Airpower: Future Of Conflict Essay, Research Paper
Airpower: the future of conflict
The United States entered the 21st Century as the lone world superpower, having won the 45 year long Cold War with the USSR that marked the latter half of the previous century. Our nations military was the largest and most powerful it had been in the history of the United States prior to the defeat of Soviet Union. With the fall of such a powerful enemy, it was inevitable that all branches of our military would undergo restructuring. Our nations military and political leaders will be faced with unique challenges in the future when deploying forces to protect and sustain US interests. They will need to closely examine several questions regarding warfare in the future to determine how best to fight it.
Introduction
What is the nature of future military engagements? Our future enemies will indeed be different. We are no longer preparing for an unlimited engagement that would have undoubtedly brought about immense casualties on both sides. The enemies of the future will be many and unpredictable. Our armed forces will be required to prepare for numerous conflicts of a smaller nature. The attacking force that can respond quickly and powerfully will prevail in the future. The commitment of our troops has and will continue to change. Our nation fears another Vietnam-style commitment of ground forces; therefore a new emphasis will be placed upon airpower because it seems safer to the American public. The nature of future combat will be such that ground forces will never again be committed without extensive aerial bombardment preceding troop insertion. In certain combat situations, airpower can and will serve as the only offensive force.
What are the capabilities of our nations air forces? The basis of United States airpower lies within powerful land based forces of the United States Air Force. The strength of the USAF is such that its use prior to ground troop insertion will result in annihilation of enemy defenses and incredibly low US ground casualties. Furthermore, defined US objectives can be attained through the use of airpower alone. This is made possible because of forward operating locations positioned throughout the globe where USAF forces are stationed permanently, or continuously deployed to from continental bases. Also, the USAF has the capability to deploy to a combat theatre rapidly on short notice because of unprecedented tanker and airlift capabilities. Air Force technology now dictates that the battle can be fought from home shores as a result of an unparalleled global reach capability found in US strategic bombers.
Can the strength of our nation s airpower serve as a deterrent factor to known and unknown enemies? The present fighting capabilities of US airpower are such that just as the Air Force slogan says, .No One Comes Close x. Potential enemies will think twice before contesting the power of such an Air Force. Past engagements such as Operation Dessert Storm in Iraq and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo as well as Operation Northern Watch in Iraq serve as prime examples to our enemies what could become of them if they choose to engage US airpower. Furthermore, weapon systems currently slated for future service are designed specifically with the intention of deterring conflict from ever occurring.
Literature
In Risky business for the President William Shneider plainly states the foreign policy the United States has held for the past ten years, .when it comes to U.S. military intervention abroad, the rule is: Drop bombs, don’t send troops. The reason isn’t military, it’s political. x He contends that the American public is entirely skeptical of committing ground troops, but is fairly comfortable with air strikes. The notions put forth by Schneider that Presidents of the future will take the safe route when it comes to the use of force, means that the commitment of ground troops are not likely because .deploying ground troops not only increases the risk of U.S. casualties, it also increases the risk that the United States will get involved in another country’s politics x Therefore, airpower will be the weapon of choice because .bombing seems safer, at least for Americans. Especially smart bombs that can blow up carefully selected military targets while minimizing civilian casualties. x
In a detailed report for the USAF, the authors of The New Calculus diagram the importance of airpower in future conflicts. .In posturing its forces to deal with short notice theater conflicts, the United States must rely heavily upon airpower in the crucial initial stages of combat x. They further support the notion that airpower is the primary offensive force in future combat by asserting that .rapidly deployable land-based airpower emerges as the dominant element in the crucial stages of conflict x. They recognize that the nation is not inclined to support ground operations and point out that .air operations place at risk a much smaller number of U.S. personnel than large-scale ground operations x. The report concludes, .the results of our analysis do indicate that the calculus has changed and airpower s ability to contribute to the joint battle has increased. Not only can modern airpower arrive quickly where needed, it has become far more lethal in conventional operations x.
Lawrence Freedman begins his article International security: changing targets by diagramming the type of conflict the U.S. will be involved with in the future: .the impact of information technology on military affairs points to the growing potential for the West to use force discriminatingly, an awareness of the strategies that weak nations use to counter the offensive maneuvers of their stronger adversaries points to the emergence of unconventional threats such as nuclear terrorism. x The United States will be fighting a different kind of war in the future, against a different kind of enemy. .The challenge for the United States, and its closest allies, is to find a level of engagement in international affairs that prevents small problems from becoming large ones without imposing unacceptable burdens at home. x
In Relearning intervention Charles Maynes discusses the use of military force in the future, .one of the most difficult questions in American foreign policy is the use of force–its legitimacy, its utility, its desirability. A run for the White House requires that a candidate address it, and a successful candidate is often not considered a successful president until he actually employs it. x Maynes focuses on when force is to be used, and leaves for further articles how it should be applied. He establishes a set of criteria for the use of force:
SEVEN CATEGORIES OF FORCE
Today, there appear to be seven distinct categories for the possible use of force by the United States:
* meeting alliance obligations
* promoting counterproliferation
* protecting key allies threatened with internal disorder
* protecting individual Americans
* supporting democracies abroad
* interdicting drugs and countering terrorism
* assisting peacekeeping and peace enforcement
Andrew Krepinivich claims in Keeping pace with military-technological revolution that .the US should be prepared to exploit and deal with an emerging military-technological revolution, which promises to radically change methods of warfare. x He contends that the way battle will be waged in the future requires the implementation of a new doctrine to fully utilize all of our military resources; .pentagon planners must
reexamine all their systems, structures, and strategies to be ready for the battles of the future. x Krepinivich claims that a smaller military force in the future will be able to accomplish the same missions of the larger forces of the past. The US Air Force will inevitably play a vital role in future military engagements as “long-range precision strikes will be a dominant military operation in future conflicts.”
General Colin Powell writes in US forces: challenges ahead that with the end of the cold war, the US military faces a new set of challenges, that will require new capabilities and goals. General Powell contends that the US now stands as the lone military power, and the central idea behind the new national military strategy “is the change from a focus on global war-fighting to a focus on regional contingencies.” The US faces enemies riddled by dispute in the former Soviet block, a still volatile enemy in the Middle East, rouge nations in Asia, as well as instability in Africa. The US can envision “peacekeeping and humanitarian missions; likewise our forward presence is a given–to signal our commitment to our allies and to give second thoughts to any disturber of peace.” Furthermore, the US will undoubtedly be involved in conflicts where the use of violent force is needed; however, they will likely be limited objective wars. “Wars are limited by three means: by the territory on which they are fought (as in Korea or Vietnam); by the means used to fight them (no nuclear weapons in Korea; no massive mobilization for Vietnam); or by the objectives for which they are fought–the most significant limitation in political terms and therefore the limitation that is most often discussed and debated.” General Powell indicates throughout his article that the US military will indeed continue to be involved in the future. While we will be waging a different kind of warfare, it remains imperative that US forces are prepared to fight.
In an effort to plan for future military force structure a panel was put together and composed a background paper for Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment entitled American Military Power: Future needs, Future Choices. The paper begins by claiming that while the US no longer has one large enemy to contend with, it can still “concentrate its military efforts on the few countries of the world that have significant military resources and directly threaten some US interest or ally”. While the US faces few threats to its home soil, protecting our interests and the interests of democracy are vital, particularly in Europe. According to the paper, the United States has four basic national security objectives:
* ensuring the survival of the Nation as a politically independent entity
* promoting economic prosperity for Americans and the world
* maintaining a stable world order conducive to liberty
* forging strong ties to allies and like-minded nations throughout the world
Securing these objectives will require “military forces to supplement economic and diplomatic tools”.
In Changes Ahead: Future Directions for the U.S. Overseas Military Presence Richard Kugler recognizes that US military forces stationed and deployed abroad perform unique and important functions in support of US national interests. However, it is evident that because of the changing nature of conflict, “the need for a strong US overseas presence does not mean that tomorrows posture should be identical to today’s or even closely resemble it”. The US military will in the future have new enemies, and therefore new objectives and missions. While re-establishing overseas military doctrine applies to all branches of the military, the new scope of conflict could see a larger emphasis placed upon airpower. In the future, “emphasis of overseas presence is to be quick power projection, USAF (Unites States Air Force) forces are clearly well-suited to
play a major role. Thus, the future agenda for the US overseas presence offers the Air Force important opportunities if it is willing to rise to the challenge.” Overseas presence, particularly that of the Air Force, offer quick strike capability that not only allows the US to subdue conflict before it escalates, it also offers a deterrent factor to our regional enemies.
US Regional Deterrence Strategies by Kenneth Watman and Dean Wilkening was prepared for the US Army and Air Force to determine whether the United States should base its regional strategy on deterrence. They begin by pointing out that with the Cold War now over, .deterrence is no longer a necessity; it is an option to be evaluated just like any other policy option x. It is noted that because regional adversaries seek short wars it is the forces that .can deploy to the region on short notice that will have the greatest deterrent effect x. It is reported that the threat of conventional attack alone may not be enough to deter a regional enemy, therefore .it is important for the United States not to permit an adversary to be absolutely sure the United States would never use nuclear weapons in a regional conflict under any circumstance x.
In Robert Levine’s report Flexible Flight: The Air Force role in a Changing Europe, the capabilities of our nations land based Air Force and the possible need for them in the future is outlined. Levine claims that the future US threat will be uncertain and always changing, and US military presence will be crucial despite the end of the Cold War. Furthermore, “the future will be directed by politics, and military planning must depend on political determinations”. Because of changing potential combat and
political determinants, “the rapid response capability and the mobility of air forces as we enter an era in which the only firm expectation is further change make air power the centerpiece of American military capabilities”. The US Air Force in particular has the means to carry out and support a short term or sustained conflict because of the diversity and flexibility of its airpower.
Policy Option
Currently, as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces the President has three options when engaging in conflict. He can deploy US forces on a large scale, entailing a joint effort on part of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. He can choose to use ground forces of the Army and Marines as the primary attacking force, which would be supplemented by the Navy and Air Force. Or he can choose to use airpower as the primary weapon for future conflict. Conflicts the United States will be involved with have changed, and the American public is increasingly unaccepting of US casualties. Therefore, I propose that the Commander-in-Chiefs most viable policy option for the future regarding US military intervention is that of rapidly deployable land based airpower, that will supported by the American public by ensuring limited casualties while still accomplishing the objective.
Policy Support
Throughout history the military has been required to adapt to the changing style of conflict. New technology, new leadership, new enemies, and domestic determinants dictate this change. In the past 10 years the nature of conflict has moved to an emphasis on airpower. The reasons for this are many. First and foremost, the world is no longer threatened by a cold war. The United States prevailed and the prospect of nuclear war has as a result decreased. However, with such a threat no longer a prime concern, conventional warfare has heated up. Spanning from the late 80’s into the 21st century American troops have acted in the Philippines, Panama, El Salvador, Liberia, Iraq, Somalia, Bangladesh, Zaire, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. Compared to past conflicts the US has been involved with such as Vietnam, Korea and both World Wars, all of these engagements have seen limited US presence and casualties. It is highly likely that these minor crisis interventions will become more numerous in the future than they are now. “Most observers expect these missions to continue or even increase in response to increasing economic and ethnic tensions in many areas.” Furthermore, there are other Saddam Hussein’s in this world, the original is as unpredictable as ever and still in power, and there is another in Korea. In order to keep up with the pace of these increasing operations, it will be the force that can respond quickly to these crises and show American military power through presence or force. This of course lies within rapid mobility of our nations Air Force.
Significant conflicts or operations the US has been involved with in the past 10 years support the claim that the nature of battle is changing. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, our nations armed forces rapidly mobilized. Within 24 hours American military presence could be felt in the Middle East, mainly through the establishment of Air Wings in Saudi Arabia. In the months preceding the ensuing conflict, USAF and Navy sorties were being flown around the clock. When the battle finally took place, it was a month long air campaign that annihilated Iraqi defenses and weakened their attack forces. While military leaders originally projected upwards of 10,000 casualties following a bloody ground battle, airpower had weakened the enemy to such an extent that Iraq surrendered following a 100-hour ground campaign. All told less than 500 American lives were lost.
More recently, during Operation Allied Force in the war torn former Yugoslavia, American military forces spearheaded a campaign that sought to end the atrocities brought upon Kosovar-Albanians by Slobadon Milosevic’s repressive regime. American foreign policy requires a stable Eastern Europe. This stability was returned to the region for the first time ever by American airpower alone. The brunt of the force was supplied by land based USAF aircraft part of the 31st Air Expeditionary Wing located out of Aviano AB (Air Base), Italy. This conflict, albeit comparatively minor, exemplifies the shift to airpower as the primary attacking force of future conflict, and not one American life was lost.
Furthermore, US airpower proves it has the power and ability to play an influential role in peacekeeping operations that the US is sure to involve itself with more frequently in the future. Operation Northern Watch in Iraq is carried out almost solely by the USAF. Sorties are flown around the clock from Incirlik AB, Turkey. These missions provide Combat Air Support to enforce a no fly zone in Northern Iraq designed to ensure the safety of Iraqi Kurds.