A strategy based on faith: the enduring appeal of progressive American airpower

Joint Force Quarterly, April, 2008 by Mark Clodfelter

[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

Following the F-16 bombing raid in June 2006 that killed terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, President George W. Bush told reporters: "Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue." (1) The subdued comments contrasted sharply with the positive assessments of airpower made by American political and military leaders during the "shock and awe" phase of the current Iraq war. Yet the President also contended that the raid enhanced the prospects for success in Iraq. "Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda," he stated. "It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of the struggle."

It is unlikely that the President's initial observations indicate a seismic shift in how many American political and military chiefs view airpower effectiveness. Instead, President Bush's remarks illustrate an often unacknowledged aspect of American airpower thinking that traces its roots to the idealist notions of the Progressive Era. For the past eight decades, many progressive-minded airmen have argued that bombers offer a way to win wars more quickly and more cheaply than a reliance on surface forces. Vastly improved technology has reinforced the notion that bombing can achieve almost antiseptic results, and the idea of a near-bloodless victory has had a special appeal to Presidents as well as to Air Force pilots. That is not to say that progressive ideals have always dictated how America has used airpower. In some cases during the previous 80 years, progressive notions have remained dormant or been transformed; in others, they have been loudly articulated. Still, as the al-Zarqawi raid shows, they have never completely disappeared from the way American political and military leaders think about bombing. Thus, the progressive assumptions that have helped to shape the American approach to airpower merit close scrutiny.

Airpower is a term that includes both lethal and nonlethal uses of military force above the Earth's surface, but in this article, the term denotes bombing, the lethal application that has triggered the greatest amount of debate regarding its utility. The article's purpose is threefold: first, to examine the progressive roots of American airpower and how they have helped mold bombing concepts during the past eight decades; second, to explore why and how wartime Presidents have periodically embraced progressive tenets and married them with their war aims; and third, to show that the central premise of progressive airpower--that bombing is a rational, just military instrument because it makes war cheaper, quicker, and less painful for all sides than surface combat--is a flawed notion that frequently undercuts American political objectives and helps to achieve the antithesis of the desired results.

The progressive approach to airpower best supports political goals in a fast-paced, conventional war of movement conducted primarily in areas away from civilian populations. It is less suited to other types of war. In a total war for unconditional surrender such as World War II, the desire to eliminate the threat will likely eclipse the desire to reduce the enemy's pain. For limited unconventional conflicts such as Vietnam, or stagnant conventional conflicts such as Korea, Carl von Clausewitz's friction--the elements of danger, exertion, uncertainty, and chance that "distinguish real war from war on paper" and make "the apparently easy so difficult" (2)--often prevents airpower from helping to achieve political objectives. Friction prevents an antiseptic application of airpower in all types of wars. Yet in unconventional conflicts such as those the United States faces in Iraq and Afghanistan--against irregular enemies waging sporadic violence among civilians--friendly hearts and minds are vital to achieving such goals as "stability" and "security." In these heavily propagandized wars, which are the type that America will most likely fight in the years ahead, friction in the form of collateral damage not only undermines American goals but also bolsters the enemy cause. Accordingly, this essay argues that American leaders should jettison airpower's progressive notions and the rhetoric that accompanies them.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Friction does not, of course, impact only aerial operations; it plagues any type of military activity. American ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered from its effects, as have Army and Marine units in previous conflicts. Ground power, however, has rarely promised bloodless victory, while proponents of progressive airpower have often proclaimed near-flawless results--their goal has been to avoid ground combat and the losses that it engenders. This belief in a war-winning instrument that produces minimal death and destruction fed the airmen's clamor for a separate air force during the 1920s and 1930s and encouraged them to stress the independent "strategic" bombing mission over "tactical" air support for ground and sea forces. Since obtaining Service independence, Airmen have often touted progressive principles as justification for it.