Wishful, and Dangerous, Thinking

I don't know what it is about air power that seems to uniquely lead people to periodically argue that it will be the one and only tool we'll ever need to win a war. Nobody ever argues that a particular new weapon system for the Navy or ground forces means that only ground forces or navies are needed to defend us. But air power? People seriously think that Libya proves that air power and a smidgen of ground forces to direct the firepower is the future of warfare. I worried that this would be the case.

Strategypage addresses this:

Any future war will involve smart bombs and Special Forces. But there is no "Afghanistan Model." What we saw in Afghanistan was what went on as a part of the Vietnam War. Against a determined enemy, expect hard fighting, and being on the receiving end of nasty surprises. In Libya, it’s unclear what the end of the war will really look like. The "Afghanistan Model" is wishful, and dangerous, thinking.

Our air power is awesome. I have a lot of respect for what our Air Force and Navy can do with air power. I wouldn't want to go to war without them. But they don't have a silver bullet that solves our defense problems.

Look for a lot of people to resurrect this idea because they can argue that we can dramatically slash defense spending and rely on the "new model" of warfare to defend our interests. Don't believe them. They're idiots.