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

Published: 1 December 2009
Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2009

Airpower in the Next War

In the Shadow of Georgia

Lt Col Thomas McCabe, USAFR, Retired*

Currently, American military planning for the next war is very much in flux. We can reasonably assume that the global war against jihadi Islamic terrorism, whatever that war is called, will continue unless al-Qaeda and its allied movements are decisively and openly defeated. What we used to refer to as major theater wars against regional rogue states such as Iran or North Korea remain possible, as does one with an emerging peer competitor such as China, over the very long term. (Of course, the timing of a war with China might drastically accelerate in case of a dispute over Taiwan.)

Recently, another possible scenario emerged—or, perhaps more correctly, reemerged. In the aftermath of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008, the new democracies on Russia’s western border—especially Ukraine and the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (and possibly Poland)—are feeling vulnerable to what they perceive as a newly aggressive and potentially expansionist Russia.¹ Considering their history, this is hardly surprising. What is surprising, since the Russians did not start the war with Georgia, is that this also seems to be the attitude of many leaders in Europe and the United States as well, including both candidates in the 2008 presidential election.

It is probably premature to read much into the situation just yet. We need to remember that (1) however much the Russians may have set the stage, the Georgians started the conflict by crossing the frontier with South Ossetia with the intention of occupying the enclave and (2) the Russians responded to what they considered a severe provocation as they had warned they would for years.² The Russians have been fairly restrained in the aftermath so far. If the United States had found itself in Russia’s position, we probably would have reacted far more drastically.

In light of this situation, we need to consider not only two sets of policies for dealing with two different circumstances but also the role the US Air Force would play in those policies. The first policy treats the Georgia situation as unique and not, in and of itself, an indication of renewed Russian expansionism. The second does not consider the situation unique but deems it an indication of an expansionist Russia. Finally, the article addresses implications for the Air Force if we fail to take steps to deter a newly expansionist Russia or if those steps prove inadequate and we face a war with Russia in Eastern Europe.

Georgia as a Unique Situation

For the time being, our best policy option is a low-key response while we wait to see how the situation evolves. This assumes that the situation in Georgia was and is unique—two enclaves in a bordering state that had declared themselves independent and that were and are under Russian protection. No other such enclaves exist, so the situation in Georgia is potentially a one-of-a-kind case. If the Russians show that it is not unique and if they act belligerently against neighboring states, using the presence of Russian minorities in those states as a pretext, then we will undoubtedly be dealing with a new situation that requires a new policy.

The United States should first attempt to defuse the possibility of Russian pressure against neighboring states diplomatically. We should quietly remind all concerned that the Russians did not start the war with Georgia and that an obvious way to avoid war with Russia is to not attack it.

Next, we should remind the Eastern Europeans that, in material terms, nothing fundamental has changed. This was not Russia’s Operation Desert Storm, during which it demonstrated a new and dramatically improved military capability; rather, this was a Russian Grenada.³ Russia’s overall military readiness remains very low. It has only started to recover from the military collapse that accompanied the general collapse which followed the fall of Communism. Although it probably enjoyed more effective readiness in the North Caucasus Military District in Georgia than in any other of its districts, that situation resulted from the circumstances in the Caucasus—specifically, two past wars and a residual insurgency in Chechnya as well as an ongoing border dispute with Georgia. Even then, the posture of its forces was not especially good. With only a few exceptions, Russia’s standards of training and readiness remain very low; the equipment in its inventory is largely obsolete and often badly maintained; and it is buying very little new or upgraded equipment. Further, after nearly 20 years of maintaining industrial workers on near-starvation rations, Russia cannot be certain of their ability to rapidly produce a great deal of new equipment. Thus, any reemergence of that country as a military giant will likely take a long time, especially now in the context of worldwide economic turmoil.

However, pointing out that Russia is no longer a military superpower and will not become one again in the foreseeable future offers little comfort to those who live in the shadow of whatever power Russia actually has. Instead the United States should (1) provide primarily political support for maintaining the independence of the states that consider themselves potentially threatened and (2) take steps to improve the transparency of the regional military situation.

The first of these steps could take the form of a joint declaration that no current border or ethnic disputes in Eastern Europe justify war or military intervention, and that no one should attempt to change borders by force. Largely a restatement of the principles of the Helsinki Accords and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, such a declaration, hopefully, would not provoke controversy. Signatories would include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United States, the major European states, the northern European neutrals (Sweden and Finland), and (if possible) Russia. We might use Russian-­favored phrases and themes about the inadmissibility of the use or threat of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations; respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of states; the inviolability of borders; noninterference in internal affairs; and changing of borders only in accordance with international law by peaceful means and by agreement. Having the declaration put forward by the EU or one of the neutral states and then endorsed by NATO and the United States might make it more acceptable. The central point of the exercise is the creation of a multilateral agreement intended to serve as an informal nonaggression pact, emphasizing that the situation and the rules have not changed. There are times when bland generalities can be useful. A Russian refusal to sign would at least clarify the situation, especially when analyzing reasons for the refusal; moreover, it would possibly serve as a strategic warning of trouble ahead and as justification for increasing the defensive readiness of countries potentially threatened.

Next, NATO and the United States should jointly and separately remind everyone that the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are members of NATO and, as such, have a guarantee of the alliance’s protection in case of attack. The situation is more ambiguous in Ukraine, whose population includes a large Russian minority, including the Crimea—historically part of Russia. Not a member of NATO, Ukraine is uncertain if it wants to join the alliance. Much of European NATO is in no hurry to have it join. At this point, I would hesitate to give any military guarantee of Ukraine’s independence, especially since it hasn’t asked for one. I would propose nothing more than US and NATO statements that any military incursions against Ukraine would be regarded as a matter of the utmost seriousness.⁴

At this point, the United States and NATO should quietly remind the Russians that, however much they have fulminated about the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, NATO does not have much of a military presence there. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has massively cut back its forces, especially in Europe, and Afghanistan has largely drained off whatever expeditionary capability NATO may have left.⁵ There is no vast American or other NATO military force camped on Russia’s borders. A small unit (usually four aircraft) for the air sovereignty mission represents the only regular NATO military presence in the Baltic States. Then we should point out that we prefer to keep things that way but that we will respond if the Russians increase their threat to the neighboring states. By doing so, we make clear to the Russians that any increase in military tensions in the region remains up to them.

Finally, the United States, NATO, EU, and regional states, preferably including Russia, should work to improve the military transparency of the region. The aim here is to ensure that all parties have an accurate view of the military readiness of the regional states and, thus, an accurate perception of the threat—or, preferably, the lack of such a threat. This should build on existing programs such as Open Skies and the Conventional Forces in Europe inspection programs if the Russians ever end their suspension of participation in the latter. The organizations and states involved might consider setting up a monitoring center to track the day-to-day military situation, possibly under neutral auspices, thereby reassuring the regional governments that no imminent military threat exists or that the center would warn them if one arises. The United States and NATO should be prepared to undertake the sharing of relevant intelligence on the issue. It should be noted that these nonconfrontational, noncontroversial steps should present no security dilemma to Russia.

In this scenario, the US Air Force functions as a central participant in the monitoring program. As the primary American service for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), especially operational and strategic ISR, the Air Force can expect to serve as a resource of expertise in this area. Moreover, with the permission of the governments, it might provide regular reconnaissance overflights, possibly by unmanned aircraft systems.

If Georgia Is the First Step . . .

We should consider what to do if a darker scenario emerges, in which Georgia is the first step of a revived Russian program of revanchist expansionism, and, in spite of everything, Russia manages to reemerge as a major military threat. We should remember that Russia does not need superpower status to be dangerous: imagine a large Iraq with a superpower nuclear arsenal.

The first step should explore diplomatic and political options. We must quietly remind threatened states of the limits of military power—that it cannot protect them against economic or political pressure or subversion, or even cyberspace attack. Since we can expect the Russians to undertake an information campaign to portray neighboring states as the source of any trouble leading to a crisis, those states should adopt postures that demonstrate to the world that they have not done anything unreasonable. Forums such as the United Nations and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe could reaffirm this stance.

We should then reemphasize that the Baltic States (and Poland if Belarus and Russia merge or if Russia forward-bases forces in Belarus) are members of NATO and remain under its military protection. In parallel, we should quietly remind the continental European NATO members of their obligation to defend the Eastern European members if they come under attack. Assuming that Ukraine remains democratic, NATO should consider extending guarantees (although not unconditional ones) against military threats to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. If NATO will not do so, the United States should.

Next, NATO should start planning and preparing for the defense of Eastern Europe, an area where it has reportedly undertaken only minimal steps along those lines.⁶ NATO’s preparations in Norway during the Cold War could serve as a template for doing this in a minimally provocative manner. NATO did not permanently base combat forces there, but the US military and Canada did pre-position equipment in Norway and regularly practiced reinforcing exercises.

As a preliminary reconceptualization of a military strategy for deterring a hostile Russia from encroaching on Eastern Europe, the strategy based on principles originally laid down in the Nixon Doctrine nearly 40 years ago could serve our purposes. That doctrine identified the American role in such a war: reinforcing our regional allies. The United States should expect the local government(s)—supplemented by regional NATO forces—to provide the bulk of any ground army necessary, with US ground troops functioning as a strategic reserve. American reinforcements should consist primarily of airpower, including attack helicopters, airmobile troops, air defense and theater missile defense, and logistics and materiel support. In addition, the United States should provide “force enablers,” such as command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) capabilities, electronic warfare, and mobility.

The obvious first step involves helping threatened states raise the cost of any aggression by improving their defenses, specifically by upgrading the local militaries and emphasizing territorial defense—especially air defense and antitank capability.⁷ Taking this step improves defensive capabilities and avoids provoking the Russians. Since the threat will have changed, the Baltic States and Poland may need to reevaluate their policies of moving to professional militaries and at least consider conscripting people for reserve territorial-defense forces. This should accompany efforts to upgrade the professionalism and effectiveness of their militaries. NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland will find this task easier since they can conduct such efforts under the auspices of the alliance.

The US Air Force plays a central role in this strategy:

Airpower in an
Eastern European War

Both the nature and circumstances of a war in Eastern Europe, especially one centered on Ukraine, are likely to be different from any we have prepared for recently. This kind of war may more closely resemble what the United States would have faced if Saddam Hussein had kept rolling into Saudi Arabia after overrunning Kuwait, or what we confronted in Korea during the summer of 1950. I call it an expeditionary war—that is, one in which the United States projects military power into a theater of operations where the war is already under way and where preparations for receiving that power have been limited (at best) or lacking (at worst).⁸ Preparing the Air Force for such a war will have a variety of effects on all aspects of airpower, ranging from doctrine and organization to training, tactics, and equipment.

Contrast the comparatively benign circumstances we encountered during Operations Desert Shield/Storm, Allied Force, and Iraqi Freedom with those we will likely deal with in a future military crisis in Eastern Europe against an aggressive Russia with rebuilt military forces. Since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, this region, in military terms, has remained something of a power vacuum—one that the United States and NATO have taken only limited steps to fill. The weak economic condition of these countries, combined with NATO’s ambivalence toward offering military commitments to Ukraine, has resulted in only limited preparations for receiving NATO and/or American reinforcements. Further, these problems are likely to get worse the farther east we go. We can expect to experience at least the following differences from the earlier wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia:

Thus we could very well face a grim and uncertain conflict, with the potential for escalating into nuclear warfare. We should remember that neither the United States nor Russia has forsworn the first use of nuclear weapons.

The Role of Airpower in Expeditionary War

We can estimate that the scale of a US deployment to a war in Eastern Europe will be at least as large as that planned for a major theater war—that is, an Air Force deployment equivalent to several combat wings although deployment of fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 may (at least hypothetically) reduce the number of platforms required.¹⁰ Although this article assumes the centrality of airpower to American participation in any such war, its role may prove profoundly different from that in our most recent wars. This is likely to become especially evident in three key areas: air superiority, the strategic air campaign, and the operational air campaign.

Air Superiority

Unlike wars in the last 20 years, an expeditionary war in Eastern Europe may necessitate major effort and resources to establish US/allied air (and potentially space) supremacy. Further, the prospect of allowing the enemy a geographic sanctuary for political reasons will eliminate our ability to reduce the air threat by offensive counterair missions against enemy bases, requiring that we establish air superiority through air-to-air combat.

An enabling function rather than an end in itself, air superiority allows us to apply airpower against the enemy’s core power through the strategic air campaign and against his military instruments of power through the operational air campaign.

Strategic Air Campaign

Unfortunately, the strategic air campaign is unlikely to duplicate the degree of strategic paralysis we imposed on Iraq. There will be no Instant Thunder for several reasons:¹¹

First, Russia will remain a major nuclear power with intercontinental reach. A strategic air campaign, even a conventional one, would involve comprehensive and systematic attacks on the Russian national command structure and would carry grave risks of escalation to an even larger war—perhaps nuclear. Such risks may lead American political leaders to give the enemy a geographic sanctuary.¹²

Second, the sheer size of Russia, the number of potential strategic targets, the distances to those targets, and the limited size of the US strategic bomber force severely hamper our ability to project conventional power against Russia. If we had a strategic bomber force as large as the one in the early 1960s, such a campaign might be feasible. Since we don’t, it isn’t.¹³

Third, the capability and redundancy of Russia’s defenses, the hardness of many of its C3I targets, and the mobility of many or most of its air defense assets significantly elevate the difficulty of comprehensively collapsing or suppressing Russian air defenses with nonnuclear attack—a central requirement for a successful conventional strategic air campaign.¹⁴

Finally, a war in Eastern Europe may require that we respond in desperate haste to Russian aggression. Unless we are prepared to expend the intellectual resources necessary to formulate a conventional strategic-deterrence-and-response plan against Russia in peacetime, we must accept the possibility that we will have no time to prepare one after the war starts.¹⁵

Thus, we obviously cannot expect that our air attack will strategically paralyze the Russian government or military.¹⁶ We must assume that airpower will focus on the operational and tactical levels of war rather than the strategic level, for the purpose of defeating the enemy’s military effort. Any strategic air campaign that we wage under such conditions would supplement the operational air campaign by realizing three more limited objectives: (1) disrupting enemy C3I, (2) suppressing enemy air defenses in the theater of operations and in any part of Russia adjacent to the theater of operations, and (3) acting as a diversion to tie down enemy resources, especially fighter aircraft and mobile air defenses, in parts of Russia distant from the theater of war. Failure to comprehensively suppress enemy air defenses will likely have an ominous impact on the “halt” phase of any interdiction effort.¹⁷

Operational Air Campaign

Designed to defeat the enemy military in the combat theater of operations, the operational air campaign consists of deep attack and close air support (CAS). The former uses conventional firepower, primarily airpower, to influence the ground battle at the operational level of war by isolating and shaping the ground battlefield, weakening the combat power of enemy ground forces not yet in contact with friendly forces, weakening the capability of enemy offensive air and operational-level surface-to-­surface missiles, and/or interfering with the enemy scheme of maneuver.¹⁸ CAS, which aims to influence the war at the tactical level, and its Army equivalent are critical from the beginning in an expeditionary war because of the inherent limits of deep attack and the circumstances of the war.¹⁹

As with strategic attack, deep attack has value only if the national political authorities allow attacks to hit the targets necessary for effectiveness. Prohibiting such attacks massively compromises their value. In Iraq we were allowed to hit those targets. In a war in Eastern Europe fought in immediate proximity to Russia, will our political leadership take the political risks inherent in attacks on targets in Russia? Or will the enemy be permitted a sanctuary?

Circumstances, not our preferences, may dictate another critical factor in reducing the potential of deep attack: the type of war we fight and the way we need to fight it. We may arrive in-theater with the war already under way and with friendly forces losing. As a matter of direst necessity, airpower may function in a fire-brigade role on a very chaotic battlefield to help plug gaps, contain or counterattack breakthroughs, shore up existing defenses, and buy time until the cavalry thunders in from Western Europe and/or North America. We should expect that providing “troops in contact” CAS will remain central from the first to the last day of our involvement. This assumption has several major implications for US force structure and equipment:

Conclusion and Implications

In an expeditionary war, likely much grimmer than Desert Storm or Allied Force and having less certain prospects for success, we would enjoy few of the advantages we had in the Gulf and the Balkans—and we would feel the immense weight of disadvantages absent in those conflicts. Effectively fighting this kind of war may require revolutionary changes in the Air Force: in our doctrine, organization, style of warfare, and equipment. Our service needs to understand what it means to be an expeditionary force in an expeditionary war, during which we may have to establish our bases while under assault.²⁴ An expeditionary air war in Eastern Europe will also require an unprecedented degree of joint operations between the US Air Force and Army. Attack and transport helicopters, as well as air defense and ground-based theater missile defense, are Army missions.

Yet, to those who study history, these challenges are not new. We have been here before, when we fought the tactical air portion of the Second World War. Moreover, and more currently, we would do well to study many of the methods and structures of the Marine Corps.²⁵ The time to start is now, when we have the chance to approach the problem systematically and carefully rather than frantically, with a rush and a roar when the bombs start falling.

Burke, Virginia

*Before he retired, the author served as an individual mobilization augmentee at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Currently, he is a civilian analyst for the Department of Defense.

Notes

1. Intriguingly, this may also be the case with Finland, which has refused to sign either the Land Mine Treaty or the Cluster Munitions Treaty and whose foreign minister, Alexander Stubb, recently suggested that the country consider joining NATO. See “Finnish Foreign Minister: NATO Opportunity, Not Threat For Finland,” Open Source Center, EUP20090403203002, 3 April 2009, https://www.opensource.gov/public/content/ login/login.fcc?doAction=true.

2. See “Day-by-Day: Georgia-Russia Crisis,” BBC, 7 August 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/
7551576.stm (accessed 28 September 2009).

3. I am speaking only in material terms. Grenada’s most dramatic effect was that it restored the US military’s morale and pride.

4. I am not specifically mentioning Finland in these scenarios: the Russian-Finnish borders have long since become settled and quiet, and the Russians have no minority in Finland to target. However, the Finns do occasionally make noises about joining NATO. See “Finnish Foreign Minister.”

5. In the mid-1960s, for instance, the US Army had the equivalent of nearly six divisions in Western Europe. The US Army in Europe currently has four brigades and is scheduled for further reductions. See C. Todd Lopez, “U.S. Army Europe Commander Says Loss of Brigades Could Affect Evolving Partnerships,” Army News Service, 10 February 2009, http://www.eucom.mil/English/FullStory.asp?art=%7BA37E7D80-7F7B-4261-B279-780D89039443%7D (accessed 28 September 2009).

6. According to one publication, NATO has a plan to defend Poland but none to defend the Baltic States. See “Have Combat Experience, Will Travel,” Economist 390, no. 8624 (28 March 2009): 70. See also Patrick Lannin, “NATO Chief Calms Baltic Fears over Russia,” Reuters, 12 September 2008, http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?type=news&code=cotn:BARC.L&it=&articleid=6891115&action=
article (accessed 28 September 2009). The United States has proposed that NATO start preparing such contingency plans. See “The Arctic Contest Heats Up,” Economist 389, no. 8601 (11 October 2008): 70.

7. In its most recent war with Israel, Hezbollah demonstrated what determined people can do with bunkers and antitank missiles.

8. This definition draws on the one the Marine Corps has used for expeditionary campaign. Ann Keays, Doctrine Division, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, telecommunication with the author, January 1999. I have been unable to locate a joint definition for expeditionary war. Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12 April 2001 (as amended through 19 August 2009), http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf (accessed 28 September 2009), does not include such a definition. See also Lt Gen Charles E. Wilhelm, “Expeditionary Warfare,” Marine Corps Gazette 79, no. 6 (June 1995): 28–30. Such a war would differ drastically from conflicts such as Desert Storm or Allied Force, which, though conducted under expeditionary conditions, had extensive regional infrastructures available for use.

9. This assumes that a rearming Russia will have reequipped its air forces with both upgraded (Su-27SMs and MiG-29SMTs) and new aircraft (Su-34s and -35s and MiG-35s). These platforms are as good as, if not better than, any F-15s and F-16s in the US Air Force inventory. See Yefim Gordon, Russia’s Military Aircraft in the 21st Century, trans. Dmitriy Komissarov (Hersham, Surrey, UK: Midland Publishing, 2006).

10. For planning purposes, the US force structure laid out in 1994 assumed the following aviation component for each of the two major theater wars (then called major regional contingencies) for each contingency: 10 Air Force fighter wings, up to 100 Air Force heavy bombers, and four to five Navy aircraft carrier battle groups. See Les Aspin, Annual Report to the President and the Congress, 1994 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 15. In each contingency, the hostile state was assumed to have a force of up to 750,000 troops, 4,000 tanks, 1,000 combat aircraft, and 1,000 Scud-class missiles. See John T. Correll, “The High-Risk Military Strategy,” Air Force Magazine 77, no. 9 (September 1994): 37, http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1994/September%201994/0994strategy.aspx (accessed 28 September 2009). Although Russian deployments might involve smaller numbers than these, the quality of their equipment is likely to be much better than the T-55 and MiG-21 equivalents implicitly assumed in the 1994 scenarios.

11. Instant Thunder, the plan devised by Col John Warden and planners at Headquarters US Air Force during Desert Shield, sought to defeat Iraq decisively through a strategic air campaign aimed at the nerve centers of its national power rather than its fielded forces. See Col Edward C. Mann III, Thunder and Lightning: Desert Storm and the Airpower Debates (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 1995), especially chap. 2, http://www.au.af
.mil/au/aul/aupress/books/b-2/mann.pdf (accessed 28 September 2009).

12. In the Korean War, we allowed our enemies—the Soviet and Chinese air forces—a sanctuary in Manchuria. But one can argue that they allowed us a sanctuary on the aircraft carriers offshore and, aside from occasional harassment raids on our bases in Korea (usually by biplanes at night), at our air bases in Korea and Japan.

13. In 1962 Strategic Air Command boasted a strategic bomber force of 639 B-52s, 880 B-47s (and 146 EB/RB-47s), and 76 B/TB-58s, backed up by 515 KC-135 and 503 KC-97 tankers. See Norman Polmar, ed., Strategic Air Command: People, Aircraft, and Missiles (Annapolis, MD: Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1979), 79.

14. The command bunkers built to harden the old Soviet command structure against nuclear attack have not gone away, and some past reports indicate that the Russians continued to maintain them even during the collapse of their military. See Tamar A. Muhuron et al., “Russian Military Almanac,” Air Force Magazine 78, no. 6 (June 1995): 68.

15. In the past, preparation of a plan (historically called a Single Integrated Operational Plan [SIOP]) usually took about 18 months although efforts were under way in the early 1990s to shorten the cycle drastically. See Gen George Lee Butler, “Reengineering Nuclear War Planning,” Strategic Review 22 (Summer 1994): 77–80. A conventional strategic-deterrence-and-response plan would probably prove even more complicated than a nuclear one for at least four obvious reasons: (1) the much larger number of smaller targets, (2) the inability to use nuclear weapons for defense suppression, (3) the lower probability of kill of conventional weapons against individual targets compared to that of nuclear weapons, and (4) the much more central consideration of avoiding collateral damage and casualties. More complicated than past nuclear targeting plans, such a plan would presumably take even longer to prepare.

16. There is, of course, the separate matter of what to do if we manage to inflict strategic paralysis since the latter, like air superiority, is an enabling condition—not an end in itself. See Maj Howard D. Belote, “Paralyze or Pulverize? Liddell Hart, Clausewitz, and Their Influence on Air Power Theory,” Strategic Review 27, no. 9 (Winter 1999): 40–46.

17. See David Ochmanek et al., To Find, and Not to Yield: How Advances in Information and Firepower Can Transform Theater Warfare (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1998), http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph
_reports/MR958 (accessed 28 September 2009). This study assumes that the first several days of any “halt” campaign would concentrate on suppressing enemy air defenses.

18. For this definition of deep attack, an expansion of the interdiction mission, see Maj Thomas R. McCabe, “The Limits of Deep Attack,” Airpower Journal 7, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 13, http://www.airpower.au.af. mil/airchronicles/apj/apj93/fall93/mccabe.htm (accessed 28 September 2009). This approach was the primary focus of the air component of Operational Plan 1002, the original operational plan to defend the Arabian Peninsula. See Mann, Thunder and Lightning, 28.

19. The Army does not consider attack-helicopter operations CAS, calling them “close combat attack.” See Maj Michael H. Johnson, “Cleared to Engage: Improving the Effectiveness of Joint Close Air Support,” Air and Space Power Journal 22, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 71–81, http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/ apj08/sum08/sum08.pdf (accessed 28 September 2009).

20. For example, see Gen Merrill A. McPeak, “The Roles and Missions Opportunity,” Armed Forces Journal International 138, no. 8 (March 1995): 33.

21. See Lt Col William G. Welch, “Is Fixed-Wing Close Air Support Worth It?” US Naval Institute Proceedings 120, no. 9 (September 1994), for a well-articulated statement of this point of view. Unfortunately, using doctrine to define problems out of existence does not actually make them go away.

22. Evidently the Army does not do that. See Johnson, “Cleared to Engage,” 74.

23. See Air Land Sea Application Center, JAAT: Multiservice Procedures for Joint Air Attack Team Operations (Langley AFB, VA: US Air Force Doctrine Center, 1998).

24. For a sobering overview of what it takes to keep bases operational under fire, see Christopher J. Bowie, “The Lessons of Salty Demo,” Air Force Magazine 92, no. 3 (March 2009): 54–57, http://www.airforce- magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/March%202009/0309salty.aspx (accessed 28 September 2009).

25. The Marines have an enormous advantage in the area of expeditionary warfare since all of their ground troops, aviation, and air defenses are contained within one organization—the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. However, although they pride themselves on being an expeditionary force and the Air Force can selectively profit from their experience (especially the use the forward operating locations to base helicopters and vertical and/or short takeoff and landing aircraft), the Marines are totally unprepared to wage air warfare at the operational level. Strictly speaking, they are a ground-centered amphibious expeditionary force, with the air element intentionally subordinate to the ground scheme of maneuver, concentrating on CAS. Granted, the US Air Force needs to do CAS and do it well, but we need to be able to do much more than that.

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]