Published Airpower Journal - Fall 1998

MAJ PETER M.OSIKA, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Departures, Arrivals, and Destinations

Does the title sound like a travel itinerary? Perhaps, but the trip I want to talk about involves our future. You’re probably saying, “Not again!” For it doesn’t matter whether I plan to extol the shining prospects just around the corner or tell you the sky is falling—you have heard it all before. So you probably have, but the part I want to focus on is the trip itself and some changes along the way.

Change, whether intended or not, may be the only way to get to the future, but as you have probably noticed:

• It is much easier to favor change when we are able to view it objectively, as in “You need to make some changes.”
• When it happens to us, change is uncomfortable, and the record seems pretty mixed. Just recall the times you’ve heard, “We made some changes while you were gone.”
• For better or worse, change has become an integral aspect of all we do, and no lack of enthusiasm on our part seems to be slowing it down.

What are we to make of this? I would suggest several things: first, that this trip really is necessary—perhaps unavoidable is a better word. Second, any route we plan will be affected by the familiar factors of friction, chance, and human motivations and perceptions. If not exactly a “battle” for the future, certainly substantive change will result only from a struggle of wills and competing ideas. Thus, the ultimate destination is important, but what happens along the way to where we think we are going may be equally so.

What about that destination? Where do we go from here? Before I get to that, I want to tell you about some recent changes at Airpower Journal.

A particularly unwelcome change has been the departure of our editor, Col James W. “Bill” Spencer. He has gone on to bigger and, perhaps, better things at the Pentagon, but speaking for the staff and, I’m sure, the loyal readers of APJ, he will be sorely missed.

Over the last three years, Colonel Spencer has put his stamp on the Journal. His many contributions—flagship status, expanded content, and our electronic publication, Air Chronicles, to name a few—have been significant. It will be up to us from here on to see that they are lasting. This is not intended to disparage the acting editor, Major Petersen, or his loyal assistant (yours truly). Nor does it imply that our goal is simply to maintain the status quo. No, the greatest challenge for any leader is to build an organization that will not only survive but also prosper after his or her departure. Colonel Spencer has given us quite a legacy—one we intend to build on!

The other recent change here at APJ is an arrival—me. Let me just say by way of introduction that my background is primarily technical (engineering, flight test, and operational analysis). This would seem to be a pretty strange route to APJ, and none of it is of any consequence to you except to note that as one who labors over everything he writes, I can assure all of you who similarly struggle that your submissions will have a “friend in court.” But as the contest hype goes, “You got to enter to win!” I hope to be hearing from you.

Personnel changes aside, the work of promoting professional dialogue continues. In this edition, we are pleased to bring you a number of articles to inform, stimulate, and hopefully elicit feedback from you. Almost all of them discuss what the future should look like or how we should get there, but I want to bring to your attention the way point by General Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Although its title is “Operationalizing Joint Vision 2010,” it’s really about change. This is “big” change—the kind that will affect us all, and, once started, things will never be the same again. The chairman requested that we get the word out, and we are honored to comply—but it would be a disservice just to leave it at that.

No one would argue about the importance and timeliness of the chairman’s message for Joint Vision 2010, but to provide real value, APJ needs to be more than just a one-way means of communication. Therefore, as you read this way point, consider the lessons, implications, and improvements that we students of air and space power might have to offer on this subject. The following questions come to mind:

• How should we view technology and asymmetric threats? As airmen, we have dealt with asymmetric challenges before and not always successfully. What have we learned?
• What are the best ways to incorporate technological opportunities in setting operational requirements? We have sometimes been burned when we confused technical possibilities with operational needs, but we have also fielded capabilities based on technology that operators alone might not have identified. Do we now know the right formula for success?
• How do we juggle investments in technology and people with the cost of current operations in a successful transition to the future force? Can we achieve and sustain a balance between developing the revolutionary potential of tomorrow and supporting what is militarily prudent for today?

Reviewing many of the recent articles on change and our future, I can’t help pondering two additional issues. The first involves the way we approach problems. It is easy to demonize service parochialism, but is there such a thing as too much jointness? At some point, is there a risk of stifling creativity within the services? The second concerns status. Do we really know where we are? I hear a lot about organizations operating at or near the breaking point. In engineering, failures due to stress and strain on materials are usually predictable. When it comes to organizations and missions, however, I’m not so sure. Even if we could know, do we? Believing that you are going to succeed even though you’re overtasked and lacking required support may be the only way to operate these days. But are we being honest with each other—or even with ourselves—about where we are in the flight envelope?

Tough questions? You bet. Are these the most important or even the right issues to be discussing? I will let you decide. The only thing certain is that change is coming. Let’s return to the question, “What’s our destination?” As far as we’re concerned, that’s up to you.

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.

[ Back Issues | Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]