Why "Next War-itis"?
Why does the Air Force have more trouble getting over the Cold War than either of the other services? The Army has rebuilt itself in response to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Navy shifted focus to the littoral in the 1990s and to maritime maintenance in this decade. Particularly in the case of the Navy, procurement strategies have followed suit; whatever you want to say about the DD(x) and the LCS, they are NOT platforms intended to fight the Soviet Union. The Air Force? Not so much...
Gates expressed doubts that the United States will get into a shooting war with a "peer competitor" like Russia or China any time soon. After he was fired, the outgoing Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. "Buzz" Moseley, echoed those sentiments. Not [Michael] Wynne.
"My response to Secretary Gates in that interchange was my brother was shot down in Vietnam by a Russian surface-to-air missile that was sold to the North Vietnamese," Wynne said. "I never considered Vietnam to be a peer competitor. But I lost my brother to the fact that some peer sold the weapon that killed him."
Wynne's defenders in the Air Force are equally unapologetic. While Gates has spent months railing against the military-industrial compl ex's fixation on a showdown China or Russia -- "next-war-itis," the Defense Secretary called it -- Air Force Maj. Gen. Charlie Dunlap, writing in the Tampa Tribune, says "the entire defense establishment nevertheless suffers from a 'This-Waritis' contagion." Which means the bureaucratic and strategic battle that ousted the Air Force's chiefs is far from over.
Right... because we certainly should pay much more attention to a notional, fifteen years away war against potential enemies over whom we have presumptive dominance than to the wars that we're actually fighting. Good catch, Chuckie.
The larger problem for the Air Force is that both the Army and Navy have long traditions to borrow from, such that they are capable of "re-inventing" themselves while retaining a sense of identity. Both the Army and the Navy can also borrow from the histories of foreign military organizations; the Navy rather self-consciously styles itself as the modern equivalent of the nineteenth century Royal Navy. The Air Force lacks historical traditions to borrow from, both because it is such a new service, and because it has been a worldwide leader since its inception. Put briefly, the Air Force only knows the Cold War; it only understands conflict in terms of great power struggle, and as such all future planning (in contrast to short term compromises) will be oriented around that organizational purpose. To ask the Air Force not to think in terms of great power war is to ask it not to be the Air Force, but rather some other organization born at some other time for some other purpose. As such, Gates cleaning out of the brass isn't really going to amount to much; it is literally in the DNA of the Air Force to act in this way.
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- June 29, 2008








Maybe you'll like this one from D.E.
In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden
as a prisoner's chains.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Email this page
By leftysrsickJune 29, 2008 - 6:54pmSo why do you keep asserting
So why do you keep asserting that the prisoners in Gitmo never had it so good?
Freedom is a lot sweeter than any gilded cage.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower
- Email this page
By MichtouJune 29, 2008 - 7:02pmWhen did I ever "assert" that?
Though, I do believe Gitmo is a hell of a lot better prison, than the one's existing in the countries they were fighting in.
- Email this page
By leftysrsickJune 29, 2008 - 8:01pmGo enlist
...you pussy-wussy traitor.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2008 - 8:05pmYour the one who wants to surrender to the
so called none existent Islamo-Facists. That would make you the pussy-wussy traitor.
- Email this page
By leftysrsickJune 29, 2008 - 9:02pmAh, typical g0p stupidity...
...thinking there can be surrender to a nonexistent entity.
Go enlist, you pussy-wussy traitor. They need your blood to pull more oil out of the sand.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2008 - 10:15pmhahahaha! You put that so
hahahaha! You put that so well:
Do these GOP fools still think America buys into their constructed boogy-man? They want us to believe we are in a "war". Sorry, "friends", but WWI and WWII were wars because it was nation against nation. What we are involved in is a counter-terrorist operation (actually we are fighting terrorism with our own terrorism instead of treating this like the law-enforcement issue it really is).
I always hated the phrase "War On Drugs" also. Really, are Drugs ever going to "surrender"? Will we ever capture the capital of Drugs? Can we do a prisoner exchange with Drugs? Will the leader of Drugs ever have to sign a treaty?
The GOP believes they can sell anything to this populace if they apply the right labels to it.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75June 30, 2008 - 9:51amDo you cower under your bed at night?
Hiding from the Islamic boogeyman?
They should make guys like you police up the bodies in an Iraqi neighborhood after the Air Force bombs it. Maybe when you actually see death up close and get its smell in your nostrils you won't be so eager to wish it on others.
You are beneath contempt.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37June 30, 2008 - 8:15amyeah it was long, but.........
Yeah it was long, and there were a lot of topics, that makes it hard to respond. But they were good topics, and I did enjoy seeing my cartoons, but maybe several topics would be better, however I would noit say it's a cause to have someone banned. Hey, they were good topics, worthy of real responses, not you should be banned talk.
cartoons for the coming progressive age www.whatnowtoons.com
- Email this page
By what now toonsJune 30, 2008 - 2:21pmSing Sing has been asked
Sing Sing has been asked many times not to post like that. If he/she would break up into single topics that make discussion possible, I wouldn't mind. It's not that the topics and graphics aren't good, it's that the style of posting is clogging the threads and making discussion impossible.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower
- Email this page
By MichtouJune 30, 2008 - 2:30pmwow, all sing sing's posts have been purged.
Randi was right, AAR edits their boards.
cartoons for the coming progressive age www.whatnowtoons.com
- Email this page
By what now toonsJuly 4, 2008 - 6:34pmIt had nothing to do with content.
It's not because of your cartoons. It's because of the way Sing Sing posts, clogging up the boards with excessively long posts, cut and pastes with no attribution, and ten different topics in one post.
Don't take it personally. I like your cartoons.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower
- Email this page
By MichtouJuly 4, 2008 - 9:24pm