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

Published Airpower Journal - Spring 1999

MAJ PETER M. OSIKA, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

The Curse of Interesting Times

“MAY YOU LIVE in interesting times” is supposedly an ancient curse disguised as a blessing. If so, it appears to be particularly well suited to the circumstances we seem blessed with in this post-cold-war world.

The very notion of “interesting times” carries inherent contradictions: peace and quiet being best appreciated by those who have known little of it; chaos and conflict being most appealing to those who have never had to deal firsthand with the consequences. Perspective also plays its part: For those who must cope with change or uncertainty in making or executing policy, “interesting times” is a daunting and at times discouraging benediction; whereas for those tasked with reporting the “news,” at least the perception of such times is mandatory. Finally, I suspect human nature invariably promotes the notion that one’s own time always presents unique and more significant challenges than any past era when, so our thinking goes, people were fortunate enough to live in a “simpler age.”

Contradictory would seem to be the defining term for our times. The cold war ended with a better, safer world. Peace and prosperity, if not universal, are at least widespread. Human rights are at least acknowledged if not always respected around the globe. Prospects for the new millennium should appear bright, yet conflicts smolder even where they do not burn. More ominous, perhaps, are the threats that lurk in the dark corners of our thoughts— loose weapons of mass destruction, genocide, global depression, and other natural or man-made catastrophes. These certainly call into question any notion that a better future is guaranteed.

Perhaps that is the true nature of interesting times: believing we live on a cusp of history but having no clear sense for the change—a golden era or a new dark age? Whatever your opinions on the challenges ahead or the probable outcomes, rest assured there will be no shortage of people who will wish to argue an opposing view. It may seem trite to venture that difficult times can serve as a spur to healthy debate, but I submit this edition’s feature articles as support for that contention.
Few topics have received more recent attention than debates over the Air Force’s stewardship of space. Perhaps it is not surprising that we offer three unrelated but very complementary articles dealing with the Air Force’s past record and possible futures in space. While the focus and viewpoints may be complementary, the conclusions reached by the authors are often in stark contrast.

To lead off, Gen Thomas S. Moorman Jr., USAF, Retired, in “The Explosion of Commercial Space and the Implications for National Security,” argues that a broader and more creative approach to providing space-power assets and capabilities for the nation is both necessary and possible. In “The Challenge of Space Power”— an article we were fortunate to receive just before we went to press—Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) agrees, but he also believes we should do more, soon, and he questions whether the Air Force can meet the challenge. Senator Smith contends that the Air Force has failed to provide either the vision or investments needed to be “on track” in transitioning to a space and air force and ominously concludes that the Air Force has no special claim to space. Have we neglected space? Is there a case to be made for a separate space service, and could it do any better? Maj Shawn P. Rife tackles just this issue in “On Space-Power Separatism.”

I think you will find our other features equally provocative. In “US Arms Transfer Policy for Latin America: Lifting the Ban on Fighter Aircraft,” Lt Col Antonio L. Palá and Dr. Frank O. Mora provide an extensive review of the pros and cons and come down strongly in favor of lifting the ban. Then Lt Col James M. Liepman attempts to slay some of the acronym dragons while offering us a conceptual framework for air battle management in “CnthInthxyz, TACS, and Air Battle Management: The Search for Operational Doctrine.” Finally, Lt Col Terrie M. Gent explains the evolution and implications of Air Force operational law in her article “The Role of Judge Advocates in a Joint Air Operations Center: A Counterpoint of Doctrine, Strategy, and Law”—a particularly timely piece given the just-concluded Operation Desert Fox. With all the pundits holding forth on questions like the legality of targeting foreign leaders, it’s nice to know where to go for the real answers.

While any detailed discussion on the subject of Operation Desert Fox had best wait until more information is available, I do want to take a moment to talk about a few of the possible implications. It was an operation we may not be able or willing to repeat. We achieved surprise—tactically and especially politically—by turning deployment efforts and time lines to our advantage. In effect, the painfully established track record of past buildups helped disguise a global “sucker punch,” gratifying to administer but a ploy we may not be able to use again. Also, the lack of preparation cut both ways with some senior US leaders, to say nothing of foreign governments, expressing shock or dissent after the fact. Also important, and by no means assured in the future, was our ability to completely define scope and duration of the operation, Iraq being unwilling or incapable (apparently the latter) of engaging on anything other than our terms.

Relying largely on forces in place was also possible because of their lethality. The availability, integration, and effectiveness of precision-guided munitions (PGM) and cruise missiles represent a growing increase in our capabilities even over those of Operation Des-ert Storm. It was a success story, but one with associated questions and concerns about cost and numbers of precision weapons, and particularly standoff weapons. A related issue may be how much the concerns over the survivability of conventional aircraft may drive use of these weapons (both Air Force and Navy cruise missiles were launched in unprecedented numbers). Finally, as the key to our fielding of low-cost, all-weather PGMs, the denial or exploitation of the Global Positioning System by an adversary should correspondingly be a key concern.

Only time will tell whether this operation was the best or perhaps the least undesirable option available. Did we do enough damage to the right targets at the right time? Will it be worth the uncertain (as yet) effects on a moribund weapons inspections regime backed by the highly criticized sanctions? More telling, but even less certain, will be the unanswered (as yet) question, What now?

Whatever strategy we adopt, airpower will almost certainly play a significant role. If, as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright likes to say, “The US has become the indispensable nation” in dealing with crises around the world, then just as clearly US airpower has become the indispensable force in virtually any formula for doing so. Of course, that is no guarantee that it will be used wisely or well; that is for us to ensure through means great (establishing air expeditionary forces, fielding F-22s, developing joint airpower doctrine, etc.) and small (writing a letter to your professional journal). In the end, “interesting times” are what we will make of them.

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 ]