DISTRIBUTION
A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Published Airpower Journal -
Spring 1998
We encourage your comments via letters to the editor or comment cards. All correspondence should be addressed to the Editor, Airpower Journal, 401 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112--6428. You can also send your comments by E--mail to aspj@maxwell.af.mil. We reserve the right to edit the material for overall length.
I am concerned about the quality of the articles that are released by your publication. In the article “‘Handmaid’ of the Army? The American Perception of German Bombardment Doctrine prior to the Battle of Britain” (Summer 1997), Capt Alexus Grynkewich mistook the state of Air Corps attack aviation in 1939. He wrote that “the Air Corps needed the parenthetical clarification due to the lack of dedicated attack aircraft in its own inventory” (page 61). I take exception to this statement. The following attack aviation units were in the Air Corps at that time: 3d Attack Group, Barksdale Field, Louisiana (8th, 13th, and 90th Attack Squadrons); 17th Attack Group, March Field, California (34th, 73d, and 95th Attack Squadrons); 26th Attack Squadron, Wheeler Field, Hawaii; and 74th Attack Squadron, Albrook Field, Panama.
Although the doctrine of strategic bombing was and continues to be the “Holy Grail” of airpower, the interdiction, battlefield preparation, and close air support missions had the biggest impacts on the war. With that one sentence, Grynkewich shortchanged Air Corps attack aviation. It was Professors Morrow’s and Leary’s responsibility to have led this young man down the proper path.
Drew Taylor
Dayton, Ohio
NO FOOLING
As a doctor and US Air Force reservist, I must object to the article “Fooling Mother Nature: An Ethical Analysis of and Recommendations for Oversight of Human-Performance Enhancements in the Armed Forces” (Summer 1997). We have already “fooled” Mother Nature. The US military is the only force in the world that “owns the night.” We fight at night with vision that’s enhanced by night vision goggles (NVG).
But more importantly to me is the implication in the article that we should not even protect our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We have body armor to protect against pro- jectiles—why not immune enhancers and antioxidants to protect against chemical-biological warfare agents? I consider that defensive—indeed preventive—medicine.
Likewise, the use of pharmacological agents to enhance wakefulness is defensive. I want my potential patients to avoid being on a stretcher when they see me. Our troops should have all the protection and advantage our technology can deliver. And we should not share any of these technological advances with potential enemies.
Col Robert W. Feldtman, USAFR MC FS
Houston, Texas
I read the Fall 1997 edition of APJ with a higher-than-normal level of interest. I’m about to end a long career, the vast majority spent in the Air Force—both active and full-time Air Force Reserve. Your editorial comments and those in Lt Col Timothy Kline’s article “Where Have All the Mitchell’s Gone?” hit a sensitive spot in me because I’ve lived those things.
I was full of excitement and energy as a young officer because I thought I could make a difference. I was also very naive. A lot of us did make some minor differences in the late sixties and early seventies because our focus was on the mission and our country. Things began to change in the eighties, and our focus gradually changed from the mission to worrying about the color of paint on the buildings—and whether or not everyone had his or her own office with an executive desk. The number of workers began to decrease although the number of senior managers increased. We spend enormous amounts of money to convince pilots to stay in the Air Force, yet all the while we seem to have forgotten why we even have one. We listen to top leaders speak of integrity—something that should be taught in our families—yet we constantly hear of other senior people in trouble. And the list of troubles seems to have no end.
That’s why there are no Mitchells. Mitchell was a true patriot who wanted to improve his armed forces. Today, we are tripping over O-6s who are concerned about performance indicators and running a business. Our young people seem more concerned about money than patriotism. We really do need a Mitchell now, but it will take the same courage and risk that he had—something I don’t think anyone in today’s Air Force is willing to do.
Col Terry E. Paasch, USAFR, Retired
Hill AFB, Utah
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.
[ Back Issues | Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]