Airpower versus asymmetric enemies: a framework for evaluating effectiveness - Features

Air & Space Power Journal, Fall, 2002 by Dr. Mark Clodfelter

Editorial Abstract

Evaluating airpower's political effectiveness in a conflict is not a straightforward proposition. This is certainly the case with asymmetric foes such as terrorist organizations. Professor Clodfelter presents an interesting framework for this determination, one that involves assessing how well indirect, auxiliary, and independent applications of airpower support both positive and negative political objectives. Ultimately, the effectiveness of airpower must be measured in terms of how well it supports positive goals without jeopardizing the achievement of negative objectives.

**********

ASYMMETRIC IS THE current buzzword used to describe a type of warfare that has been with us much longer than the newfangled term. In its purest sense, asymmetric warfare is about ends, ways, or means--fighting for ends that do not match an opponent's objectives, fighting in ways that differ from an opponent's approach to war, or fighting with means different from an opponent's resources. In the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of 2001, however, the term most often describes a weaker power's use of an unanticipated means of striking at the vulnerability of a stronger power--in this case, the United States. (1) Any type of military force can be applied asymmetrically, including airpower, as al Qaeda's terrorists demonstrated in devastating fashion on 11 September 2001. Yet, how might airpower best be used against an asymmetric foe? The answer is not so different from the response to the fundamental question regarding any application of airpower against any enemy--that is, how can it be used as an effective ins trument of war?

Gauging airpower's effectiveness is not an easy task. One reason for that difficulty is that no universal agreement exists on the meaning of effectiveness. Glausewitz offers perhaps the best means of measurement--how much does the military instrument help towards achieving the ultimate aim of winning the war? The author of On War equates "winning" to achieving the nation's political objectives, and that criterion guides the following framework for evaluating airpower's effectiveness. (2) Like all true frameworks, though, this one does not provide a set of standard answers. Nor does it predict the future or offer a universal guide for success or failure. Instead, it offers a consistent approach for determining the value of airpower in any circumstance. This approach includes a distinctive terminology that categorizes various airpower applications, and those categories are used in ascertaining how effectively an application supports a political goal. Yet, determining airpower's political effectiveness is not a straightforward proposition because political goals are not always straightforward. As the discussion of the framework makes clear, those goals can be either "positive" or "negative"-- which in turn affects how well a particular airpower application can achieve them.

While the categories of airpower applications can be thought of as constants (the essence of how airpower is applied in each of the categories does not change), five key variables affect the ability of each application to achieve success. Those variables include the (1) nature of the enemy, (2) type of war waged by the enemy, (3) nature of the combat environment, (4) magnitude of military controls, and (5) nature of the political objectives. The importance of each variable may change in different situations to yield different results. Thus, political and military leaders who would employ airpower must understand exactly what the variables are and how they might blend to produce a particular outcome. The framework provides a method for analyzing airpower applications--one that thoroughly dissects the variables and examines how their integration may affect airpower's ability to achieve political success. Hopefully, it also offers practical considerations and cautions for the statesman contemplating the use of a irpower, as well as for the commander charged with transforming political goals into military objectives.

Airpower and Its Applications

Before delving into the framework's particulars, one would do well to define the elusive term airpower. Brig Gen William "Billy" Mitchell specified it as "the ability to do something in the air," a description too vague to be useful. (3) Much better is the definition offered by two Britons--Air Marshal R. J. Armitage and Air Vice Marshal R. A. Mason--in their classic work Air Power in the Nuclear Age: "The ability to project military force through a platform in the third dimension above the surface of the earth." (4) Although Armitage and Mason admit that their definition contains gray areas (e.g., whether or not airpower includes ballistic missiles or surface-to-air weapons), it suffices to guide the proffered framework. Indeed, their definition recognizes qualities of airpower "that are sometimes overlooked"--specifically, its latent impact and its ability to apply force directly or to distribute it. (5) These characteristics form the basic distinctions used in the framework to categorize airpower missions.