Time to abolish Air Force

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.boston.com/opinion/2014/01/06/time-abolish-the-air-force/B1BQF31AkNjl0GcQS8msHO/story.html

BMT

[grigori]

If someone thinks it'd help to abolish the Air Force then who'll maintain air superiority in case of war?

IMO the four services-Army,USAF,USN,USMC are very important for the US to maintain its global military superiority. Special Operations and Air power are without doubt a very important asset for the US.

[Red Flag 1]

Another brick out of the wall. Dismantle the US military, man by man, unit by unit, base by base, and service by service. All to save money to extend benefits for those who have/will never earn a living. If you think it can't and/or won't happen, put some jelly in your pockets, you are turning into toast.

My $.02.

[Streck-Fu]

http://www.boston.com/opinion/2014/01/06/time-abolish-the-air-force/B1BQF31AkNjl0GcQS8msHO/story.html

BMT

That requires a Boston.com registration to read. I hope that you don't mind me linking to the Foreign Affairs article that does not require an account: LINK (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140574/robert-farley/ground-the-air-force)

I would tend to agree that removing the administrative and bureaucratic (did I just repeat myself?) costs is worth merging the Air FVorce back into the Army.

In the case of the army and the air force, however, the component parts end up being divided -- or needlessly replicated -- by separate bureaucratic organizations, each with its own priorities.

In my opinion, if they were to model such a relationship as seen between marine Corps Infantry and Aviation, it would be a very powerful force.
It would take a very long time to over come the flag level egos and pride and hurty feelings, though....

[Streck-Fu]

Another brick out of the wall. Dismantle the US military, man by man, unit by unit, base by base, and service by service. All to save money to extend benefits for those who have/will never earn a living. If you think it can't and/or won't happen, put some jelly in your pockets, you are turning into toast.

My $.02.

I would not think that incorporation of the Air Force assets and mission into the Army would qualify as a dismantling of the service. Redundancies can be eliminated with the missions and capabilities retained.

[Trapper John]

I like the non-traditional thinking here. Folding air assets back into the 2 primary services (Army & Navy) makes sense in light of the changing nature of warfare (asymmetric). It also makes good economic sense at least on the surface. And I can see how this would make good operational sense.

IMHO, when facing intractable problems it's usually a good idea to rethink what your doing and how your doing it - start from first principles and forget what you think you know and move from that point. This article does just that. :lifter

[ddoering]

Who needs an Airforce when you have drones......

[scooter]

A more interesting idea would be to go the Israeli route and merge all four services into one organization, thereby streamlining medical, intelligence, and administrative functions. A lot of duplication in other areas would be eliminated as well. There are drawbacks too, but I think it's an interesting idea.

[Trapper John]

Scooter that's an interesting idea. Could SOCOM be viewed as a pilot scale program for just that?

[MR2]

A more interesting idea would be to go the Israeli route and merge all four services into one organization, thereby streamlining medical, intelligence, and administrative functions. A lot of duplication in other areas would be eliminated as well. There are drawbacks too, but I think it's an interesting idea.

Lets start with all the Federal law enforcement entities first... :munchin

[Dusty]

A more interesting idea would be to go the Israeli route and merge all four services into one organization, thereby streamlining medical, intelligence, and administrative functions. A lot of duplication in other areas would be eliminated as well. There are drawbacks too, but I think it's an interesting idea.

It's an excellent idea. There are a lot of things the Israeli military does we should emulate.

(One exception being the "rack your pistol on presentation" technique.)

[scooter]

Scooter that's an interesting idea. Could SOCOM be viewed as a pilot scale program for just that?

We're just as screwed up as everyone else. USASOC, MARSOC, NAVSPECWARCOM, JSOC, and USAFSOC (?) all have their own training and admin functions, many of which overlap and are redundant. Now, if each unit (SF Regiment, SEALs, ect) all combined schools into a joint schoolhouse, with each pipeline cherry picking schools a-la-carte for their pipeline.... I don't know if it would work. But it could. Imagine if there was an initial gut check course for all services. SF could then go to a land nav course jointly run with JSOC for the follow on "selection" portion. Ranger School instead of SUT and the Seal's land warfare training, MOS phase, a joint SERE course, a shared MARSOC / USASOC UW phase, followed by language. Or in another order, however the folks at SWC want to run it. A shared dive program, MFF, and other stuff for advanced schools. Again, just an interesting idea. But it could work for DoD as a whole...although the Marine Corps would be the biggest loser since they would pretty much disappear into the other components of the new organization.

[grigori]

We're just as screwed up as everyone else. USASOC, MARSOC, NAVSPECWARCOM, JSOC, and USAFSOC (?) all have their own training and admin functions, many of which overlap and are redundant. Now, if each unit (SF Regiment, SEALs, ect) all combined schools into a joint schoolhouse, with each pipeline cherry picking schools a-la-carte for their pipeline.... I don't know if it would work. But it could. Imagine if there was an initial gut check course for all services. SF could then go to a land nav course jointly run with JSOC for the follow on "selection" portion. Ranger School instead of SUT and the Seal's land warfare training, MOS phase, a joint SERE course, a shared MARSOC / USASOC UW phase, followed by language. Or in another order, however the folks at SWC want to run it. A shared dive program, MFF, and other stuff for advanced schools. Again, just an interesting idea. But it could work for DoD as a whole...although the Marine Corps would be the biggest loser since they would pretty much disappear into the other components of the new organization.

Something on the lines of UKSF? Like a common selection process like there is for SAS,SBS,SRR volunteers upto a certain point and then afterwards they head on to their respective units for further selection depending on their units requirement.

I am using UKSF as an example because if I recall both the SAS and SBS had entirely different selection run at Hereford and Poole respectively and now its all united under UKSF.

[Trapper John]

We're just as screwed up as everyone else. USASOC, MARSOC, NAVSPECWARCOM, JSOC, and USAFSOC (?) all have their own training and admin functions, many of which overlap and are redundant. Now, if each unit (SF Regiment, SEALs, ect) all combined schools into a joint schoolhouse, with each pipeline cherry picking schools a-la-carte for their pipeline.... I don't know if it would work. But it could. Imagine if there was an initial gut check course for all services. SF could then go to a land nav course jointly run with JSOC for the follow on "selection" portion. Ranger School instead of SUT and the Seal's land warfare training, MOS phase, a joint SERE course, a shared MARSOC / USASOC UW phase, followed by language. Or in another order, however the folks at SWC want to run it. A shared dive program, MFF, and other stuff for advanced schools. Again, just an interesting idea. But it could work for DoD as a whole...although the Marine Corps would be the biggest loser since they would pretty much disappear into the other components of the new organization.

Makes a lot of sense and probably would result in a military force more realistically aligned with the future threats and at a lower cost without sacrificing combat readiness.

What about including the various intelligence services under the integrated military command structure? I have been critical of the CIA paramilitary ops in other posts. Field operators would come from the military and would interject a level of discipline and coordination with the military mission. Seems to me unifying the intelligence services (including NSA) under a unified military service command structure would be very beneficial on several levels and if nothing else would focus the intelligence mission and break down the barriers to sharing of intel.

[tonyz]

Interesting discussion.

Integration as discussed seems worthy of consideration.

Maintaining a capable, well disciplined clandestine service separate and apart from bureaucracy and ROE might still be of some benefit.

[Surf n Turf]

What about including the various intelligence services under the integrated military command structure?
Field operators would come from the military and would interject a level of discipline and coordination with the military mission.

Seems to me unifying the intelligence services (including NSA) under a unified military service command structure would be very beneficial on several levels and if nothing else would focus the intelligence mission and break down the barriers to sharing of intel.

Tactical, Strategic, or both
Who does "political" intelligence, business espionage, or CONUS engagements
How would this effect BIG ARMY "military ethics"
Wouldn't this be RE-establishing what already existed

http://spookdblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/cia-vs-dia.html


SnT

[MR2]

Interesting discussion.

Integration as discussed seems worthy of consideration.

Maintaining a capable, well disciplined clandestine service separate and apart from bureaucracy and ROE might still be of some benefit.

And then there is the private enterprise angle...

[Trapper John]

Tactical, Strategic, or both
Who does "political" intelligence, business espionage, or CONUS engagements
How would this effect BIG ARMY "military ethics"
Wouldn't this be RE-establishing what already existed

http://spookdblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/cia-vs-dia.html


SnT

Good points! My thinking thus far was only directed to the strategic and operational (tactical) intel supporting the military mission.

To take this thought process one step further, I think the DHS should be rolled into the DoD. Bear in mind my 2 primary goals would be to (1) eliminate redundancies (reduce cost) and (2) improve efficiency of intel gathering and dissemination without weakening national security or military combat readiness. I think just the opposite would result.

There would by necessity need to be a clear fire wall between the DHS and Military missions at the operational (tactical) level just as currently exists. But at the strategic level, I don't see a distinction, especially with the asymmetric nature of the threat.

[Surf n Turf]

I think the DHS should be rolled into the DoD.

There would by necessity need to be a clear fire wall between the DHS and Military missions at the operational (tactical) level just as currently exists. But at the strategic level, I don't see a distinction, especially with the asymmetric nature of the threat.

You seen to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too. As weak as it is, we still have The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 controlling. Ya' can't be half-pregnant -- and call it a "fire wall".

SnT

[Trapper John]

You seen to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too. As weak as it is, we still have The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 controlling. Ya' can't be half-pregnant -- and call it a "fire wall".

SnT

Posse Comitatus is not violated if within DoD there are two branches under civilian control (SoD). One branch is the former DHS and the other is the combined Army, Navy, AF, NG, and CG.

[Surf n Turf]

Actually I've been involved on JTF-6 missions.
Posse Comitatus is very strict in what soldiers can and can't do. We could not collect on US citizens. We could only collect info on confirmed people crossing the US border. We had to call in what we saw and allow law enforcement agencies make arrests.
But bottom line, US military can do policing... It's just not direct involvement.
Just FYI, we busted (observed and called the LEA) an 800 lb pot shipment during one of our missions in Nogalas, AZ in 1996.
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44631

Posse Comitatus is not violated if within DoD there are two branches under civilian control (SoD). One branch is the former DHS and the other is the combined Army, Navy, AF, NG, and CG.

First, I want to claim "cross thread credit" :D

Second, I guess we now have to define "direct involvement"

I don't think that your solution is soluable, as "The Military" (who in your example is in charge) regardless of Walls / Branches participation is still prohibited under Posse Comitatus, without Constitutional or Congressional action.

Additionally, 10 U.S.C. 375 Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

SnT

[Trapper John]

I don't think a mere strategic reorganization and consolidation of government agencies to improve efficiency and lower cost constitutes a violation of Posse Commitatus. It is incumbent upon the SoD and the various Directorates to ensure that does not happen at the operational (tactical) level.

But let me pose a hypothetical. Would it be a violation of Posse Commitatus to officially discharge SF personnel from the Army and give TDY assignments to these personnel in the Homeland Security division of the newly reorganized DoD? The mission would be to integrate into communities like Dearborn or Detroit, work with local assets, identify terror threats, organize a resistance force, gather intel, etc. all as part of national counter-terrorism mission. Or do the same, but target drug cartel activity in cities like Miami. I don't think so and, frankly, I think that is exactly what is required.

[Surf n Turf]

I don't think a mere strategic reorganization and consolidation of government agencies to improve efficiency and lower cost constitutes a violation of Posse Commitatus. It is incumbent upon the SoD and the various Directorates to ensure that does not happen at the operational (tactical) level.

And it is incumbent upon the NSA and it various Directorates to ensure they do not spy on American Citizens in violation of their 4th Amendment rights. How is that working out ??


Would it be a violation of Posse Commitatus to officially discharge SF personnel from the Army and give TDY assignments to these personnel in the Homeland Security division of the newly reorganized DoD?

Hmmmm - sounds like a plan. :D

IIRC, I heard "rumors" of this being done in the '60's in a similar context. At the time "plausible deniability" was the (alleged) motivating factor. Soldiers (with various MOS) would be discharged from active duty, enter the civilian job market, complete their civilian assignment, and return to AD without a break in service.

Sounds like a good way to add to a collection of DD256's

Would probably pass muster in not violating the Posse Commitatus prohibitions, but if subjected to Congressional oversite would strain credibility, and not pass the smell test. :(

If such a thing happened, good thing the Church Commission didn't look into it.
But Church did have some worthwhile observations --- Ignore Mitchell et al
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YipDR383hY

SnT

[TOMAHAWK9521]

I don't think a mere strategic reorganization and consolidation of government agencies to improve efficiency and lower cost constitutes a violation of Posse Commitatus. It is incumbent upon the SoD and the various Directorates to ensure that does not happen at the operational (tactical) level.

But let me pose a hypothetical. Would it be a violation of Posse Commitatus to officially discharge SF personnel from the Army and give TDY assignments to these personnel in the Homeland Security division of the newly reorganized DoD? The mission would be to integrate into communities like Dearborn or Detroit, work with local assets, identify terror threats, organize a resistance force, gather intel, etc. all as part of national counter-terrorism mission. Or do the same, but target drug cartel activity in cities like Miami. I don't think so and, frankly, I think that is exactly what is required.

Hypothetically: Give that mission to the NGSF. We were unleashed to hunt down those 3 nutjobs in the 4-corners area of the Southwest back in '98. Our biggest obstacle was the FBI, who apparently didn't share our SOP of sharing info and knowing who was on our left and right limits and what their mission was.

Oh yeah, they really didn't like us calling in "shots fired" and observing some LEO's conducting some kind of IADs against some apparently really spooky shadows out there in the bush. :rolleyes:

[Trapper John]

Oh yeah, they really didn't like us calling in "shots fired" and observing some LEO's conducting some kind of IADs against some apparently really spooky shadows out there in the bush. :rolleyes:

Now that's funny rat there. :D Sounds like you guys had some real fun at the FBIs and local LEOs expense. :lifter

[Aknazer]

While I'm all for combining all of the services into a single service and working to reduce redundancy, I think the real problem would come at the political and upper leadership levels. For example, in order to reduce the number of finance people you would need to consolidate bases...but that takes money away from constituents of the politicians. Thus they're likely to be opposed to such things if it affects them (and lets be real, there's already bases that could be combined if not for this).

Or when it comes to upper leadership. You're risking all sorts of problems if you try to put a ground pounder in charge of the flyboys or vice versa. As aircrew on a crew aircraft I already see this issue when we have people from pointy-nose aircraft (typically single-seaters) come through the program. It was similar issues that helped the AF get split off from the Army after the war as well, and why there's restrictions on who can be in charge of certain squadrons in the AF (a finance officer can't be put in charge of a flying squadron for example).

Now, I don't think it to be impossible or a bad idea, but given the current landscape of things I think it would end up hurting all of the services while the feds just divert any possible savings into other pet projects to try and buy more votes.

[torturedxeno]

In regard to the recent comments in this thread: what if, in addition to rolling DHS into DoD, they also created a land-based equivalent to the Coast Guard, merged the two, and created a consolidated Homeland Defense Force with authority to conduct operations on American soil (for instance, hunting down dangerous criminals, keeping order during riots, assisting the National Guard after natural disasters, rooting out terrorist cells)? But then, what if people in power decide to abuse this new branch of the military? It's bad enough having militarized police teams kicking down doors for seemingly minor offenses (or suspicions, thereof); now imagine an actual consolidated military force with authority to operate domestically, and extensive funding and equipment to boot.