|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: Should the USAF be merged once again into the Army? |
 |
|
No poll. I'm looking for detailed and knowledgable posts. During WWII, the air force was a part of the Army. Even now, the Navy has its own air-wing. Why shouldn't the Army? And what of the old Strategic Air Command (SAC)?
Courtesy of Sec. Gates' layoffs, we revisit a nearly year-old article.
Abolish the Air Force
| Quote: |
Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post�September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.
But it's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Army already has its own aircraft units. Oh, and it has ships, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. In boots on the ground is the least advantageous way for the US to fight a war. Worse than that US soldiers become hostages to the enemy.
The US ought to begin a long process of taking missions that require large numbers of " boots on the ground" out of the play book entirely.
As I said before if the US is going to withdraw from Iraq then the US army is too big. I don't know why the democrats are talking about expanding the army. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No. In boots on the ground is the least advantageous way for the US to fight a war. Worse than that US soldiers become hostages to the enemy.
The US ought to begin a long process of taking missions that require large numbers of " boots on the ground" out of the play book entirely. |
Perhaps. But how effective has the Air Force been in winning a war on its lonesome? Could not the Navy handle such bombing missions just as effectively? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's fine for the USAF to be separate from the army. Just so long as they know they "ain't all that".
I think they could hand over the close support role over to the army.
The air force does get one thing right; the enlisted men stay behind and the officers go out to fight.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No. In boots on the ground is the least advantageous way for the US to fight a war. Worse than that US soldiers become hostages to the enemy.
The US ought to begin a long process of taking missions that require large numbers of " boots on the ground" out of the play book entirely. |
Perhaps. But how effective has the Air Force been in winning a war on its lonesome? Could not the Navy handle such bombing missions just as effectively? |
there will be missions that navy is not up to.
Without the airforce the US could not have any large scale air war.
The future of the airforce.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569339/US-plans-new-space-weapons-against-China.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
How about the navy gets absorbed by the Air force?
I think a better question is why the National Guard doesn't get absorbed by the Army.
What's up with sending the National Guard to Afghanistan and Iraq?
And if that's kosher, then why aren't we sending the Coast Guard to such places?
Yes, I know the NG was also sent to Vietnam, but that doesn't help explain why.
But the question seems a bit silly. Kind of like saying NASA should be a part of the US geological survey because the USGS uses planes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I think a better question is why the National Guard doesn't get absorbed by the Army.
|
Basically, the Second Amendment. The National Guard is to function as a military reserve under the control of state governors in case a president gets too enamored of his own godhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The air force does get one thing right; the enlisted men stay behind and the officers go out to fight. |
Except, of course, for those enlisted members who are flight crew. Fighter pilots aren't the only air crew.
| Quote: |
| I think a better question is why the National Guard doesn't get absorbed by the Army. |
In time of war or national emergency, the National Guard can and has been activated to fight alongside the Regular Army and Air Force.
| Quote: |
| And if that's kosher, then why aren't we sending the Coast Guard to such places? |
Here is some information for you about the USCG:
| Quote: |
In the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is both a military and a law enforcement organization. It is one of the seven components of the Uniformed services of the United States and one of the five elements of the United States Armed Forces.
During peacetime the USCG falls under the administration of the United States Department of Homeland Security. During wartime, the USCG may, at the direction of the President of the United States, report to the Secretary of the Navy but does not become part of the US Navy and is not part of the Department of Defense; however, its boats and cutters are integrated into U.S. military operations (see 14 U.S.C. � 3�4). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: My point: pertinant |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
But the question seems a bit silly. Kind of like saying NASA should be a part of the US geological survey because the USGS uses planes. |
The idea is that having an independent Air Force creates a bureaucratic need, rather than a strategic need, to employ the Air Force on bombing runs. For example, in an Iraqi-style occupation, the Air Force probably should not be employed, and if so minimally and with close co-ordination with the Army/Marines.
Also, having an independent Air Force means procuring F-22s that are not necessarily wanted. Its about pruning the military-industrial complex.
Edit: To reinforce the pertinancy of my question, Stratfor sent me something today:
*snippet*
| Stratfor wrote: |
Focusing on Present Conflicts
While Gates insisted that this was the immediate reason for the firings, he has sharply criticized the Air Force for failing to reorient itself to the types of conflict in which the United States is currently engaged. Where the Air Force leadership wanted to focus on deploying a new generation of fighter aircraft, Gates wanted them deploying additional unmanned aircraft able to provide reconnaissance and carry out airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are not trivial issues, but they are the tip of the iceberg in a much more fundamental strategic debate going on in the U.S. defense community. Gates put the issue succinctly when he recently said that "I have noticed too much of a tendency toward what might be called 'next-war-itis' -- the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict." This is what the firings were about.
Naturally, as soon as the firings were announced, there were people who assumed they occurred because these two were unwilling to go along with plans to bomb Iran. At this point, the urban legend of an imminent war with Iran has permeated the culture. But the Air Force is the one place where calls for an air attack would find little resistance, particularly at the top, because it would give the Air Force the kind of mission it really knows how to do and is good at. The whole issue in these firings is whether what the Air Force is good at is what the United States needs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The idea is that having an independent Air Force creates a bureaucratic need, rather than a strategic need, to employ the Air Force on bombing runs. For example, in an Iraqi-style occupation, the Air Force probably should not be employed, and if so minimally and with close co-ordination with the Army/Marines. |
Afghanistan is landlocked. There aren't even that many rivers there. A sliver of Iraq is connected to the ocean. I read your articles, and I really fail to see why all the arguments pertaining to the Air Force can't/ought not be leveled against the Navy.
Why not merge them all? Wouldn't that reduce bureaucracy even more?
| Quote: |
| Even now, the Navy has its own air-wing. Why shouldn't the Army? |
Are you sure they don't? The Marines have their own aviation program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My grandfather served in the Army Air Corp before it become what is now known as the Air Force. Certainly the option should be weighed carefully and they would have to look at it from a perspective beyond money (we know it likely would save a great deal, but would it be operationally prudent? Personally, I don't know the answer to that.) The suggestion to merge the Air Force and Navy would be an equally interesting question as well.
Anyone interested in the history of the Army Air Corp you can take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Corps |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do think that the distinction between fixed-wing aircraft (air force) and helicopter and light support aircraft (army) is an insufficient one. Aircraft should be assigned according to their combat roles. Certainly a plane like the SR-71 would always have been a strategic aircraft (its decommissioned now), and thus could exist in the replacement for the USAF, a new SAC.
However, there seems to me little reason for the A-10 Warthog to be in the air force (sure, maybe OA-10s should) when its primary combat mission is close-air support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do not forget that CIA ran the U-2 program from start to finish, as well as the first recon satellites. Eisenhower bypassed the Air Force for the bureaucratic and security problems it posed. CIA got the program up and running in a fraction of the time it would have taken the Air Force.
Also, there was some talk to unify the armed forces into a single service, going back as least as far as my own time in the military, but each branch, especially the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, carry their own traditions and will continue resisting this.
Truman's National Security Act (1947) created a unified high command (Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the Pentagon, falling under the Secretary of Defense/Department of Defense's jurisdiction in the executive branch) and a unified national security coordinating authority -- the NSC.
Major changes following 9/11 also occurred. But it is too soon to take account of these changes. We cannot say much, actually. New cabinet positions, departments, offices have appeared. The DCI no longer presides over the entire intelligence community but rather merely CIA.
It seems to take a war to drive such changes as this.
In any case, I do not think the Air Force is in danger of finding itself absorbed into the Army and Navy (and the Marine Corps remains a branch of the Navy, officially and in the budget), which does not sound unreasonable to me at first glance, even though proponents of this move ought to explain how they might handle and manage the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal and such other things the Air Force handles today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Proponents of this move ought to explain how they might handle and manage the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal and such other things the Air Force handles today. |
Easy. Leave behind the Air Force as United States Strategic Command. Strip the airforce of its fixed-wing air-surface and air-air combat capabilities and hand it over to the Army and Navy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
