Althouse: "The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex."

September 12, 2014

"The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex."

"It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone."

72 comments:

exhelodrvr1 said...: Kerry said, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."; 9/12/14, 8:24 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: If you're really serious, air power provides the opportunity for an appropriate level of commitment. The issue is using air power when we're not really serious, and then leaving after a short period without following up. Then you get Benghazi, followed by Libya 2014.; 9/12/14, 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: It also endangers the purity of your essence.; 9/12/14, 8:29 PM
rhhardin said...: Air power isn't a strategy. It's a tactic.

Obama has no strategy.; 9/12/14, 8:37 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Probably why the UK and Germany won't assist in Syria.; 9/12/14, 8:37 PM
F said...: rhhardin: RIGHT ON! Absolutely agree. On both counts.; 9/12/14, 8:47 PM
Hagar said...: I think the "allies in the region" are going to wait to see what he U.S. is actually going to do, and Obama will wait to see what they are going to do, so nothing much is going to get done by anybody.; 9/12/14, 8:55 PM
Phil 314 said...: I presume the speaker knew more about air power than casual sex.; 9/12/14, 9:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/12/14, 9:02 PM
traditionalguy said...: It takes an invasion force of young men to kill their men and bring their women home as war brides.; 9/12/14, 9:04 PM
Hagar said...: The trouble with "leading from behind" is that all those you are trying to lead will try to get behind you, so the result rarely is any kind of forwrd motion.; 9/12/14, 9:16 PM
madAsHell said...: Obama is the re-iteration of all the policies that have failed in the past. It is proof that he is not very fucking bright.; 9/12/14, 9:17 PM
Alexander said...: Air power has never been decisive.

If it's not been decisive against countries dependent on large, well-mapped, and stationary infrastructure to maintain their logisitcs and supply, it's not going to be decisive (or particularly effective) against a group whose style of warfare is little evolved from nomadic hoards.

We can't wreck their economy. We can't blow up their munitions factories. We can't destroy their farms. We can't blow up their dams. We can't even carpetbomb their cities and assume that must harm *something*.

We can't even meaningfully destroy supply depots, because even if by chance we find some and blow it up, they'll just buy weapons off the groups we are funding or else take them the next time they rout one of the 'professional' forces they go up against.

That being said, there's a simple solution here. Don't let the camel get his nose in the tend, and you don't have to worry about the hump and the hooves. Stop all immigration from the Arab world immediately, ship back anyone you don't risk a constitutional crisis by expelling, and criminalize asset transfers and travel to the appropriate countries. Then who cares what they do to each other in their own sandbox?

Yeah, I know... we gotta be willing to let Americans die there so they don't die here. It's the American's duty to protect to the death every border from the Ukraine to Korea... every border except the one running from Brownsville to San Diego.; 9/12/14, 9:19 PM
Hagar said...: There iss a story about Eisenhower in Normandy that the Air Corps guys were importuning him to let them provide close in air support.
Ike finally gave in and let them have a go at it, and they killed about 1,300 GI's, but very few if any Germans, and Ike told them never to speak to him again about close in air support.; 9/12/14, 9:21 PM
Paul said...: Folks let me tell you what is gonna happen.

The Arab armies are of the Soviet model. NCOs have no power. Officers call all the shots and the officers are picked by there RELIABILITY to the regime and not competence.

Many are princes and other royalty and don't know shit.

So these will be the 'boots on the ground'. Ok.

And air power and drones? Well Biden's drone war (no wait, I mean... anti-terrorist campaign) failed to destroy Al Queda or even 'seriously degrade' it. And so this is gonna be our air assets?

Well it don't look so good, does it? Now I hear the Generals told Obama to use U.S. GIs for the ground and he overruled it. Overruled it like he did with the 'surge' in Afghanistan.

So I suspect the whole thing will drag on a year and then Obama and Co. will leave, regardless of the state of ISIS or anyone else.

And that means the Arab countries will then be at the mercy of wildly fanatical Muslims who will behead anyone the deem needs it.

And then alot of the worlds oil supply will be in the hands of nutso Muslims.

Sleep tight!; 9/12/14, 9:21 PM
Paul said...: Alexander,

Air power has been decisive once, actually twice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And it did bring down the Japanese Government.

But I doubt we will use nukes. Or at least Obama would use nukes. He will just leave this 'mess' for the next President.; 9/12/14, 9:25 PM
Alexander said...: It was the atomic bomb that was decisive, not the plane.

The devastation wrought by 'traditional' air power did more damage to Japan than the nuclear attacks did.

Aircraft are evolved artillery. Julius Caesar never claimed he would conquer Gaul with lots and lots of Ballistae.; 9/12/14, 9:37 PM
The Godfather said...: I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think President Obama has the slightest intention of destroying the Islamic State. He'll keep up the pretense through the elections and (to save face) a little while beyond that. Then he'll pass the word to the Iraqi government to cut a deal with the IS, and they will, because the US is cutting out.

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG BARRACK!; 9/12/14, 9:42 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094846/; 9/12/14, 10:03 PM
William said...: From Eisenhower through Obama we have tried a variety of different tactics with the Arab world. Some have been worse than others, but all have been failures. The Arab world is so irrevocably fucked up that there is nothing we can do that will matter. A stand off air campaign will not work, but it has the saving grace of not risking American lives.....At no point in the past 4,000 years of recorded history has the Middle East been a good place for anyone to live, and that includes the Caliph and his entourage. The whole place has sucked since the dawn of time,; 9/12/14, 10:57 PM
Jay Vogt said...: ...He laid out a four-part comprehensive strategy to combat ISIS: first, to continue airstrikes against ISIS targets; secondly, to send more American service members into Iraq to help Iraqis combat the threat posed against their people (though Obama emphasized the troops aren’t there on combat missions), as well as providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition: thirdly, to “prevent ISIL attacks” in the first place by cutting it off at the knees; and fourth, to continue sending humanitarian assistance to civilians “displaced” by ISIS...."

A list of tactics does not add up to a strategy. That's just not how it works.; 9/12/14, 11:09 PM
D. B. Light said...: A friend of mine, retired Air Force, tells me that watching an AC-130A Spectre Gunship in action is indeed better than sex.; 9/13/14, 12:48 AM
Achilles said...: Something changed in January 2009 while I was in one of those shitholes over there. Not sure why but they started throwing more of us in jail than them. Almost as if the people in charge saw us as more of a threat than the taliban. And strangely enough things started going bad for us. Unexpectedly!; 9/13/14, 12:50 AM
Brando said...: Turkey wants nothing to do with this. Considering ISIS is right next door to them, and they should have the most interest in defeating them, what does this say about our plan?; 9/13/14, 5:06 AM
Saint Croix said...: "The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex."

It's not just commitment. With air power, you don't have to recognize humanity. Who is more likely to kill an innocent baby, a soldier or some guy dropping a bomb from a plane?

And who is more likely to kill an innocent baby, a father or some guy who doesn't remember your name?; 9/13/14, 6:06 AM
tim maguire said...: Has air power alone ever gotten the job done? I'm not a historian, but I play one in the library and I know of no example where a battle (let alone a war) was won with air power alone.; 9/13/14, 6:08 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Why does anyone think it will work? Did we forget the Iraq War happened?; 9/13/14, 6:16 AM
james conrad said...: You are not going to defeat an army that controls territory with air power alone. You are going to have to go house by house, block by block with troops, there is no other way.
Didn't general Petraeus already do this in the Sunni areas of Iraq? Obama basically pissed away the gains made when he pulled out of Iraq.
The notion that Kurdish peshmerga fighters will pursue ISIS outside their area of control is fantasy, ditto Shia fighters outside southern Iraq.; 9/13/14, 6:32 AM
Cornroaster said...: One of the most important things to realize about Hayden's comments is that he came from an Air Force background before moving into his slot as Director of the NSA. Anyone who was a four star general in the Air Force who makes such comments about air power should indeed be taken very seriously.; 9/13/14, 6:46 AM
Saint Croix said...: A victim of air power or a victim of casual sex?

As queen Hillary once said, what difference does it make? As the Romans like to say, it has been decided.; 9/13/14, 6:50 AM
traditionalguy said...: Obama has a plan. He plans for the world to become a Muslim society where the evening call to prayer soothes him, just like it used to do for his father and grandfathers in Kenya.

To achieve his dream he must slowly eiminate the USA's Military's power along with its traditional will to fight and win. That requires an elimination financial strength by eliminating the USA's cheap energy sources under cover of a quack science that beneficial co2 is pollution. Finally he must eliminate popular support for victory from the American voters by overriding their House of Representatives using voter dilution with central american peasants walking here across a missing border.

Obama is close to victory.

.; 9/13/14, 7:13 AM
Hagar said...: I think just last year there were stories about the State Department building the world's largest embassy compound in Baghdad.
Tens of thousands of State Dept. employees were to be stationed there.

What has happened to all that?; 9/13/14, 7:26 AM
Annie said...: ^^ What traditionalguy said.^^

From RoE to who he arms or gives aid, or sides with politically, it's always been with the Muslim Brotherhood. They're his advisors (and Hillary's aid).

Everything else he does is to weaken us domestically and go after anyone who dare say anything about it.; 9/13/14, 7:31 AM
PB said...: Often those who compare things to casual sex have little experience in the matter.

I think limited engagement is fine, but it won't eradicate the insurgency, only slow it down. The most important part of defending against a terrorist threat is to make the homeland safe by securing the border and combing through all illegal immigrants to rapidly deport all terrorists, sympathizers, and criminals.; 9/13/14, 7:45 AM
Jaq said...: Air power is always decisive on the battlefield. The Japanese thought their 15 inch guns, which they built in violation of a treaty they signed, were going to carry the day. Then the aircraft carrier appeared. They also thought that their advantage in optics and "night vision" were decisive, until radar guided naval guns appeared on the Allies side.

None of that stuff is going to work any better in this war, than the last war's super technologies worked for the Axis in WWII.

The problem is that to win a war that is fought on the battlefield alone, you need a cultural ability to accept defeat and move on. The Japanese had this, the Germans and Italians had this. Americans would likely have accepted defeat, had it happened, the move Red Dawn notwithstanding.

Bin Laden included the Reconquista as a grievance behind 9-11. It is said that there are still Muslim families in North Africa that pass down the keys to lost estates in Spain.

We have been fighting this foe since the Marine Corps, (That is "corpse" to Obama) was founded, since Jefferson, and the Marines were founded to fight this war. "Leatherneck" refers to wearing a band around the neck to prevent.. wait for it, the Muslim's favorite form of killing, decapitation with a sword in battle. The Marine Hymn refers to the "shores of Tripoli."

All we can do is grant them the wish to die for Allah in large numbers, and take some of the shine off of the cause for their young men. This will keep the infection down for a while.; 9/13/14, 7:53 AM
Hagar said...: I do think the State Dept. is at the bottom of a lot of our problems. I think the leadership at State - and generally the social class from which it is drawn - have some vision of the Moslem Brotherhood, etc. as "agrarian reformers" that should be supported - and they do.; 9/13/14, 8:13 AM
stlcdr said...: Not only air power, but ....drones.

He will argue that, when a shit ton of innocent people (sic) die, it wasn't us it was a drone - a non-human.

When the opposition figure out how to bring down drones effectively, we lose a shit ton of hardware and the associated monetary cost, but are innocent of any wrong doing as we were not, and never were, there.; 9/13/14, 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: National will is the most potent weapon in war. This administration has none of the visceral commitment that war takes. It's a late night dorm room bull session.; 9/13/14, 8:45 AM
Rusty said...: Only once, as far as I know. The battle of the Coral Sea. The ships involved never made contact with each other. The carrier planes from both sides fought the battle.
But war on land always involves soldiers on the ground. It has been and will always be the only way to be sure that the objectives are met.

When the fear us there will be peace.; 9/13/14, 9:23 AM
Michael K said...: "Ike finally gave in and let them have a go at it, and they killed about 1,300 GI's, but very few if any Germans, and Ike told them never to speak to him again about close in air support."

Actually, close air support, which means having forward air controllers present with the troops, was very effective. The P 47s and P 51s devastated German tanks especially.

What killed the GIs was bombing by B 17s from high altitude with no use of the FAC. What Clinton did in Kosovo was high altitude bombing without FAC as he did not want to chance any casualties. When troops were allowed to patrol in a very limited fashion, they were not allowed ammunition or to shoot back and so a few were captured and held as hostages.

That is the likely pattern that Obama will adopt.; 9/13/14, 9:27 AM
traditionalguy said...: Point of order: Air power alone cannot defeat a land based Army. It is combined arms of air, land and sea that wins everytime. No two alone does it.; 9/13/14, 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: rhhardin: A hypothetical:

Let's say your political, ideological, and moral commitments believed any use of American force and boots on the ground was an act of injustice, a violation of peace ideals, and an affront to the right of other oppressed peoples to decide their own fates through activism, self-determination and 'international cooperation' which is fast becoming your winged unicorn.

This rather radical stance could put you at odds with much of the logic any President would face, many institutions and traditions around you.

In order to find sympathetiques, you might have to field a jayvee squad of model U.N types and pliant young people who 'get' your vision and understand your 'comfort zone,' the same types who worked on your campaigns.

You might delegate a lot and rely on others to do the heavy lifting and perhaps even show up late to the party sometimes, because you were at some other party. You would be splitting the difference and constantly hedging your bets, appear to be 'leading from behind' as it were.

You would keep shrinking and shrinking until you nearly disappeared. The fog displaying your image evaporationg before everyone's eyes.

And yet no one appreciated your hard choices and compromises, your 'transparency' and your pragmatism in getting Bin Laden, using drones and such. Some loyalists would probably always stay with you, many black folks, activists, faculty loungers, fellow travelers and liberals closely aligned enough with your ideals; those in the media who invested so much of their careers and reputations in the idea of your transcendence..

The world just wouldn't be ready for your abilities.; 9/13/14, 9:56 AM
Hagar said...: Not the way I remember this incident described. It was about close, close-in air support where the Allies and the Germans were in contact with small-arms fire.
No heavy bombers involved.; 9/13/14, 10:05 AM
Hagar said...: This was in Normandy and the GI's were attacking entrenched Germans, and the attacks were bogging down.; 9/13/14, 10:11 AM
glenn said...: I don't have a problem with boots on the ground as long as the people wearing the boots aren't hamstrung by rules of engagement that prevent them from shooting known enemies. And are equipped with firearms that will kill people. Since we don't or won't give the troops either let's send the Air Force.; 9/13/14, 10:18 AM
Hagar said...: War is a serious business.
Mr. Obama and his team are not serious people.; 9/13/14, 10:45 AM
Fen said...: Its a bit of a lie too. All those laser-guided bombs? Who points the laser to guide them? Who paints the target? Boots on the ground.; 9/13/14, 10:51 AM
Michael K said...: Hagar, the incident is well reported in all histories of D day. The troops were about to jump off at St Lo and B 17s were bombing the German positions before the assault. General McNain was observing when the smoke that was used to mark the line of the German front began to drift back over the front lines of the US. The B 17s were using the smoke, not FACs, to determine their targets and they bombed the front US lines killing McNair and hundreds of US troops.

Here is an account from a B 26 bombardier who was in the mission that killed McNair.

The attack involved air B-17 and B-24 Heavy Bombers, all our B-26 Marauders, and all our fighters, the P-38, P-47, and P-51 Groups. The British Royal Air Force furnished their heavy bombers and fighters. More than five thousand aircraft participated in this operation. At the time it was the largest air strike ever ordered.

No mention of any communication with the ground.; 9/13/14, 11:00 AM
Drago said...: Dale Light said...
A friend of mine, retired Air Force, tells me that watching an AC-130A Spectre Gunship in action is indeed better than sex.

Has no one else pondered the concept of having casual sex WHILE executing an Alpha Strike?

Just me huh?

Ok then.; 9/13/14, 11:09 AM
Naut Right said...: Serious about what? Commitment to what? What are we trying to win and whar for? Seems to me the objective is pure and simple destruction. Ground pounders aren't needed for that. For those who say air power never won a war, I contend air power alone defeated Japan, notwithstanding our many island and sea battles won by boots and boats.; 9/13/14, 11:15 AM
Rusty said...: Hagar said...
War is a serious business.
Mr. Obama and his team are not serious people.

No, sir. No they are not.; 9/13/14, 11:16 AM
Jason said...: Air power is effective at the tactical level when it is directed by real time intelligence.

Air power is effective at the operational level when it is backed up by a ground threat that forces the enemy to quit his dug in, fortified positions and maneuver, or be cut off and destroyed in place.

Absent both elements, you're squandering money, ordnance, fuel and lives.; 9/13/14, 11:35 AM
jr565 said...: Air power is effective in areas where air power is effective. But you're not going to win a war with air power alone. You need boots on the ground (which also will allow for more precise air power); 9/13/14, 11:54 AM
TDP said...: "It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone."

As a former USAF fighter pilot, I agree with the last sentence and disagree with the first.

From Obama's perspective, reliance on air power is more akin to masturbating to Internet porn. He can order airstrikes in a few short minutes from behind his desk, then go play golf or party.

With the cover given him by the MSM, he has as close to zero commitment or accountability as can be.

When air power alone fails it will be Bush's or Republican's fault or maybe Althouse commenters... anyone but Obama.; 9/13/14, 12:27 PM
Hagar said...: Michael K is correct.
I just looked it up in David Eisenhower's "Eisenhower," and it must be the same incident, since he quotes his grandfather's comment on it, and I must have read a more sensationalist account somewhere before that left a different memory.; 9/13/14, 12:57 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/13/14, 1:08 PM
n.n said...: Saint Croix:

The victims of casual sex outnumber the victims of war in any given year. However, the victims of war tend to be concentrated and are therefore more visible, which is why covering wars is popular among journalists, activists, and politicians. Still, the victims of causal sex actually exceed 100% when the mother suffers the same fate as the child or invisible long-term damage. There is no capital action other than abortion which produces more victims and with such exquisite efficiency.; 9/13/14, 1:11 PM
n.n said...: The Godfather:

Obama created the Islamic State with diplomatic, financial, and armed support. He deposed national Islamic leaders and replaced them with their imperial brethren. That's probably why he refers to this group as "ISIL" rather than "ISIS, which obfuscates their ambitions and scope.; 9/13/14, 1:14 PM
Hagar said...: Everybody are talking about IS/ISIL/ISIS as if it was a separate, defined phenomenon, but it is not. If we were to defeat the "Caliphate," or it collapsed in on itself, there would be another al Qaeda al Shish-Kebab, or whatever, springing up somewhere, and may anyway, even if the "Caliphate" continues to exist. In fact, this will very likely happen if the "Caliphate" is even just moderately successful and continues to exist.

A "strategy" must include a definition of what the overall problem is and a plan for dealing with it long-term, not just playing "Whack-a-mole" with the pop-up of the day.

George W. never did adequately explain what the problem was, or why he did what he did, but he did establish a large military base in the middle of "Indian Country," and looked like he was intending to stay there, which made sense to me.
Obama has abandoned that base.
So, now what does he think the real problem is, and what does he really intend to do about it?; 9/13/14, 2:02 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Alexander,

"Air power alone has never been decisive".

FIFY.

In this day of JDAMs, HAARM, etc., if any combatant has air power, then air superiority is a necessary, though not of course sufficient, component.; 9/13/14, 2:10 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: People who say air power never won a war need to look at pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the bombs. Or Tokyo after the incendiary raids.

The war against Japan, in retrospect, was a fight to capture bases within B-29 range of the home islands. Once that happened Japan was doomed.

If World War III had ever happened, it would have been fought with nuclear weapons, which come from the sky.; 9/13/14, 2:16 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Also, AQI=ISIS. Same people. It took the surge offensive to beat them before. Why does anyone, including the President, think anything less will suffice now?; 9/13/14, 2:17 PM
Michael K said...: The key factor is control from the ground or, in the modern incarnation of FAC, by drones. The FAC is there with the troops and it is his ass if the coordinates are wrong. Such an error was made in Afghanistan when the FAC put in his OWN coordinates instead of the enemy's. Bad move.; 9/13/14, 3:34 PM
Kirk Parker said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/13/14, 3:56 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: ""The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex...It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment.""

And no STDs. Was that seriously supposed to be a pejorative comment on air power? Makes me want to enlist.

As to the dispositiveness of air power, we have more thermonuclear-armed ICBMs than the rest of the world combined. It would take a few dozen of them half an hour to impose a lasting peace on the entire middle east. A peace whose soft nocturnal glow could be seen from the moon.; 9/13/14, 4:06 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: The foundation of our strategy should be energy independence for the west. That would give us many more options when it comes to Putin and the Muslims.; 9/13/14, 4:47 PM
furious_a said...: The ISIS JV should be easy to spot from the air in their bright yellow Lakers' jerseys.; 9/13/14, 6:20 PM
furious_a said...: Air power alone has never been decisive".

Ir worked against the Serbs in Kosovo.; 9/13/14, 6:22 PM
Michael K said...: "r worked against the Serbs in Kosovo."

It did ?

It worked against the Chinese embassy but that's about it. The Serbs used decoys very well and retired in good order having had minimal injury from the high altitude bombing.; 9/13/14, 7:31 PM
chillblaine said...: Obama's fascination with drone warfare has all the attraction of bukake.; 9/13/14, 10:06 PM
Unknown said...: I'm just hoping we make it until 2017 and the late 2016 election does not yield another outcome difficult to survive. My optimism is limited.; 9/13/14, 10:11 PM
chillblaine said...: I was hoping that Natalie Portman Sexbot would have a comment in this thread.; 9/13/14, 10:14 PM