Farley writes in the American Prospect, which bills itself as "liberal intelligence." Perhaps that's their version of "compassionate conservatism." Nice to know each side can be just as foolish in opening up some space for the charge of oxymoron.
I start off in this sneering fashion despite my arguments with the Air Force's pre-Long War priorities relative to supporting ground operations. I do this because Farley starts out his case like this:
In August of this year, reports emerged that British Army officers in Afghanistan had requested an end to American airstrikes in Helmand Province because the strikes were killing too many civilians there. In Iraq, the Lancet Study of Iraqi civilian casualties of the war suggested that airstrikes have been responsible for roughly 13 percent of those casualties, or somewhere in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 deaths.
Anybody who doesn't know that the Taliban routinely lie about civilian casualties and who thinks the Lancet "study" reflects reality is a moron. Or perhaps an idiot. Hard to say which. But surely not qualified to advise on the separate existence of our Air Force.
To believe that we've killed as many civilians as the Lancet claims or that our rare and precise air strikes directed by Americans who observe the laws of war killed up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians is quite bizarre.
That's what you get when an assistant professor of diplomacy and international commerce tries his hand at military affairs, I suppose. His judgment that the Air Force is unneeded is suspect from the start as far as I'm concerned. (Though he does no worse than the editors of the New York Times, I suppose.)
I've certainly argued that the Air Force should give up their dominance of recon and strike missions to Army-controlled UAVs and helicopters which do the job more cheaply and more responsively. I've argued this despite my clear impression that the Air Force has actually done a very good job of providing direct support to the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the pilots doing the supporting are clear on what they need to do:
“We’ve a sign in the squadron that says “The mission, fuckhead, is supporting the 18 year old with the rifle.” We know that we’re here to put bombs on bad guys so they don’t kill American soldiers.”
What critics like Farley fail to appreciate is the Air Force role in maintaining our air supremacy that allows our pilots to support 18-year old privates. That is not a strategic given despite our holding of such superiority since about 1944. I don't think an Army-controlled air force would give this task the resources it deserves.
A separate Air Force pays attention to that vital mission and has ensured air superiority since World War II. And with the great strides we've made in joint operations, Farley is perhaps two decades or more out of date in moaning about inter-service rivalry.
The Air Force needs to aim high, no doubt. But I want our separate Air Force, which has served us so well, to continue ruling the skies and space above our ground forces. And yes, for now, they should continue to help with ground support with planes since Army aviation may never completely replace aircraft.
Why fire the Air Force for doing their job too successfully?
