A lot is necessary to understand this statement:
Here in Afghanistan, we're focused on helping the government reach a goal of 80 percent of the population under its control. We believe increasing the Afghan air capability will be one of the most significant keys to expanding its control over the population in the next two years.
The air power won't control the ground. The air power will help ground forces control the ground.
I noted the vital importance of air power for this goal last summer:
Effective air power to provide recon and surveillance, logistics, transport, medical, strike, and close air support is needed to defeat the Taliban. ...
The Afghans have to spread out to control and protect territory and the people to deny their use to the Taliban.
But the Afghan security forces can hardly afford to put a full battalion into every outpost needed for this mission.
Effective air power is an important tool to allow company-sized elements to hold off attacks until reinforcements arrive; and ultimately to make it more difficult for the Taliban to mass enough forces to overrun company outposts; and beyond that to allow Afghan forces to seize the initiative and go after the enemy to further atomize them.
Not to argue too much over the word "key" but ground forces are the "key" to controlling territory. I say this with absolute confidence given that ground forces controlled territory for several millennia before aircraft were invented.
Air power is a key supporting force multiplier. But if the other factor--the ground element--is close to zero, the product of the two is pretty low no matter how good the air power is.
And on that ground factor, while it is all well and good to expand the Afghan special forces--what about the unspecial forces who will be tasked with holding the ground and protecting the 80% of the people that is the goal?
