Bombs Away

Kingdaddy wonders why there's an active duty two star Air Force general who's running around to various publications saying we should bomb Iran as a key element of our counterinsurgency toolkit. In my non-expert view, this probably has something to do with the fact that the Air Force as an institutions seems very friendly to crazy people. Any organization that Thomas McInerney could have a successful career in has some problems.

(Or, to put this more fairly, the classic American strategic error of the contemporary era is having too much faith in firepower in general and in air power in particular; in some sense, Air Force personnel are the ones who are best-positioned to see the problem here, but anyone who sees the situation accurately is unlikely to succeed in the Air Force's professional context which is going to be biased in favor of individuals who are strong believers in the utility of air power)

Comments

I think we should abolish the Air Force and fold the necessary functions back into the Army Air Corps.

The Air Force as it currently exists has an extremely bad track record; as Matt points out, they persist in believing in the omnipotence of "strategic bombing" despite the utter failure of that tactic in all wars from World War II onward. Plus, they're full of fundamentalist wingnuts who want to start Armageddon and as such are an active danger to the Republic. Time to ground 'em.

Posted by Josh G. | August 14, 2007 8:18 AM

It's the legacy of Gen. Curtis "Bomb 'em back to the stone age" LeMay.

.

Posted by spork_incident | August 14, 2007 8:21 AM

I think we should abolish the Air Force and fold the necessary functions back into the Army Air Corps.

Well, the Air Force is unconstitutional, anyway:

"The Congress shall have power . . .

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . .

It doesn't say anything about an Air Force.

Too bad we don't have any strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, or something might be done about this . . .

Posted by rea | August 14, 2007 8:44 AM

Yeah, you have to remember the conception of the Air Force was an act of mass murder. it was the "success" of the strategic bombing raids on Germany and Japan that led the creation of an independent Air Force. The flyboys claimed they won the war, when in truth it was the Soviet Army that beat the Germans and the US Navy's submarines that starved Japan out.

At any rate, the missions the Air Force did do well in World War II was supporting ground troops (providing air supremacy and close air support)-- didn't help them in their battle for independence, they wanted to operate strategic bombers, interceptors (i.e. fast, unmaneuverable fighters designed to shoot down enemy bombers) and, later, ICBMs.

The trouble is, there is no need for nuclear bombers or ground based nuclear missiles, the basis of our nuclear deterrence is the Navy submarine fleet. The subs are virtually invulnerable from a first strike attack and they can put nuclear missiles on any target on earth with absolute accuracy (the GPS system was built for Trident sub missile targeting). On the other side, the Navy, or rather Navy Department, does the AF's old core competencies better as well. The Navy can provide air superiority without causing political difficulties with basing issues (a big deal in the Middle East) and the Marine Corp's Air Wings are absolutely superior at providing close air support. Of course the Marines require its fighter pilots, like every officer, to go through 6 months of infantry training (incidentally, that's more than the Army requires of its infantry officers) so everyone feels like they're on the same time.

So what does that mean? Don't fold the Air Force back into the Army, fold the Air Force into the Navy. While we're at it, fold the Army into the Marines.

Posted by beowulf | August 14, 2007 8:58 AM

I was just about to comment that we should probably consider getting rid of the air force, but it seems like everyone already beat me too it. I'd be curious to know if there's more general agreement about the idea.

Posted by TW Andrews | August 14, 2007 9:18 AM

I'd be curious to know if there's more general agreement about the idea.

I believe that there's a pretty longstanding strain of thought, both among critics of specific wars and among members from other services, that argues that the Air Force is inclined to write checks that another service ends up paying. I'm not sure if that's what's motivating the belief that the AF ought to go.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 14, 2007 9:23 AM

> The flyboys claimed they won the war, when
> in truth it was the Soviet Army that beat the
> Germans

While I agree that Harris and Spaaz took far too much credit, it is also a fact that by 1944 the Germans had 1.5 million men tied up in their anti-aircraft, night fighter, and firefighting units. And they were all men since unlike the British the Germans never allowed women to work in anti-aircraft units. These units also had somewhere around 6000 dedicated 88mm anti-aircraft guns, which had turned out to be the Germans' most effective anti-tank guns but were therefore not available on the front (and were using up masses of shells). Finally, while it was no precision effort, and nowhere as effective as Harris claimed, the burning of industrial areas and their surrounding cities wasn't doing the German production effort any good either.

Particularly since in the 1941-1943 period there wasn't much else the British (and later the US) could do to bring the fight TO Germany it wasn't a totally wasted effort. Whether (a) more attention should have been paid to close air support (b) the Air Force should today be given back to the Army are also good questions.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 14, 2007 9:31 AM

"LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He...and I'd say I...were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

-- Robert McNamara, in Fog of War

Posted by croatoan | August 14, 2007 10:25 AM

" the classic American strategic error of the contemporary era is having too much faith in firepower in general and in air power in particular"

I think we were getting that message when our fighting in the Balkans set us back a bit. Lost in the "victory with zero combat casualties" fog was the fact that there was a large force on the ground fighting. They just weren't our guys.

Posted by Njorl | August 14, 2007 10:33 AM

Cranky,

Those are all good points, especially how the Germans wasted their female manpower so terribly. They could have freed a lot of men to fight (to use the old slogan) by using women for antiaircraft, civil defense and war production work. As it happens, German war production was higher in 1944 than in 1942. Hitler's architect turned production minister, Albert Speer turned out to be an industrial genius. No doubt, strategic bombings stopped Speer from being even more successful. I would just argue the necessary and sufficient condition to defeating Germany without nukes was the Red Army.

To get back to beating up on the Air Force, the most interesting development in airpower in recent decades has been the use of cruise missiles and drones. The Air Force didn't want them (they don't train all those pilots to sit at a computer console). It wasn't until the Navy took an interest in sea launched cruise missiles that the Air Force starting putting them on B-52s and it wasn't until the CIA started using armed Predator drones in Afghanistan that the Air Force decided they wanted in on that game as well.

Of course, they still want Air Force Academy grads to stay employed. The Air Force requires all drones to be controlled by trained officer pilots. The other three services have their drones controlled by enlisted technicians.

The Marines have a saying-- the Navy is a bunch of pansies, the Army is worse and the Air Force is barely on our side. That's not fair to the Navy or Army, but the bit about the Air Force has the ring of truth.

Posted by beowulf | August 14, 2007 10:35 AM

Re SomeCallMeTim's comment "I believe that there's a pretty longstanding strain of thought, both among critics of specific wars and among members from other services, that argues that the
Air Force is inclined to write checks that another service ends up paying "
-----------

That's because many Air Force Officers -- outside of a few fighter pilots -- rarely see combat.
For example, here is an Air Force Major General who -- in a 35 year career -- has never been near a battlefield: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=4544

I've worked with Army , Navy, and Air Force personnel. I wouldn't trust a General/Admiral of any branch --and no Air Force officer above the rank of First Lieutenant. I'd trust an Army officer up to the rank of Full Colonel and Navy officers lower in rank than Rear Admiral.

When you have to personally send men to die -- and have to go into battle leading men and depending upon those men not to run -- you tend to develop an institutional code of strong integrity and loyalty. The Army has this. In a more authoritarian way, the Navy does as well.

In fairness, it should be noted that Politicans don't like integrity. So they lure military men into a trap -- they dangle a promise of early retirement, lure men into making extraordinary sacrifices and servive for 15 years with very little pay -- and then point out that said military man has very little savings beyond retirement pay and that said retirement pay can be taken away by dumping the officer from service before he has in his 20 years. Which is why the military term for making a politically incorrect stand on principle is called "falling on your sword".

Posted by Don Williams | August 14, 2007 10:44 AM

The flyboys claimed they won the war, when in truth it was the Soviet Army that beat the Germans and the US Navy's submarines that starved Japan out.

Er, Hiroshima?

Posted by ajay | August 14, 2007 11:12 AM

"A 100% effective US submarine blockade had decisively defeated Japan by June 1944; it could have been starved into submission, a staple tactic of siege warfare. Japan was unable to grow enough rice to feed its large population. Once Japan’s food ran perilously low, hunger would have forced to surrender. Instead, the US chose to carpet bomb Japan, killing over 500,000 civilians."

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2005/08/antijapanese_fu.php

Posted by beowulf | August 14, 2007 1:42 PM

"The flyboys claimed they won the war, when in truth it was the Soviet Army that beat the Germans and the US Navy's submarines that starved Japan out.

Er, Hiroshima?"

Even before Hiroshima, it was already a question of when, not if, the Japanese would surrender. By the time of either Yalta or Potsdam (can't remember which) we had already intercepted Japanese military communications saying that if the Allies offered them a conditional surrender that allowed them to keep the emperor, they would take it. Apparently Truman thought this was fine, but either Churchill or Stalin disagreed and it is unknown who decided that unconditional surrender would be the Allies' stance.

Posted by Reality Man | August 14, 2007 2:19 PM

The Red Army's lunge into Manchuria scared the shit out of the Japanese, too. Maybe as much or more than the atomic bombs.

Posted by sglover | August 14, 2007 3:40 PM

The Red Army and the Bomb scared the Emperor into finally coming out on the side of Togo and Suzuki against the generals on the Imperial Cabinet, in Hirohito's words "to bear the unbearable" and surrender.

Even after this, Imperial Army troops almost overran the palace in Tokyo to intercept the transmission and hold the Emperor as an effective prisoner in order to continue the war. The IJA command was still very much in favor of fighting.

The Navy and the Civilians thought they were nuts, but the two nukes gave them enough pause to allow for a peace.

In fact, the Air Force was obsolete as soon as the second bomb was dropped. Any future strategic attack (what others have rightly tagged as the USAF's reason for existence) would leave both parties obliterated.

What would have made more sense than an air force would be to have only a SAC or Strategic Rocket Forces like the Sovs, and then leave the rest of the functions in with the Army.

Posted by Greg | August 14, 2007 7:53 PM

Uh, the history lessons are nice, but let's get back to the real issue here - Iran.

Most analysts agree that bombing Iran would a) not stop their nuclear energy (note: NOT nuclear weapons) program; b) kill a lot of Iranian civilians, especially if nuclear bunker busters were used (and Bush has not ruled them out.)

This puts the US directly on course for YET ANOTHER major war crime conviction by history.

As for the notion that bombing another country has ANYTHING to do with counter-insurgency, let alone effectively dealing with an insurgency, one word: Vietnam.

You can either argue that the South Vietnamese insurgency was ineffective, leading to the presence of the North Vietnamese Army in Vietnam as a "conventional" war, or you can argue that the North Vietnamese were conducting an "insurgency" in South Vietnam, but either way, bombing North Vietnam didn't work.

If the US bombs Iran, that war will unfold in two stages:

First, the Iranians will bomb everything the US has in Iraq and the Gulf with as much accuracy as their missile systems allow, since their agents have GPS'd the exact coordinates.

Second, the Iranians will use their most sophisticated hardware to try to drop one or more the US Navy's ships in the Gulf. Whether they will be successful in sinking one of our carriers is up for debate, but it's not impossible. "Swarm" tactics with anti-ship missiles is not something the US Navy has encountered before, I think.

Third, although it is unlikely, Iran could roll into southern Iraq and try to roll up as much of the US forces there as feasible before they are inevitably bombed back across the border by the Air Force.

Fourth, the Iranians will use their agents - estimated to be the scores of thousands - in Iraq and the Iraqi Shia militias, to cut the US supply lines from Kuwait. Within ninety days, this means the US forces in Iraq have no food, water, fuel, or ammunition to prosecute a war against Iran.

Fifth, even assuming the US pulls out of Iraq into Saudi Arabia and then tries to invade Iran through Iraq into Khuzestan (to seize the oil fields there which is the point of the whole war), the Iranians will use what is left of their military (by now bombed into disarray - along with maybe 100,000 of their civilians) to conduct Hizballah guerrilla tactics against the US forces.

They can keep that going for the next ten years or more, bleeding the US militarily, economically and geopolitically to death.

Where in any of that is the US Air Force going to be useful except in wiping out any significant concentration of Iran forces and hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians?

Where in any of that is the US Air Force bombing Iran going to be useful in counter-insurgency - In Iraq, let alone Iran?

So why does this Air Force General still have a job is my question, I guess? Somebody this idiotic should be fired. Obviously he isn't because he's been told to do this by Cheney and the neocons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 14, 2007 9:34 PM

"While I agree that Harris and Spaaz took far too much credit, it is also a fact that by 1944 the Germans had 1.5 million men tied up in their anti-aircraft, night fighter, and firefighting units. And they were all men since unlike the British the Germans never allowed women to work in anti-aircraft units. These units also had somewhere around 6000 dedicated 88mm anti-aircraft guns, which had turned out to be the Germans' most effective anti-tank guns but were therefore not available on the front (and were using up masses of shells). Finally, while it was no precision effort, and nowhere as effective as Harris claimed, the burning of industrial areas and their surrounding cities wasn't doing the German production effort any good either."

But the casualty rate in the Air Force was high: each 88 hit took down a plane with ten airmen onboard, and these ten had far more training than a tanker or infantryman. There were better ways of fighting the kind of attritional warfare you describe, not least conventional ground war with good close air support.

Posted by carrington ward | August 15, 2007 11:25 AM