Ares has another post singing the praises of Air-Sea Battle. Air-Sea Battle, just like the "Revolution in Military Affairs" before it is the hope for a painless war. Think tanks have been trying to solve the issue of fighting a painless, neat and technological war.
It won't happen. People are involved.
We're barbaric.
We're easily broken. Easily killed.
Wars are tragedies...Tragedies are never neat. Never clean. Never painless.
But forget what I have to say on the issue. I recommend that you read the attached .pdf. Gulf War 1 was the closest that air power advocates have come to realizing the dream. Even there they failed.
Myth of Air Power
Several questions:
ReplyDelete1. Did you actually read the Air-Sea Battle report?
2. How would you use the Army and the Marine Corps in the Pacific, in a war against China, in any manner that is not already outlined in that report?
Unless you want to invade China, there really isn't a massive need for ground forces in a Pacific conflict. Its unlikely the US will be invading islands in the South China Sea and it is equally unlikely that China will be invading Japan or the Second Island Chain.
Perhaps ground forces will be needed in the Korean Peninsula.
You have fundamentally misunderstood that report. It is not saying: ground forces don't matter. It is saying the logical comment: in the Pacific theater, ground forces are not as important as air and naval forces.
And, that report is far from saying the war will be quick and painless. Read it again! The report specifically says: the US needs to survive a swarm of ballistic missiles. That doesn't sound quick or painless. The report insinuates that war will take months and be, at its heart, a campaign of attrition, that doesn't sound like a revolution in military affairs.
There is nothing in the blog posting above that makes me believe you actually read the Sea-Air Battle report. Instead, it seems that you are just looking for another reason to be mad.
climb off your high horse cowboy. i read the drivel and that's exactly what it is.
ReplyDeletei see the report for what it actually is. a move by some to tailor the US military to there desires without an actual view towards what the US needs.
The USAF wants back into the funding game. The US Navy too. This report will give them the doctrinal background to claim a larger part of future defense budgets without having to validate the need.
i'm not mad about this, I"M DISGUSTED. i hate think tanks and i hate group think.
this report is filled with both.
But, you failed to acknowledge any of the report's suggestions or ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhat specific parts of the report do you disagree with, and why?
The report is not particularly innovative, if that's what you think. In fact, it seems just to be talking about things that are obvious if only one puts a bit of thought into it.
But, I disagree with you about the issue of funding. The report makes clear, in several parts, that if the US wants to have credibility in East Asia, it must at least prepare for a war. This is not a funding issue, it is a national policy issue. Does the US want to contend with China, or will set itself up for impotence in the Western Pacific?
What in your opinion does the US need, and why? This report is a very limited one, it only says: what the US should do to properly contain China. It is suggesting any revolution in military affairs. In fact, its suggestions are more of the back to the basics than anything else. There is no panacea in the report, instead it is notable for rejecting silver bullets.
I mean, the report essentially argues for a war of attrition. Arguments that specific haven't been seen since NATO was discussing USSR tanks, or the Germans were justifying Verdun.
Once again, I ask you, what specific suggestions of the report do you not like? Or, are you just opposed to the nature of the Western Pacific?