It aims to open a window of exchange between Chinese and US air forces and military-research institutions, with the forward-thinking intention of promoting bilateral transparency between the two countries. Next, from the general framework and focus topics of the journal, I see the editor’s painstaking efforts in offering readers great articles that reflect the various aspects of US airpower. Finally, I want to stress that the birth of this Chinese edition happened at the right point in time for the following reasons: Sino-US high-level militaries have increased the frequencies of bilateral visits; defense ministries have agreed to set up a Sino-US military hotline; militaries of both countries have found more common ground in United Nations and world affairs; and China’s recent successful launch of the Chang’e-1 circumlunar satellite has created a new wave of interest among Chinese readers in “space” along with “air.” It is my belief that more and more mainland Chinese readers—potentially the biggest reading community of your journal—will pay serious attention to and discuss the viewpoints presented in your articles, which eventually will help lead to the goal of “exchange towards transparency.”

Yan Weiping
Retired Military Academy Instructor
Nanjing, China

My reading of Air and Space Power Journal, Chinese edition, tells me that this is a high-quality military academic journal, based on the latest military technological information and containing objective strategic analysis as well as fluent language. It is a journal that audiences are excited to read and happy to share. Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on the success of this journal and my best wishes for its continued growth. May it continue offering rich information to Chinese readers.

Liu Canglang
Fairfax, Virginia

LORENZ ON LEADERSHIP: PART 2

I enjoyed Lt Gen Stephen R. Lorenz’s article “Lorenz on Leadership: Part 2” (Spring 2008). I am one of many civilians going through a difficult time getting used to the new National Security Personnel System (NSPS) performance-rating system. My first NSPS rating was only average. This was a shock because my service wasn’t just average. I worked hundreds of hours of unpaid overtime managing an airfield. Prior to the NSPS, I had never minded putting in the extra hours, and I usually felt that my hard work was rewarded and reflected in my rating. When I received the “valued employee” rating, I didn’t feel valued. To be honest, I felt that the rating system had gone cold, and I felt low. Then I read General Lorenz’s article, and it reminded me of several ideas related to service that helped me get through the loss, grief, and change. First, I’m not entitled to an above-average rating, even if I feel like I deserve one. Also, my career is a marathon, and I can use the experience to motivate myself in positive ways. Finally, my service is not just about me, so I need to “get over it” and press on positively in order to lead my people effectively and to do my best for my country. Thanks for the very mature point of view. It’s some of the best advice I’ve heard lately.

Gerald Sikorski
Beale AFB, California

EXPOSING THE INFORMATION
DOMAIN MYTH

I plunged into Maj Geoffrey F. Weiss’s article “Exposing the Information Domain Myth: A New Concept for Air Force and Information Operations Doctrine” (Spring 2008) with a certain skepticism, but soon it became apparent that the author “gets it.” I say this as a veteran of the late-1990s debate in the intelligence community over such concepts as “information dominance” and “information superiority,” which had mercifully short lives. The primary objective of information warfare (a term we can’t use due to political reasons) as well as other military operations is the human mind. After all, the mind comes up with its picture of reality and evaluates perceived risks and rewards for any action or nonaction. The mind is the true battleground. It is also the most difficult battleground to understand and predict. Therefore, researchers are now exploring (some more effectively than others) concepts such as behavioral influence analysis in an effort to understand, predict, and utilize what can or cannot influence someone to take actions advantageous to us. And that is the operative essence of information operations. I believe that Air Force thinking about information operations is finally getting to where it should have been in the early 1990s.

Lt Col Keith Anthony, USAFR
Xenia, Ohio

Even though the author of “Exposing the Information Domain Myth: A New Concept for Air Force and Information Operations Doctrine” wants to shift intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations doctrine under information operations (IO) because proper ISR operations are “an essential aspect of IO” (p. 57), I feel that this is an incorrect assumption.

Major Weiss’s argument does not address how or why ISR falls under IO. Using his proposed definition of IO as “the integrated employment of Air Force capabilities to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversary information, information systems, perceptions, and/or decision making while protecting our own” (p. 57) does not equate to or cover the definition of ISR from Air Force Doctrine Document 2-9, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Operations, dated 17 July 2007. That manual defines ISR as “an activity that synchronizes and integrates the planning and operation of sensors, assets, processing, exploitation, and dissemination systems in direct support of current and future operations” (p. 1).

The tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination (TPED) phase of ISR operations is critical not only to IO but also to every phase of Air Force influence operations from counterair to targeting. Good TPED has nothing to do with the influence, disruption, or corruption of an enemy system, but with monitoring and reporting in a manner that allows decision makers to launch operations against the enemy decision-making process. Even as the author concludes that all aspects of Air Force operations—flying or otherwise—belong to IO, ISR still falls outside this field because it is a force enabler.

Although I focus on ISR in my response, ultimately I think that the author has made the opposite jump, moving from what he saw as too narrow a definition of IO to one that is too broad. I think that all doctrine is best served by a narrower interpretation. Narrow doctrine allows all users to focus on their own operational challenges within their areas before moving on to integrate those operations. In our current operational scheme, doctrinal advocates represent their operational requirements at the air and space operations center through a liaison officer to provide a unified whole. Expanding everything from a single IO voice in the crowd to only an IO voice to strategic leadership does nothing to improve that unified whole.

Maj Mark Peters, USAF
Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina

A LOOK DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

After reading Maj Bryan D. Watson’s article “A Look Down the Slippery Slope: Domestic Operations, Outsourcing, and the Erosion of Military Culture” (Spring 2008), I’d say there is a very real danger that two new elements of military readiness, namely, the increasing use of contractor services and the use of bonuses as an incentive for retention, will gradually transform the volunteer force into a mercenary force. There won’t be a clear line of demarcation; it will occur over time, but it could have fatal results.

Col Walter J. Boyne, USAF, Retired
Ashburn, Virginia

EFFECTS-BASED INFORMATION
BATTLE IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

In “Effects-Based Information Battle in the Muslim World” (Spring 2008), Remy Mauduit’s call for a counteroffensive to terrorist rhetoric is right on. His list of objectives and themes for a proposed Department of Defense Islamic Information Center is outstanding. His observations that Islam is in transition, that terror and Islam are not the same, and that generalizations about various movements have caused confusion are critical. However, Mr. Mauduit’s call to “refrain from framing terrorism in an Islamic religious context” (p. 110) requires overlooking the reality that these terrorists claim to be Muslims and diminishes incentives for moderates to confront those who are hijacking their religion.

In the long run, only Muslims themselves can effectively police terrorism perpetrated by other Muslims, and only Muslims themselves can effectively separate terrorism from Islam in the consciousness of other Muslims.

We know that linking violence to Islam embarrasses Muslims. Recall, for example, the response to remarks Pope Benedict XVI made in 2006 about violence in Muslim history. If, contrary to Mr. Mauduit’s recommendation, political, business, cultural, and religious leaders and their spokespeople persist in calling the terrorists what they call themselves, which is Muslims, and insist on questioning, based on the behavior of these terrorists, the nature of Islam, then Muslims will have increased incentive to clean up their own house by purging the terrorists from among them to restore respectability and dignity to Islam.

In its struggle for what Mr. Mauduit calls “values, identity, and place in the world” (p. 109), contemporary Islam is like a household with an alcoholic father. As long as outsiders cooperate with the family members’ denial, they enable the family to avoid treatment and remain dysfunctional. Combating terrorism is like a 12-step recovery process. Getting the family of Islam to admit to and face its internal problem is the first step to restoring peace to the family.

Terrorism and Islam may be different and irreconcilable, but Muslim-supported and perpetrated terrorism done in the name of Islam is a Muslim problem that Muslims can solve if we hold them accountable to do so.

Chaplain (Maj) Bruce Sidebotham, USAR
Camp Robinson, Arkansas

TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB?

I welcome Maj Jason M. Brown’s article “To Bomb or Not to Bomb? Counterinsurgency, Airpower, and Dynamic Targeting” (Winter 2007), in which the author recommends additional doctrine and personnel to address kinetic airpower operations in a counterinsurgency effort. Major Brown correctly suggests that the Air Land Sea Application (ALSA) Center develop multiservice tactics, techniques, and procedures (MTTP) for time-sensitive targeting (TST) during a counterinsurgency. In 2004 ALSA delivered a well-written MTTP for TST that’s already referenced throughout the joint force by both operations and intelligence personnel. Since ALSA is currently revising this MTTP, adding an appendix to address counterinsurgency operations would be both timely and relevant.

In addition Major Brown advocates that Air Force Weapons School graduates; targeteers; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance experts integrate within Army division headquarters staffs to supplement the air support operations group (ASOG). In my opinion, this proposal would maximize the ASOG’s ability to integrate air-to-ground operations and enable this joint Army–Air Force team to achieve the joint force commander’s TST objectives.

Finally, I thank Major Brown for writing an article relevant to everyone from the youngest wingman employing ordnance on his or her first combat mission all the way up to the joint force air component commander approving an air strike against insurgent leaders. This thought-provoking piece should be required reading for air and space operations center personnel in Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. All Airmen entering the center would benefit from reflecting on Major Brown’s words.

Lt Col James Kockler, USAF
Norfolk Naval Air Station, Virginia

DAWN OF THE COGNETIC AGE

Is Lt Col Bruce K. Johnson’s article “Dawn of the Cognetic Age: Fighting Ideological War by Putting Thought in Motion with Impact” (Winter 2007) really a new way of thinking? One of the things that strikes me is that we have spent an awful lot of time and effort since 11 September 2001 reorganizing and developing new task forces for specific missions. We’ve also spent a lot of intellectual capital on trying to define the type(s) of war we are fighting and going to fight (fourth-generation, asymmetric, irregular, global war on terrorism, etc). I really do like Colin Gray’s maxim no. 14 in his new book Fighting Talk: Forty Maxims on War, Peace, and Strategy (Praeger, 2007): “If Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Clausewitz Did Not Say It, It Is Probably Not Worth Saying” (p. 58). I think as we wrestle with trying to change definitions, strategy, concepts, doctrine, and organizations, we should keep in mind Gray’s wise words.

COL David S. Maxwell, USA
Fort Bragg, North Carolina

THE INADVISABILITY OF POSTHUMOUSLY
PROMOTING BILLY MITCHELL

I would like to make a comment about Col Phillip Meilinger’s article “The Inadvisability of Posthumously Promoting Billy Mitchell” (Summer 2007). Allow me to disagree partially with the author. Colonel Meilinger says the following about General Mitchell’s literary work: “In the case of Billy Mitchell, he contributed relatively little after leaving the Air Corps in 1926. He lived for another decade, but in truth, he became largely a forgotten figure, seldom called upon by his country or his service. His one book, Skyways: A Book on Modern Aeronautics, merely rehashed old ideas previously published” (p. 35).

Billy Mitchell wrote much more than just his famous book Winged Defense: The Development and Possibilities of Modern Air Power, Economic and Military (1925) and the Skyways book to which Colonel Meilinger refers in the quotation above. As a matter of fact, he published some books (plus numerous articles) about aviation after leaving the US Army in 1926.

Finally, thank you very much for the opportunity to express my admiration for General Mitchell in this highly regarded forum.

Lt Col Mauro Barbosa Siqueira, Brazilian Air Force
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Editor’s Note: Lieutenant Colonel Mauro read the Portuguese version of this article, available at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-p/2007/4tri07/meilinger.html.

THE INADVISABILITY OF POSTHUMOUSLY PROMOTING
BILLY MITCHELL: THE AUTHOR RESPONDS

Thanks so much for your interesting and insightful letter. It’s true that Mitchell did not stop writing after his retirement in 1926, but I would argue that his most fertile period was over by that point. For example, his world war memoirs were simply that—his diary from the war period published after his death. His book/pamphlet on his tour in Alaska prior to World War I made no mention of airpower at all. Similarly, his biography of Gen Adolphus Greely was a discussion about the work of the Signal Corps, of which Greely was head, with a thinly disguised attempt by Mitchell to discuss his own activities. In my view, his Skyways book was merely a rehash of old ideas that he had written about in the early 1920s. I see nothing new in this book. So again, I would argue that Mitchell certainly did not cease writing after 1926 (he needed the money), but because he was no longer plugged into what was actually happening in the Air Corps, combined with the fact that he seemed to run out of new ideas, his writings after 1926 are—to me—a disappointment. In short, Mitchell’s most fertile period was from 1919 till 1925, when he was, essentially, the deputy head of the Air Service.

Thanks again for your wonderful letter.

Col Phil Meilinger, USAF, Retired
Chicago, Illinois

COUNTERINSURGENCY AIRPOWER

In his article “Counterinsurgency Airpower: Air-Ground Integration for the Long War” (Fall 2006), Col Howard D. Belote states that the Marine Corps “published an unsupported analysis suggesting that some Air Force JTACs’ [joint terminal attack controllers’] unfamiliarity with the ground scheme of maneuver proved that the Marine Corps trained its forward air controllers better than the Air Force trained its JTACs” (p. 61).

I disagree that a formal “analysis” must be conducted to reach a conclusion. Colonel Belote’s article mentions Lt Col Gary Kling; I have received Colonel Kling’s brief and have spoken with him at length about Fallujah. I am a qualified JTAC who has been assigned to a USMC rifle battalion as a ground forward air controller (FAC) and division air officer. I have worked with and instructed Navy SEALs, combat controllers, Air Force enlisted terminal attack controllers, as well as Marine FACs and JTACs; the conclusion reached by the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned—that Marine FACs were trained better than Air Force JTACs—is exactly what I experienced. This is what the Marines experienced in Iraq, and it is what I experienced both as an F-18D weapon systems officer FAC (airborne) and during a tour flying F-15Es with the Air Force. Knowing the ground scheme of maneuver is critical to executing the ground commander’s intent, and the Air Force consistently made this an afterthought. The Marine Corps has been training enlisted and officer JTACs who are nonrated for the past several years to augment a rifle battalion’s FACs. Nonaviator JTACs do not perform as well as Marine pilots or Marine naval flight officers who are serving as ground FACs. Some nonaviators are superb JTACs, but experience has shown that the Marine FACs will almost always perform better than the Marine JTAC—or any other JTAC. The data regarding academic and employment performance of students going through USMC Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) School for both prospective FACs and JTACs supports this claim. Additionally, I have discussed the training given to student Air Force JTACs and air liaison officers (ALO) at Nellis AFB, Nevada, with friends who have served as ALOs, and I have attended USMC TACP School in California. The course of instruction given by the Marine Corps is indeed a better syllabus. A quick comparison of lectures and required terminal controls necessary to complete the course will confirm this fact. Examination of the Marine Corps TACP course of instruction and the qualification of Air Force pilots and navigators as qualified JTACs may actually improve the application of airpower in support of the Army or other joint forces.

Maj C. J. “Galf” Galfano, USMC
Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Quantico, Virginia

MY FATHER AND I AND SABURO SAKAI

While doing some research on World War II Japanese naval aviators, I happened to come across Col Francis Stevens’s article “My Father and I and Saburo Sakai” (Chronicles Online Journal, 21 June 2006). I’ve read about many amazing things done by members of our military, but never have I heard of something as astonishing and noteworthy as what Colonel Stevens did in his interaction with Saburo Sakai. Although Sakai was renowned for his skill and honor in aerial combat, Colonel Stevens is a great man in terms of a far more important virtue—the personal strength of character first to forgive and then to befriend a former enemy who felled not only many of his countrymen but also his own father. It was a beautiful act of humanity to which more people should aspire.

Roger Van Royen
Santa Rosa, California

THE FIRST RULE OF MODERN WARFARE

Col Richard Szafranski’s article “The First Rule of Modern Warfare: Never Bring a Knife to a Gunfight” (Winter 2005) has made me think. As a Western norm, the saying “never bring a knife to a gunfight” typically reflects a Western mind-set, which differs greatly from the Oriental way of thinking. The Western way is more linear, and the Oriental is curvier.

As far as a fighter plane is concerned, an airborne machine gun can be regarded as the “knife” and a missile as the “gun.” As early as the 1960s, the US Air Force stopped bringing knives, removing the machine guns from its fighter planes. Then the F-4 and MiGs had a few duels (over Vietnam) in which the former was good with guns and the latter with knives. The Air Force enjoyed a superb advantage over the MiGs at mid- and long-range fighting. But when the MiGs managed to get close and wave the knife, F-4 pilots immediately panicked. That may explain why the US fighters were soon rearmed with machine guns.

Certainly, with the development of long-range precision strike weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles, the situation changes dramatically from that of the past, setting a favorable background for the US military to bring up the same old “bring no knife” tune—that is, to stress the decisive factor of the “gun” in asymmetric conflict. The US military circle may assume that all directly manned weapons belong to the “knife” category, and eventually all aircraft, tanks, and warships will be operated by robots on the battlefield.

Well, the reality is that US forces have brought “guns” to the knife fight in Iraq, only to find themselves bogged down in it. It is therefore wiser to “keep a knife in a gunfight.”

Li Jian
Chief Editor, Global Defense Web Site
Beijing, China

Editor’s Note: Mr. Li read the Chinese version of this article, available at
http://www.airpower .maxwell.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-c/2007/fal07/szafranski.htm.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University

[ Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]