The Air Force Above All
Commentary: We rarely stop to think of the asymmetrical advantages enjoyed by the military—the overwhelming advantage in firepower, mobility, and technology. This has created what can only be called an empathy gap.
May 6, 2008
|
|
[Introduction by Tom Engelhardt]
Once upon a time, when it came to weaponry in space, "the final frontier" was left largely to the USS Enterprise and early Trekkie cultists (myself among them). Ever since the Reagan era, however, R&D for all sorts of exotic space weaponry to be employed against "enemy" satellites or used against enemies on Earth, has been on the drawing boards, in development, and in the dreams of aerospace enthusiasts.
We've just passed the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's March 23, 1983 "Star Wars" moment, when he tacked three unforgettable paragraphs onto a speech calling for greater defense spending against the Soviet threat. He challenged the "scientific community" to undertake a vast research and development effort to create an "impermeable" antimissile shield in space that would render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." While the purest of presidential fantasies in itself, it marked the beginning of a quarter-century long race to weaponize space, to take what the Air Force regularly refers to today as "the high ground."
Now, of course, we have an Air Force Space Command and a President who has signed a National Space Policy "that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone 'hostile to U.S. interests.'" Though you'll find many explanations for the urge to develop space weaponry and dominate that high ground, it's hard not to believe that a set of deep fantasies aren't involved. Weaponizing space, after all, combines the urge to take that "frontier" (even if it's a vacuum and there are no redskins); the urge to be or play God—to embrace, that is, the delusion that what you can't control from close up, street by street, or village by village, you can somehow control from unbelievably far away; and perhaps the urge to be young and male. (Space wars! Yippee! I saw it in the movies!) Of course, as with so much else in our militarized world, there's also the prosaic, if profitable, urge to spend prodigious amounts of money, fund cutting-edge projects, direct future research, and triumph in interservice rivalries. All of this Astore takes up soaringly in the following piece. Tom
The Air Force Above All
We rarely stop to think of the asymmetrical advantages enjoyed by the military—the overwhelming advantage in firepower, mobility, and technology. This has created what can only be called an empathy gap.
By William J. Astore
When I first joined the Air Force, its mission statement was straightforward: to fly and fight. The recruiting slogan was upbeat: the Air Force was "a great way of life," and the ROTC program I enrolled in was the "gateway to a great way of life."
Mission statements and slogans are easy to poke fun at and shouldn't, perhaps, be taken too seriously. That said, the people who develop them do take them seriously, which is why they can't be ignored.
Consider the Air Force's new slogan: "Air Force—Above All."
Okay, I admit it's catchy, even cute, if, that is, you can get past the "high ground" conceit and ignore the Germanic über alles overtones. Its literal meaning is obvious enough and it does fit with the Air Force's most basic precept, that mastery of the air means mastery of the ground. Yet today's Air Force seeks more than that. It wants to extend its "mastery" to space ("the new high ground") and even to cyberspace. This is yet another disturbing manifestation of our military's quest for "full spectrum dominance," achieved at debilitating cost to the American taxpayer—and a potentially destabilizing one to the planet.
Striving to be "above all" everywhere is ambitious to the point of folly. By comparison, the slogans of the Air Force's sister services seem modest. The poor, embattled Army is simply "Army Strong." The Navy now promises to "Accelerate Your Life." Yawn. The Marines, always faithful, refuse to tinker with their slogan, which remains: "The Few. The Proud. The Marines." Meanwhile, the Air Force soars above such slavish adherence to tradition—as well as any reasonable sense of boundaries or restraint.
The new slogan may also serve as a reminder to airmen to keep their service branch "above all" in their hearts and minds—despite the fact that the Air Force is currently shedding 40,000 airmen as it tries to pay for a new generation of high-tech fighter jets. It most certainly is a measure of the service's determination to deny the use of space to powerful rivals, whether China, Russia—or the U.S. Navy.
Perhaps the slogan even expresses a certain moral superiority—as in an Air Force pilot's comment I once overheard that, when aloft, he felt "morally superior" to the little people scampering around on the ground below him. High ground, indeed.
Flying and Fighting, Everywhere!
So much for slogans. The Air Force's new mission statement begins—and do bear with me for a moment --
The Mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests to fly and fight in air, space and cyberspace.
Flying and fighting in cyberspace sounds exciting—think Neo in The Matrix. And flying and fighting in space—which might yet come to pass—is so Star Wars, especially if the "good" side of the Force is with you, which it must be if you're defending America.
But wait. The Air Force mission statement makes an instant, and anything but defensive u-turn, and promptly lays out a "vision" of "Global Vigilance, Reach and Power," which, it claims, "orbits around three core competencies: Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting and Integrating Operations." How a vision can orbit three cores I don't know—and I once completed the "Space Operations Short Course" at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Nonetheless, this trinity of core competencies somehow enables six "capabilities," which are unapologetically offensive.
The first of the six is "air and space superiority" with which we "can dominate enemy operations in all dimensions: land, sea, air and space." Capability #2 turns out to be "global attack," enabling us to "attack anywhere, anytime and do so quickly and with greater precision than ever before." (In Bush-speak, we'll kill them there, so they don't kill us here.)
Kids playing video games and killing people by remote control sounds like a proud tradition to pass on to future generations of the warrior class.
In the future, no one will grow up.
Reagan was the best !!! I remember seeing him when he was running for president, and came in a helo to S. CA,. I knew from that moment that this was a GREAT man..!!!
The culmination of his dream, was when we destroyed that falling satellite with ONE missile...!!! A bullet hitting a bullet.. WOW...!!!
And what is this guy complaining for..? He criticizes the EFFORT to do precision bombing...? Would he rather we just let loose 300 bombers and fire bomb like we did in WWII against japan...? It is almost like he, subconsciously, wants us to do MORE damage than is necessary...? What is up with that..?
I know he acknowledges that the kids are not trying to do more damage, but he seems to only focus on the removal of the pilot... If we can kill the bad guys without risking our "Boys", isn't that a GOOD thing..?
I have spent my whole life growing up and raising children around fighter and bomber pilots. We live near 2 bases in S. CA., and not one of them EVER said he felt bad when he was doing ANYTHIGN he ever did..!!! He was protecting YOU..!!! You ungrateful bastards...!!!
These guys risk there lives for you and all you do is spit on them. Why do you think that even the MOST left wing hippies on the TV now, say they "Support the Troops"..? Because America HATES your kind for what you have done in the past..!!!
Bill
I must spend a minute addressing Bill Nigh’s ad hominem rant. I find Mr. Astore’s credentials, as a retired military officer and professor, to be quite satisfactory to the subject on which he speaks. He is perhaps a tad more qualified than one who has simply hung out with pilots all his life. I, too, have a great deal of respect for President Reagan; but not because he was some gun-wielding cowboy. On the contrary, Ronald Reagan believed that an impenetrable missile shield would render strategic weapons (nukes) useless. As nations came to this realization they would reduce their nuclear stockpiles and render obsolete the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). His was a noble intention. Unfortunately, the fortunes we’ve spent on the missile defense shield we have today has produced a system that is far from perfect; despite what you may think about the success of the shoot down of USA193. Some countries believe that the shield can be overwhelmed simply with greater numbers of missiles. Consequently, today’s missile defense system is likely to have the opposite effect of what President Reagan intended. Instead if reducing nuclear stockpiles, countries now have an incentive to invest in more. More nukes increases the threat that they will be used or can fall into the wrong hands.
Mr. Astore presents an argument for serious consideration. I believe there is merit to a more sophisticated approach to our foreign policy which considers the use of military force in the context of all other means our nation has at its disposal to deal with conflict. In the case of the Air Force, if all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.