Air University Review, July-August 1984
AS I READ the quotations in last issue's "The Review Invites Comments," I was reminded of Lieutenant Colonel Timothy E. Kline's article titled "Where Have All the Mitchells Gone?" in the May-June 1982 Air University Review and was prompted to reread it. The article induced sadness--and frustration approaching despair--because Colonel Kline felt it necessary to implore our service to seek self-criticism and visionary thinking from within its own ranks. Regrettably, the informed and constructive dissent that created U.S. air power is rarely tolerated today. Obviously, disagreements can create problems and produce discord; but, as Kline alludes, without the great dissenters ("Billy" Mitchell, "Hap" Arnold, Ira Eaker, "Tooey" Spaatz, and others), there well might not be an independent Air Force today.
What possessed these men to dissent and to adhere to their convictions? And what allowed them to "get away with it"? They were possessed by a vision of air power and its potential, and they were frustrated by those who did not share their vision. Most of all, they were willing to risk their careers for what they believed.
Not all of them "got away with it" free of hassles and ordeals. Mitchell was courtmartialed. Only later was he placed on a pedestal as one who was willing to sacrifice his career for what he believed. Fortunately, Arnold, Spaatz, and Eaker survived in military service despite their testimonies on Mitchell's behalf. Others manifested dissent in other ways. Frank Andrews, "Hal" George, and "Possum" Hansell placed their careers on the line as they developed and taught a doctrine contrary to U.S. Army policy at the old Air Corps Tactical School. These men too hold honored positions in our history. Without their visions and their willingness to speak out for what they believed, air power might not have turned the skies of World War II into a medium for the enemy's destruction. At the very least, America's progress in air power would have been greatly delayed.
When Kline asks where all the Mitchells have gone, he is actually querying, "Where are the men who are willing to speak out on controversial issues?" He answers his own question when he indicates that they will not speak out today because they learned the wrong lesson from the Mitchell saga: the lesson of court-martial or damaged career. Thus, a great many potential "Mitchells" in today's Air Force are silenced by fear of retribution. Others are mute in anticipation of frustration and failure. New or controversial ideas about policy, strategies, tactics, or weapons are rarely welcomed; more often, they are stonewalled or ignored.
Why should a service that reveres leaders who openly defied the establishment of their time stifle such "defiance" (i.e., innovative thinking) today? Have we forgotten that without contrary thought, many of the great advances in military art and science would not have come to fruition? Does one not shiver ever so slightly to think that the armored warfare ideas of Fuller and Liddell Hart, the air power theories of Mitchell and the other Air Corps rebels, and Rickover's concept of a nuclear Navy could all have ended up in the dustbin of history? Has today's Air Force bureaucracy replaced the "villainous" Army of Mitchell's era in seeking to eliminate controversy? I think not--not knowingly, anyway.
But perhaps we have unknowingly allowed ourselves to bank slightly in the direction of unwarranted censorship. And if so, why?
One reason for reluctance to examine ourselves critically and to suggest corrective approaches and innovative actions may be the impact that the media have on our psyche in the contemporary world. Have we fallen into the "Ozzie and Harriet" syndrome, where family relations are mostly peaches and cream? Heated arguments can present untidy scenes to our public. Such scenes might require both explanation and resolution, which require time, a commodity in short supply on senior staffs. Unfortunately, the tyranny of the "in basket" leaves little time for reflection, study, and debate. Hence, an article that could stir up debate tends to prompt publication denial, and the new idea that might demand time for examination and analysis (or even for a sound rebuttal) tends to invite quick rejection.
This criticism is not meant to castigate the system but to serve simply as a reminder. Had controversial ideas, concepts, tactics, doctrine, and policies been swept under the carpet in the past, not only might we not now have a United States Air Force, we might not have a United States to serve. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams were all classified as revolutionaries, radicals, and even traitors by one source or another. Have we forgotten our proud history?
We cannot deny our heritage--we dare not suppress informed debate, lest we place both the Air Force and the nation in jeopardy some day in the future. Restriction on informed public debate should never be exercised lightly or without genuine cause. We must keep in mind that bureaucratic malaise in the Air Force could become the sharpest arrow that our nation's future enemies find in their quiver. To Colonel Kline, I would say that the "Mitchells" are still here--they lack only a free forum for their ideas.
Center for Aerospace Doctrine,
Research, and Education
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Major Nelson is a Research Fellow at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Air University.
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.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor