I just shot a load into my shorts...

I know you are talking about peter sellers.

I wish I looked like Sterling Hayden.

Real life stud, btw.  Silver Star in WW2 with the OSS.

Total commie after the war, however.

How many Soldiers and Marines would we have lost if we decided to treat our current conflicts as "Big Wars" from the start?

Restraint is not a virtue in war. Moreover playing to your cultural and strategic weaknesses (COIN, nation building) is ludicrous in a conflict where you posses the initiative and the overwhelming advantage.

These wars should have lasted 30 minutes and comprised strategic retaliatory strikes of such enormous cost that any nation state would rightfully view the operation of Terrorist groups within their borders as an existential threat. CAS ain't a flys fart when your looking at War with your big boy pant's on.

Bombing villages full of people who had nothing to do with the people who attacked us on 9/11 accomplishes nothing and is morally reprehensible.  Anyone who advocates such fails to understand that Afghanistan is not a country for any other reason but that a few hundred years ago some Europeans drew some lines on a map.

Did you ever wish you had a few prop driven attack aircraft like the old A-1 or that the Super Tunaco would've been brought on sooner?

Sorry if I missed this while skimming.

What kills me about the people that promote war without restraint is that their opinion is not informed by history.

Clausewitz taught us that war is politics with the addition of other means.

And who would argue that, if they knew anything of history?

I don't think that just because he knew you would show up to a CAS thread makes it a call out thread. The point is, every time there is a CAS thread you show up and it becomes another discussion amongst professionals that no one else can understand.

Well I would like to learn something. Just for fun really. There is literally no other reason for me to learn about this other than for my own edification. But it's difficult when every thread immediately becomes a mess of acronyms and strategic theory that takes years of experience to grasp.

You probably think that's ridiculous. That's your prerogative. That's just my 2 cents.

USAF and US Army should both be demobilized in force structures, then re-mobilized correctly into:

Joint Forces Land Components

Joint Forces Air Components

Joint Forces Special Operations Components-Already have this in many ways with SOCOM.

US Joint Strategic and Continental Defense Forces (NORAD, Air Defense Command, USCG, NORTHCOM, SAC, etc.)

Take away the BS service rivalry and put the team-focused approach back in.  Have these units task organized to the Theater Commanders, who will have OPCON.

Cut out as much bureaucratic fat as possible in the process.  Focus on training and employment for MCO and LIC for expeditionary force packages that the Theater CinC's employ as part of the National Strategy. (News flash, we will not be fighting Russians and Chinese in MCO, but their surrogates in LIC.)

This would leave us with a streamlined system for training, deploying, fighting, redeploying, and resting task-organized packages of non service specific forces, who are actually team-player oriented.

A Joint Services Task Force would have no service loyalty, only National loyalty and subordination to the Theater CinC. Air and Land forces would be task organized by the same boss.

Both the Army and Air Force are broke. This is really the only solution I can see to fixing them.  The Navy and Marines already play well together, and have been supporting each other throughout US History.  It was a mistake to create the USAF in 1947.

The timing of the thread was deliberate.

Hell, the link was PM'd to me as a call out.

Most AFDDs (air force doctrinal documents) are downloadable anyway.

Get the Counterland one and read that.
Its a hoot.

I recall seeing a thread to that effect a few days ago. Something about how the military would be formed if it were necessary to build one from the ground up today. Interesting thought. One of the few things I've learned from these threads is how to hate the love of the branches for the branches sake. Not very goal or victory oriented. Doesn't seem like an awesome allocation of resources either.

Although I recall there was a branch that basically took care of a bunch of the admin and support stuff. I'd hate to see who would join that under federal direction. Might be some value to occasionally rotating a goal oriented hard charger through.

I have an artist rendition of our suspect...

We killed a helluva lot of people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo who didn't have anything to do with bombing Pearl Harbor either. It may have been morally reprehensible. But it damn well did accomplish something. It ended the war and gave us unconditional victory. That was also the last time that we have won a total victory in warfare. Every war since has been fought using half measures and overly restrictive ROE that accomplishes little more than getting our own people killed for nothing. Trying to fight wars as we have done in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan simply does not work.  And it never will work. Unless we are prepared to use whatever measures are necessary to ensure victory, then we should just keep our troops at home.

If there was an intentional timing, I missed it. I apologize for that.

In any case, page 22 of that manual was somewhat interesting. It covered bombing and breaking morale during Desert Storm. How units never even bombed surrendered. I also just finished watching Band of Brothers again. It would be a mistake to think that everyone else is more like the Iraqis than like the 101st at Bastogne.

In any case, OP is explaining how it works now. Which to me is crucial to understanding flaws anyways. Like I said. Total daydreaming for me. Once upon a time I wanted to go fly A-10s. I figured it looked like a hell of a fun airframe to fly and CAS had the greatest potential to have an immediate impact. Instant gratification is a hell of a drug ya know.

Well the people in those cities did recognize themselves as part of that country. I suppose you can draw some parallels to our civil war. Where you had people who identified more with their states than the Union, hence the confederacy. What effect from defeating a country when someone only marginally considers theirself part of that country?

Japan was a cohesive country with a functioning government.  I am not against bombing civilians when they support a government that opposes us; which was not the case in Afghanistan in 2001.  

Afghans have never supported (or wanted) a national identity; been that way for thousands of years.  That is why we are having such a hard time there - they don't want what we're selling.

Outside of Kabul, Afghanistan is a loose network of tribes.  It is not a cohesive government.  The most cohesion you will ever see amongst "Afghans" is when they fight a foreign invader.  As soon as the foreign presence leaves, they go right back to fighting each other.  They've been doing it for thousands of years and long before they were known as "Afghans".  

You could turn RC-East into a glass parking lot and the fuckers in RC-South couldn't give two shits.  Hell, they might like it - they tend to fight each other in the lulls between fighting foreign invaders.  

I'll start an acronyms and definitions post, but each .mil contributor will be kindly asked to add a few so I don't have to sit here for an hour naming/explaining them all.  I'm using JP 3-09.3 Close Air Support as the reference.

AAA- Anti-Aircraft Artillery

A/C- Aircraft

ACA- Airspace Control Authority The commander designated to assume overall responsibility for the operation of the airspace control system in the airspace control area.

ACA- Airspace Coordination Area

ACO- Airspace Control Order An order implementing the airspace control plan that provides the details of the approved requests for airspace coordinating measures. It is published either as part of the air tasking order or as a separate document.

ACP- Airspace Control Plan

ACM- Airspace Coordinating Measures:  Measures employed to facilitate the efficient use of airspace to accomplish missions and simultaneously provide safeguards for friendly forces.

ALO- Air Liaison Officer

AO-Area of Operations

AOR- Area of Responsibility

Air Superiority

ASOC- Air Support Operations Center:  The principal air control agency of the theater air control system responsible for the direction and control of air operations directly supporting the ground combat element. It coordinates air missions requiring integration with other supporting arms and ground forces. It normally collocates with the Army tactical headquarters senior fire support coordination
center within the ground combat element.

AAGS- Army Air-Ground System: The Army system which provides for interface between Army and tactical air support agencies of other Services in the planning, evaluating, processing, and coordinating of air support requirements and operations. It is composed of appropriate staff members, including G-2 air and G-3 air personnel, and necessary communication equipment.

Attack Heading:  1. The interceptor heading during the attack phase that will achieve the desired track-crossing angle. 2. The assigned magnetic compass heading to be flown by aircraft during the delivery phase of an air strike.

BDA- Battle Damage Assessment: The estimate of damage resulting from the application of lethal or nonlethal military force. Battle damage assessment is composed of physical damage assessment, functional damage assessment, and target system assessment.

Boundary:  A line that delineates surface areas for the purpose of facilitating coordination and deconfliction of operations between adjacent units, formations, or areas.

CAS- Close Air Support:  Air action by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.

No evidence to present.

I just figured it would be common sense to make fixed wing CAS a division organic asset instead of having to go to a totally different command.

No. I really want to know if this idea would benefit the soldiers on the ground and enable the AF to concentrate on keeping the skies clear of bad guys and bombing cities.

Um... I didn't call out Sylvan- I just said I was going to ignore him, nor did I PM him.

...

Read that again, never said you did.

I'm having some problems with continuity as I only see his post when quoted.  It seemed, 2 posts up he was imply that I started the thread to call him out and then PM'd him.

ETA FUCK IPHONE AUTOCORRECT

So every KIA, WIA, and Veteran of every war post WW2 was wasted and accomplished nothing because the outcome of different wars in different times for different reasons was different.

That speaks volumes to your ignorance on recent US history and the overall history of warfare. Do you think that insurgency using Guerrilla tactics is new to the world in the 20th or 21st century?

It's impossible to solve a real problem if you refuse to acknowledge its existence in the real world. It is tempting to attempt to ignore political reality and try to just blame the politicians. But that doesn't work. They, like the military are just a reflection of our society.  

I always find it ironic that the AF culture consistently longs for the days of fighting the good fight in WW2... Which happened before their service existed, and was a meat grinder for the Army Air Corps because of terrible doctrine and ignoring reality/results.

Given the waste of time that strategic bombing was in the second war I'm surprised people can point at it as an example of air power with a straight face.

Christ you people could fuck up a wet dream.

This could have been an interesting thread.

If you look at the late war experience with Japan it makes a very compelling case.

There were successes in the fight against Germany, but they were fewer and far between (Hamburg, Dresden etc) after the annihilation of Hamburg the Nazi's estimated they could absorb 6 such losses before having to surrender... fortunately for them the Allied bombing effort changed gears. Still the ETO is a poor example seeing as how the outcome there was largely driven by the Russian advance killing every German male they came across and raping every German female they came across.

Anyone who can point to WWII as an example of restraint and the precision use of force winning a war simply has not read their history.

The PTO was one by the horrid atrocities of Air forces bombing entire cities out of existence, and naval forces blockading the home islands into cannibalism.

The ETO was won by the horrid atrocity of Russian Ground forces just murdering people wholesale.

United States Ground forces did not contribute in any meaningful way to the conflict except to support our Air and Naval Forces or to give the Russians some breathing room.

Just FYI we killed tens of thousands of French civilians in the bombings and battles in Normandy.


Very true. Modern America won't accept massive sustained casualties. Even in Vietnam, there was outrage when Time did a piece on the 242 men killed in a "regular" week in Vietnam. Imagine that today.

Bombing wasn't important in the war. Aerial mining was the most effective non-nuclear use of bombers.

Completely ridiculous statement.

I suggest you read Atkinson's Guns at Last light

Hell, do you know what ended the battle of Kursk? The Allied ARMY invasion of Sicily.

Wikipedia is running out of bandwidth supporting these armchair generals.

Policy by other means.

Politics is organized hatred, that is unity. - John Jay Chapman

Yes, most of our men who have fought and died in our more recent wars did so in vain. We lost over 58,000 people in Vietnam trying to keep the Communists from taking over. Yet we failed and the Communists did take over. The people that died there died for abso-fucking-lutely nothing. It was a waste of good men. And it sickens me. The same is true for Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq is falling apart and will soon be ruled by people that will make Saddam Hussein look like a fucking Sunday school teacher in comparison. And Afghanistan will suffer the same fate the second we leave there. What have these wars accomplished? Nothing!

And you wanna talk about ignorance? Ignorance is continuing to get involved in dubious causes that lead to protracted guerrilla wars that we cannot win. Ignorance is trying to succeed at nation building in countries populated by 13th century savages who want nothing to do with our grand visions of democracy.

I am well aware of recent US history and the history of warfare. And that awareness tells me that the American public simply won't tolerate wars that drag on for years without any progress. Americans supported the Vietnam War initially, until they realized how politicians dragged us into the mess, then wouldn't do what was necessary to actually win the damn war. Americans also initially supported the Iraq invasion...up until they realized the WMD threat was dramatically overstated. They quickly grew tired of it when a steady stream of flag draped coffins started returning home for what had become a highly dubious cause. And though it took much longer, popular opinion finally even turned against the war in Afghanistan, despite the fact it is the land where the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were trained and their leadership based. They did so because it became apparent that it was futile to attempt the sort of nation building we were trying. Had we stuck to killing terrorists rather than trying to bring democracy to a hodgepodge nation like Afghanistan, maybe we could have actually succeeded.

I think Americans are willing to make sacrifices. But it has to be for a reason. And it must serve a purpose. Sacrifice and loss of life without any benefit or purpose is not going to fly here. Unfortunately, our inept leadership can never seem to learn this lesson and as a result get us bogged down in these purposeless, endless wars that have objectives which are ill-defined or can't be achieved in the first place. I'm sick and tired of seeing thousands of our best and brightest sacrificing their minds, bodies and lives for hopeless causes.

War should be a matter of last resort. And when it comes, it needs to be fought as a war, with definable objectives that we can reasonably expect to achieve. If the situation calls for kicking ass and breaking things, fine. But if it calls for police actions, nation building and other such folly, then forget it. It isn't worth getting involved in.

I see the Rush Limbaugh crowd has made it.

Win!

Why weren't UAVs allowed to fire weapons in support of the early phases of Operation Moshtarak?

I've been  suggesting to Sylvan that should be his next article topic for months.

If we're still able to ask questions, I have one, but you probably won't be able to answer it, as the plane retired years ago and was also USN and USMC rather than USAF.

If the A-6 was brought out of retirement, and not retrofitted for EA-6B across the board, what would their most-effective use be?

Making people deaf as fuck.



 

One might argue his translation is more correct for the current administration.

wait, I think some folks already did.

Depends on which translation you use.

Colin S. Gray uses this translation, as I recall, and he is probably the most significant scholar on Clausewitz that is writing today.

You are right. Nation building is for morons. Marshall in Europe and MacArthur in Japan rebuilding those backward nations of savages was a complete disaster that cost many good men their lives, and boatloads of money. We should have instituted war reparations instead.

We should sprinkle magic fairy dust on everything and change every enemy into the Germans and Japanese. I'm sure all of our enemies will fight on our terms to make it easier on us. I'm sure indiscriminately Killing people in a large geographic area would never have negative repercussions for us. Nukes make everything better.

I believe we did have a chance to drop a small nuke or indescriminately bomb Kandahar (home of Mullah Omar and the Taliban) from Sep-Oct 2001. I've heard Nukes were discussed by the Bush administration. But he chose to go another route, and that ship sailed. We did have a lot looser ROE at the beginning of both wars. How do you suggest we go from weapons free to being at peace? Or do we just kill everyone? Sounds like a plan Hitler would approve.

What about bombing the ones you can identify (like the Palestinians on the night of 9/11/01 partying about the whole affair in the West Bank)?

I can tell you that had I been CinC, I'd have put whatever steel I could have laid on 'em right up their asses and then announced that ALL food and monetary aid was summarily cancelled.

The world might not have liked my responses but they damn well wouldn't have wanted any of them either.

Disagree with US policy = valid war target...

Tracking.

Not necessarily.

Feel free to disagree however, if you choose to rejoice in our despair especially after we've been feeding you for 40 years or so, then yeah, you might get yer ass killed.

YMMV

But enough of the hijack.

Back to the good stuff.