Jan 8th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Air Force Strikes Back
Robert Farley’s been agitating for a while now for the abolition of the Air Force. Now along comes the Air Force determined to prove its continued relevance by launching a new “counter-blog” initiative aimed at “counter[ing] the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinion about the U.S. government and the Air Force.”
Of course what this doesn’t do is allay one’s doubts that a branch of the military whose institutional identity and mission were a pure creation of the Cold War era may not be well-suited to the present-day geopolitical context.
66 Responses to “Air Force Strikes Back”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Germany
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
And how is this not considered propaganda? Which is illegal?
January 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I don’t see any need to abolish the Air Force, but I’d certainly look at abolishing the US Air Force Academy.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
at least they didn’t send a cruise missile or something (also illegal, I suppose) — I’m sure they know where Farley lives….
January 8th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Damn, they should be disbanded just for that flow chart.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
at least they didn’t send a cruise missile or something
Cruise missile? That would be heresy! No, the thing to do would be to drop a 2000-pound bomb from a piloted aircraft . . .
January 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
How about replacing those fancy jets with nuclear-armed SUPERTRAINS?
January 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Really it makes no sense to have separate services at all. The big management theory fad over the past decade or so has been capability-based planning and management, which actually makes sense. The idea is, you don’t plan around this number of F-16s that that number of B-2s, you plan around what outcomes you want to achieve, and THEN decide what equipment will allow you to achieve it. It makes sense and it’s an approach used by the AF.
But if you extend the idea one more step, then it becomes apparent that there’s no need for The Air Force per se – there are simply outcomes you want to achieve. And maybe outcomes that are currently provided by the Air Force could be better provided by somebody else (or vice versa).
The DoD has been attempting to achieve “jointness” between services for a long time, and of course combatant commanders always combine joint forces. But these gigantic bureaucracies – there’s just no practical way to integrate them meaningfully. So what you’d do is just change names, and maybe call it the Army Air Force, but it’d still be a gigantic burueacracy with objectives sometimes distinct from those of the Army or the Secretary of Defense.
Instead of “breaking up” the Air Force (which is practically very silly), just defund it and spend the money on troops and personnel carriers and counterinsurgency training.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Well the B-52 Stratofortress is still a darn good carpet-bomber. Load them up and blow them up!
B-1B and B-2 bombers, however, are a waste of money.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Isn’t it possible to have a negative opinion about the Air Force and not be abuot the US Government? I can think of a myriad of things that differentiate the two – I wonder why the Air Force needs to conflate them?
January 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
In the last real war of our era (Falklands), if Britain had something like the capability of USAF (just the B-52’s, really) then the war wouldn’t have been such a precarious thing. It would have been a sure win, and everyone would have slept sounder. The lack of strategic bombers manifested itself in myriad problems. (The only long-range bombing sorties, Operation Black Buck, operating with Vulcan bombers, needed to be refueled in-flight by 11 tankers, 5 times on the outward journey and one time on the home journey. If the RAF had B-52s the there would have been no Argies left on the islands)
January 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I liked the “Aim High” ad campaign for the Air Force.
Always seemed like advice to the enemy.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
note: I referred to Falklands as being the last real war because all wars after all were so asymmetrical.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I think there’s some issue where the Air Force got to run all the fixed wing planes, and the Army got all the helicopters. Not sure about the specifics though.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“I wonder why the Air Force needs to conflate them?”
oh you wonder, do you?
well, anyone who wonders like this must *hate america!*
so shut up, america-hater! air force #1!
January 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Does anyone ever talk about merging the Air Force and Navy? That would seem to make more sense to me.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
From http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/air-force-banni.html#previouspost
“Air Force Blocks Access to Many Blogs
By Noah Shachtman February 27, 2008 | 2:28:02 PMCategories: Info War
Cybercommand The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word “blog” in its web address. It’s the latest move in a larger struggle within the military over the value — and hazards — of the sites. At least one senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so “utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream.”
————
heh heh heh. Wait — it gets even better:
“The idea isn’t to keep airmen in the dark — they can still access news sources that are “primary, official-use sources,” said Maj. Henry Schott, A5 for Air Force Network Operations. “Basically … if it’s a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it’s fairly cut and dry that that’s a good source, an authorized source,” he said …
———-
ha ha ha ha ha. Yep, Judith Miller passing along “news” from Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff “Scooter Libby” — “evidence” which the Commander-in-Chief ..er.. Vice President can then cite the next day to support his bullshit claims.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Trolling the Air Force blog would be fun, but I’m concerned they keep detailed files on that sort of thing and it could get me locked up the next time Republicans are in power.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I wonder why it is the Air Force that restricts its personnel to OSB –Officially Sanctioned Bullshit. I would think the need would be more pressing in the Army.
The Air Force doesn’t have that many warriors risking their lives in battle — it’s the Army and Marines who are being used as cannon fodder to grab oil wells for Dick Cheney’s buddies.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I believe the B1B actually has a greater conventional bomb load capability than the B-52. Maybe it’s still a waste, I don’t know, but it’s more capable than many think. I leave it to Google to answer.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Re Spike’s comment “Trolling the Air Force blog would be fun, but I’m concerned they keep detailed files on that sort of thing ”
————
1) Yep. Note that ominious box on the flowchart :
“Monitor Only — Avoid responding to specific posts, monitor the site for relevant information and comments. Notify HQ”
Ever hear of the Panopticon, Matthew?
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
2) I have noted before that America was designed on the blueprint of the Roman Republic — and that we are following Rome’s course. After victory in a decades-long struggle with another superpower, our corrupt elites are tranforming us into a global Empire run as a military dictatorship.
I think plebian Titus Pullo had the best response to said elites:
“SUCK MY COCK!”
Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_(TV_series)
January 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Gods (below) bless John Milius!
January 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Rich in PA,
I love that idea. The Marines don’t need a separate academy.
Bunch of Jew-bashing dominionists in Colorado Springs.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Air show guide: At this point in time, I would like to direct your attention to the particular air vehicle next to which I am currently standing. The Harrier Jet is one of our more dollar-intensive ordnance delivery vectors.
Marge: Five tires!? Am I seeing things?
Air Show Guide: And, although it looks complicated it is so well-designed, even a child could fly it.
Lisa: Can I fly it?
Air Show Guide: Of course you can not.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Instead of “breaking up” the Air Force (which is practically very silly), just defund it and spend the money on troops and personnel carriers and counterinsurgency training.”
Great idea, because every war we fight in the future will invariably be a counterinsurgency.
“I love that idea. The Marines don’t need a separate academy.”
That’s because the Marines are part of the Navy. The Air Force is a separate service and so should have its own academy. Plus, it’s the one academy that can field a half-decent football team.
And as for “Jew-bashing”, you’ll find more of that in the Congressional Black Caucus than you will in the Air Force, or any of the services, which are full of philo-Semitic Evangelicals.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The Air Force is a separate service and so should have its own academy. Plus, it’s the one academy that can field a half-decent football team.
Air Force used to have the best football team. Navy, however, has won the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy the last six years in a row. Look it up.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
B-52 carries more, but it’s slower, less maneuverable, less able to fly at very low altitudes. I remember the latter was a big selling point way back when they were pitching it. It was supposed to be able to fly under Soviet radar. I don’t think it could really do it in practice. I rmember Mark Russell had a song about it.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
daveNYC,
You’re thinking of the Key West Agreement of 1948 inked soon after the Air Force split off from the Army. The Army was allowed helicopters and unarmed spotter planes, the Air Force given the franchise on fixed wing.
There was no reason to allow the AF to be a separate service, for the cost in materials and lives, the World War II strategic bombing campaigns weren’t worth the effort. In the Pacific campaign, 27,000 airmen were killed or capture (more than 60,000 airmen were lost in war against Germany), while the US Navy submarine fleet which actually won the Pacific war by starving Japan of food and oil, lost only 3500 crewmen (out of 16,000 sub crew members total).
As for the Falklands campaign, even better than B-52s would have been some cruise missiles, a LOT of cruise missiles. Unfortunately, the Royal Navy didn’t start buying Tomahawks until the mid-90’s.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Does anyone ever talk about merging the Air Force and Navy? That would seem to make more sense to me.
Er, no. The newly-created RAF got control of the Fleet Air Arm after WWI. The Navy got planes back for its carriers before WWII started, but they were open-cockpit biplanes (Swordfish).
It must be acknowledged that the “Stringbags,” as they were nicknamed, did amazingly well (see Taranto, Raid on; Bismarck, Sinking of). The popular theory was that they flew so damn slow the flak gunners habitually led them too much.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Air Force used to have the best football team. Navy, however, has won the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy the last six years in a row. Look it up.”
I’ll take your word for it. Shows you how much I watch Mountain West football (or whatever conference Air Force plays in).
“B-52 carries more, but it’s slower, less maneuverable, less able to fly at very low altitudes.”
This is like comparing apples and oranges. The B-52 is a fifty year old plane designed for dropping the hammer on enemies after their air defenses have been destroyed.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
My weak Google-fu says that the B-52 can carry 70,000 pounds of fun, and the B-2 only 60,000. Not that big a difference. Pounds per dollar is nasty though.
True, but the Air Force seems to be happiest when spending big bucks on strategic bombing and air superiority. There is a pretty long history of the Air Force (and the people in the Army Air Corp that were pushing for an independent service) being more interested in getting their toys and feifdoms, and less interested in actually doing things that help win wars. The WWII strategic bombing is a painful example, where the Air Forcey guys overstated how awesome their bombing was, to the point when they finally started hitting the good targets (oil) everyone blew them off.
If I were starting an armed forces from scratch, I’d try and create a combined arms setup from the get-go, like the Marines, and then divy it up into a rapid reaction group, a force projection group, and have the remainder as what we have now with the guys on various bases and whatnot.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
And as for “Jew-bashing”, you’ll find more of that in the Congressional Black Caucus than you will in the Air Force, or any of the services, which are full of philo-Semitic Evangelicals.
Would those be the ones who force them to pray to Jesus during freshman orientation, or the ones who prostyletize to them during mandatory training exercises?
January 8th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
As for the Falklands campaign, even better than B-52s would have been some cruise missiles, a LOT of cruise missiles. Unfortunately, the Royal Navy didn’t start buying Tomahawks until the mid-90’s.
I say we just carpet-bomb the darn Argies.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
And cruise missiles cost a lot more than the B-52.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Fred seems to be under the impression that I suggested defunding the Air Force completely.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Depends on how often you need to use them. Unless you forsee an ongoing need for a long range strategic bomber, it might be cheaper to just stock up on some cruise missiles.
I remember the Doonesbury where Lacey Davenport was asking some general how many cruise missiles could be purchased for the cost of one B-2, and which one the USSR’s air defense ministry would rather have to deal with. Using wiki numbers (totally out of date), you could get over 3k missles per bomber.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
note: I referred to Falklands as being the last real war because all wars after all were so asymmetrical.
Although it lacked the decisive outcome of the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War was symmetrical enough that it lasted for eight years.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
beowulf,
I don’t think the evidence you presented proves your point at all. In the Pacific, control of the air proved to be the determining element. You needed bombers to deal with enemy ships and airports. Once you had neutralized those elements you could take any forward base that you needed to extend the process. Part of the use of those bases was to run shorter and more efficient submarine missions. I don’t think it’s at all clear that without many of the bases developed or captured after late 1942 the submarine effort would have been nearly as effective, but even if it was, you still needed to send in the ground forces and without control of the air, that was just not possible.
Of course, not all of the missions being flown at that time were part of the kind of strategic bombing that justified the air force’s existence. Most were not. And that’s where the debate is: whether the importance of strategic bombing is important enough to justify a separate department. When strategic bombing was a critical part of MAD, maybe it was a good argument. Now, it seems like it’s possible that should be folded into the Army. There’s no reason they can’t still fly B-52s, even if the resource allocation towards strategic bombing isn’t as high as it is today.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It seems that regardless of how the military divvies up its fighters and bombers, the space command would need to be separate. The military is entirely dependent on satellite technologies and cyberspace, which may not be such a good idea, but that’s how it is.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Although it lacked the decisive outcome of the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War was symmetrical enough that it lasted for eight years.
That was mostly attrition warfare. Hardly applicable to first-world armies.
Using wiki numbers (totally out of date), you could get over 3k missles per bomber.
You are perhaps right. But of course, I am trying to emphasis the importance of depth. If the Falklands war had dragged on without a decisive victory, sooner or later Britain would have had to bomb the Argentine mainland or face another Suez ‘56 humiliation. And that’s when the cruise missiles are going to start to run out. And if Britain were to have bombed the Argentine mainland, I don’t think external support would have been forthcoming.
I thought the Falklands a pretty illustrative conflict about the importance of overwhelming power projection. If you can’t bomb somebody to oblivion, he’s going to a lot more cheeky.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“True, but the Air Force seems to be happiest when spending big bucks on strategic bombing and air superiority.”
Well, first, air superiority is the core of our defense M.O., so that’s a good thing (that’s why, for example, the President usually goes airborne in Air Force One during a crisis, because we expect to control the air).
Second, the Air Force has been pretty active and innovative in other stuff as well, e.g., inventing the new 250lb powder-shrapnel bomb to reduce collateral damage in small wars, using drones for recon and targeted killings of terrorists, etc.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“Would those be the ones who force them to pray to Jesus during freshman orientation”
“Forced”? I doubt that. Listen, one thing Jews have to understand is that this is a Christian nation, and most of the folks who put themselves in harm’s way to defend it are Christians. If that makes you feel like a minority sometime, then deal with it. Be glad you don’t live in a Muslim nation.
This is the sort of thing more Jews would understand if they played football in high school (where there’s usually a prayer to Jesus before the game) or served in the military.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
The Air Force Academy has gone bat-sh*t with evangelicals. It’s not just a matter of being Christian. It’s scary having people who are gunho for Armageddon in high places in the Air Force.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
That was mostly attrition warfare. Hardly applicable to first-world armies.
Nonetheless, the Iran-Iraq War was a very, very real war.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Of course you need air superiority. That is key. The thing is, the Air Force seems to think that the air superiority is the goal, not the means to achieve the goal. Look at the love the F-22 gets relative to the A-10.
I’m sure all branches put forth projects that they want to see funded that don’t necessarily improve our military’s ability to do its job. It’s just that the Air Force seems to do it a bit more often than the other branches. The military is supposed to win wars, but the Air Force seems to be more interested in winning wars while making themselves look good. I just don’t see a reason why there is a need for the Air Force to be a seperate branch from the Army.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Listen, one thing Jews have to understand is that this is a Christian nation, and most of the folks who put themselves in harm’s way to defend it are Christians. If that makes you feel like a minority sometime, then deal with it. Be glad you don’t live in a Muslim nation.
The Islamic term for this is “dhimmitude.”
This is the sort of thing more Jews would understand if they played football in high school (where there’s usually a prayer to Jesus before the game) or served in the military.
Ah. I think I now understand how you could describe Evalgelicals as philo-Semitic.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Or… or… or… even better; mass drivers on the moon!
January 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Interesting discussion, not always on point.
As a citizen/taxpayer who never served in the military I don’t see the need for separate branches of the military with separate hospitals, supplies, uniforms, chaplains, etc. I understand that a pilot needs different training than a submariner or a tank commander, but do we need 3 Academies?
First: combine medical corps, chaplains, recruiting, personnel, supply, and intelligence. Then start combining more schools, commands, units, etc.
I understand pride in one’s branch of service, but I’m not sure we can afford it. One can be proud of Service and of one’s unit, even if there is not a separate AF, Navy or Marines.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am
“The Islamic term for this is “dhimmitude.””
To make that false equivalence is to parade your ignorance. There hasn’t been a more welcoming country to Jews in history than the United States of America, which was founded by Christians, and remains a majority Christian country. Jews have never been second class citizens in this country, as they (and Christians) have been in benighted Muslim countries.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:29 am
OK, I finally stopped laughing. #20 Don William’s ROME comment is classic!
But why are we paying to have blogs our soldiers can see be censored– in the name of freedom? While at the same time why are only right-wingers like FOX News and Limburger on military media channels around the world, again paid for with your tax dollars?
Why are we paying taxes for the Air Force Academy and officer ranks to spend their time in ‘voluntary’ prayer meetings several times a day trying to convert other soldiers? Oh, yeah, ‘to defend freedom.’
Oh, one last thing: And why is the American Air Force controlled by certain far-right, mega-christian churches located in Colorado Springs?
Maybe we need a little more real freedom and a little less military-industrial-complex, er, Air Force?
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
Tom Paine
January 9th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Atheism/agnosticism works fine for disciplined and orderly peoples such as Scandinavians. Other groups (e.g., African Americans) need the structure of religion. Lefties did a lot of damage to the African American community by importing Scandinavian welfare policies to the black community.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Listen, one thing Jews have to understand is that this is a Christian nation
Its actually a secular nation. You could look it up.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Re Fred’s comment “Listen, one thing Jews have to understand is that this is a Christian nation ”
—————–
Der Fuhrer could not have said it better himself.
Unfortunately for Fred, here is what the Founding Fathers put in the US Constitution (Article 6):
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Here is what the US President and Senate stated to Muslims in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,4 – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11
January 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Correction: What Article 6 of the US Constitution –and Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli –say is that the US GOVERNMENT is not founded on the Christian religion.
Nation is the land and its people. Government is a mere construct that can be scrapped at will and replaced by something else.
What the Declaration of Independence said was that we are endowed by Our Creator with inalienable rights — and that government is a mere construct that can be discarded if it no longer protects those rights. Declaration does NOT say if Creater is Jewish, Christian, Muslim , Hindu or Taoist God.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:12 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
viagra
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Watch me play!
April 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Very nice site! [url=http://oixapey.com/aqaxar/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://oixapey.com/aqaxar/4.html
April 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Very nice site!
April 9th, 2009 at 4:38 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
You site gives people fresh views. But we know all about cloths that need help getting stain out of.
I am from Denmark and also am speaking English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Best deals on cheap airline tickets air tickets india cheap flights dirt cheap airline tickets to india cheap hotels airline tickets from india car rental.”
Thanks for the help
, Avena.