Gates v. Air Force

One interesting Iraq-related subplot has been the escalating sniping between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Air Force over the latter's foot-dragging on making itself useful for the conflicts the United States is actually engaged in rather than building up for hypothetical great power conflicts. A new edition comes today with Gates chiding air force students at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this, because Gates is basically right on the merits, but the whole issue has gotten tied in with the merits of the war in Iraq in complicated and fairly contingent ways.

Comments

Gates complaining about the Air Force on an Air Force Base in front of the Air Force students? Why does Gates hate the troops?

Good grief if these guys are having some internal battle why can't they talk to each other or call a press conference?

What leadership.

Posted by BerkeleyMom | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM

Why is Gates chiding the air force for not being more involved in civil-humanitarian missions? The Air Force has two jobs, move stuff and destroy stuff. They don't need to start focusing on jobs that are best left to the core competencies of the army. You want more guys for ground missions, increase the size of the army. Don't try to adapt the hammer into a pair of pliers.

Posted by Helter | April 21, 2008 4:20 PM

To be fair, part of the job of the Air Force and the other services is to prepare for great power wars; the more prepared they are for these, the less chance we will have to fight one, because potential threats will be deterred. It should be possible for the Air Force to prepare for those sorts of wars while making itself useful in our current wars. The WaPo had an example of the Navy doing this, in their series last year on efforts to counter the IED threat. According to that article, a number of Navy officers skilled in electronic countermeasures were detailed to Iraq to help defend troops against remotely-triggered IEDs.

Posted by Fred | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM

In the absence of strategic bomber command, the Air Force's mission is exclusively to support the Army in its operations. There's no rational reason why we don't have an US Army Air Corps.

Posted by Punditus Maximus | April 21, 2008 4:40 PM

"Useful" is the key term.

TomDispatch argues that air power is almost uniformly UN-useful
in the type COIN affair taking place in Iraq. It may be that if the Air
Force is pre-occupied with great power wars,
it will be lobbing fewer bombs on civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by catclub | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM

Once we start bombing Iran, the Air Force will have much more to do.

Posted by fostert | April 21, 2008 5:16 PM

I found this part of the article to be very interesting, too:

In a question-and-answer session following his speech, Gates said he intends to talk about a related subject later today: dissent within military ranks. "Dissent is a sign of health in an organization, and particularly if it's done in the right way and respectfully and so on," he said.

"But people who dissent, who take a different view . . . are always at risk in their careers," he said, adding that "the biggest challenge for out-of-the-box thinking is the wisdom of the senior leader who sees the value of that kind of thinking and protects it and the people who do it."

Hmm...what do y'all think???

Posted by kristi | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM

You know, while he obviously hasn't been perfect, I've really felt that Robert Gates is the best thing to come out of the second Bush administration. He's taken the exact opposite tack as Rumsfeld on so many critical issues, and I think he's been a really strong leader for the armed services. And while he's backed the war in Iraq (natch, as no one can hold that position under this president without supporting said president's policies), it just seems to me he's done so a lot more honestly than I ever expected. He's pushed for some needed changes, he's criticized some bad stuff in the military, and he's been on the good side of a lot of the behind-the-scenes fights.

Posted by jbryan | April 21, 2008 5:43 PM

The Air Force is really useless as a separate branch of the service. Any mission that involves ground support can and should be done by the Army and Marines. I'm not seeing the unique skill set that is so unique that operating bombers requires it's own branch. Abolish the Air Force and split their intelligence and surveillance missions into NSA and CIA, and ops into the other branches.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 21, 2008 6:19 PM

Joejoejoe,

That's why the USAF is expanding, by creating the new 'Cybercommand'. The Air Force's mission now has been to control the 'space' of an area, whether it be air, space, or the newest requirement, communications. (Disclaimer: I am a network technician, active duty USAF.)

Also, the Air Force does have unique missions, such as AWACS (airborne command and control) and U2 (recon).

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 21, 2008 6:40 PM

Given that the Navy has its own planes, I don't understand why the Army doesn't as well. The exact thing that the Army wants is something the Air Force doesn't want: ground support in the form of drones and A-10 Thunderbolts. The A-10 is the most effective ground support fighter ever, and the Army loves it, while the Air Force keeps trying to eliminate it.

I don't see why the Air Force is threatened by the Army taking that over, when the Air Force has a demonstrable mission all its own: air superiority, strategic bombing, and now space.

Posted by Justin JJ | April 21, 2008 8:58 PM

Well I'm completely against more automation in war.

"It is well that war is so terrible or we would grow to fond of it."

Yes, I think it's better on balance if people risk their lives in war. Basically if all we have to worry about is the economic cost of robot planes/infantry than there's no incentive to not just conquer every one with a flood of robots.

...And then of course they turn on us.

Posted by MNPundit | April 21, 2008 9:32 PM

LnGrrR:

Also, the Air Force does have unique missions, such as AWACS (airborne command and control) and U2 (recon).

These missions are hardly unique. The Navy operates the E-2C, which has the exact same mission as the E-3, and U-2 recon? How much air-breathing recon are we really doing? Seriously, recon is done better by satellites these days.

The Air Force, as a service, is a conglomeration of missions with no particular unifying theme. Close air support is of interest only to the Army, and should be controlled by them. Air Force brass isn't that interested in that mission anyway - witness the fate of the A-10. Transportation: brass is not interested. Strategic missiles: brass is only interested insofar as it keeps the mission away from the Navy. Air superiority: the brass is very interested, but over land, this mission is only relevant as it pertains to enabling the Army, and should be controlled by them. Over water, the Navy already takes care of it. Big bombers: brass very interested, but this mission is fairly useless in the real world, and only relevant in terms of support to the Army, who should control it.

And none of this even mentions the fact that the Air Force, far more even than the other services, views its own aggrandizement as far more important than actual national defense - witness the nearly continual insubordination by Air Force leaders over the F-22.

The bottom line is that there's no downside and a lot of advantages to re-integrating the Air Force with the Army.

Posted by Sean Peters | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM

Sean,

I agree with most of your points, but there's no way you're getting the Air Force brass to meld back into the other services. I just couldn't feasibly see that happening. As well, the Air Force has developed its own culture, which would resist integration. Plus, reintegration would be somewhat hard to pull off now, with missions occurring, and would be more effectively accomplished in peacetime.

As far as big bombers, yes, they're rather pointless in the GWOT, but they would be useful in the 'classic' sense of warfare (ie. against a country rather than a non-state sponsored group). The problem, again, is that it's of less use in a GWOT campaign, because there aren't very many terrorist jets out there. The AF's effectiveness could be seen in the first Gulf War, for instance.

Finally, I think that lack of unifying theme is why the AF has turned to an idea of controlling the 'space' around a combat zone, whether it be physical or logistical. The AF is trying to position itself as the service to best ensure that troops on the ground will be able to deal with enemies without harassment.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 21, 2008 11:51 PM

If I were dictator, I'd give the Army the A-10s, especially if the Air Force doesn't want them.

Posted by Fred | April 22, 2008 12:00 AM

joejoejoe - The Air Force is really useless as a separate branch of the service. Any mission that involves ground support can and should be done by the Army and Marines. I'm not seeing the unique skill set that is so unique that operating bombers requires it's own branch.

The AF exists to move stuff and destroy stuff AND gain air supremacy over conventional battlespaces. Refer to the German, Jap, and Vietnamese reports that losing air supremacy to America cost them a 10-fold increase in casualties from what they would have had if Americans had not controlled the air in the latter stages of WWII, Korea, Vietnam.

Same in the Gulf and Iraq War (conventional phase).

Space and cyber war are new battlespace dimensions that the US must prepare for and be ready to dominate in wartime.
It is foolish to believe that the only credible military threat the US faces is some Muslim fanatic holed up with an IED or an AK-47, therefore we no longer need a modern military geared to fight technologically sophisticated foes as well as Jihadis with a 6th grade education.

Sean Peters - The Air Force, as a service, is a conglomeration of missions with no particular unifying theme.

Incorrect. It is to control the battlespace above the ground for a variety of offensive, defensive, and logistical purposes. The Army & Marines, land and littoral. The Navy the seas - with the usual Navy side missions like "projecting carrier air power" to land, "humaitarian rescue", when not occupied with primary purpose of Naval Air to sink enemy ships and subs and destroy key coastal targets.
The AF has it's core mission well understood.

An argument can be made that direct ground support might be something that should be given and budgeted to the Army, as the Marines come with their own close air support and enough time in Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War to show its positives and negatives vs. the Army only having helos.
IMO, a strong case can be made for Army getting the old A-10s or a better close air replacement - possibly an unmanned aircraft - plus control over funding and assigning personnel to fly unmanned drones in support of Army mission. Which would be an ideal way to keep maimed, but highly motivated and able Army guys missing a limb in critical service with a meaningful career. Not all may be suitable to replace the AF princes and princesses flying those things from a rear base or even Stateside - but enough Army guys can likely hack it, even with battlefield or terrorist-inflicted disabilities rather than be separated against their will because they can no longer physically be a front-line warrior.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 22, 2008 2:03 AM

If I remember correctly, there was some sort of political compromise when the USAF first became an independent command that forbade the Army from posessing fixed wing aircraft.

Every so often, someone points out how silly this restriction is, but no one does anything about it, because the Army's air command is too invested in helicopters and the Air Force doesn't want anybody encroaching on its mission. (That the navy gets planes is bad enough).

Posted by heedless | April 22, 2008 2:09 AM