Irregular warfare and the US Air Force: the way ahead

Air & Space Power Journal, Winter, 2007 by Robyn Read

The Vietnam-era platforms that gave the USAF this entry are gone or rapidly disappearing, and potential partners with limited resources and little justification for the high-tech aircraft typically found in the current USAF inventory now look to foreign rather than US suppliers to provide relevant, COIN-capable platforms. Certainly we can employ other USAF competencies in BPC (air traffic control in Africa, for instance), but the diminishing market for US aircraft should remain a concern. Realistically, the new right-tech platform may be an unmanned aerial system, but to create the opening for a long-term enabling plan, the USAF should first develop a strategy for exportable COIN technologies. If the F-20 legacy still applies, it also means that the USAF should operate these platforms in its own inventory. (23)

Recommendations

Naming some suitable platform would be a seductive first choice for beginning discussions of how airpower can contribute to COIN, but USAF expertise and the potential for engagement go well beyond the technical flight-line engagement by operations and maintenance personnel. Actually controlling airspace or maintaining sovereign control of that space, for example, remains an issue in most of Africa outside of terminal areas. In concert with the International Civil Aviation Organization and Federal Aviation Administration, the USAF is uniquely suited to assess, advise, and assist in this area. Ensuring compliance with international aviation standards for air movement would clearly prove advantageous in the long war, and the USAF could make critical contributions to shaping the battlespace. First, however, the USAF should decide what IW/COIN will look like for the institution. If the service chooses to enable its partners to fight and win on their own, then it should make a near-term investment in ideas and force-development initiatives that will pave the way.

Strategy should remain a top-down function in order to provide coherent guidance in parallel tracks at every level. We should view USAF doctrine no differently; we have much work to do in this arena. AFDD 2-3 (and 2-3.1) represent a good beginning for reestablishing IW activities in the USAF field of view, but third-tier documents will not likely have sufficient influence on the whole doctrine pyramid for this task. We still typically view IW, FID, COIN, and BPC as the purview of special operations forces and outside the full-spectrum USAF mission. But because BPC is strategically fundamental to winning the long war, we should therefore describe it in the USAF's basic doctrine--AFDD 1. Placed there, at the top level of USAF doctrine, BPC can filter appropriately throughout the doctrine pyramid. In this way, doctrine for every specialty will grow. In many ways, the establishment of a long-term relationship may be more important than short-term, concrete changes. Culturally, Americans often find this a hard choice to make because each investment in time or personnel will likely face a bang-for-the-buck assessment, based on tangible rather than intangible metrics. As with the other recognitions of COIN's distinction from conventional warfare, strategic planners should recognize that BPC is not a short-term investment. Again, the USAF's overall strategy will drive how it configures itself.