The article will look at the air war in Kosovo as a recent historical example of the use of airpower, and then look at refinements and developments in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq-–two conflicts that are not yet ended. Moreover, the author is a ground Army fighter, not a pilot, so the viewpoint here is that of the ground commander looking at the role of airpower. It is only the view of one author, not that of the Department of Defense or the United States Government. Even when tacticians do correctly predict the type of the next conflict, and plan well to be prepared for it, the great German tactician, Karl von Moltke sagely said: “No plan of operations survives the first collision with the main body of the enemy.” This article will briefly examine the recent history and development of the use of airpower in military operations. That tendency develops because military tacticians are seldom able to predict the next war-–when, where, why, with what weapons and ideals will the next conflicts take shape? So, they plan based on what they know rather than what they cannot foretell. Military forces have a strong tendency to “fight the last successful war.” And why not? If it was successful, then they should be able to win again using the same tactics.
#Pdf air university on space warfare military strategy full
And as the US military establishment woke to the full implications of the September 11 attacks, it found that it had been thrust into a global war on terrorism–-a war that it little expected and for which it was, as an institution, ill prepared.
Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.In the aftermath of the attacks against America on September 11, 2001, the nation and its elected leaders turned to the Department of Defense and its military that is charged with defending the United States. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.Ĭonsensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences.Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Help Ordering Information New Releases Browse by Division Browse by Topic
0 kommentar(er)
