What role has air-power played in warfare after 1945 - Essay Example

?The Role Played by Air Power in Warfare After 1945 Huebert (1995, p. 5) s that the United s has fought many wars in the past, most of whichhave involved both ground and airpower. An analysis of the past wars that America has fought shows that it has been using a strategy that involves sending ground troops to fight the enemy. However, in the event that the enemy proves stronger than anticipated, it uses airpower to carry out air offensives against the enemy. Airpower in this case refers to a military strategy that involves carrying out aerial bombardments from the air, which in most cases are done using fighter jets. Some of the wars that America has involved airpower include World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Serbian War and the Afghan War, just to name but a few. However, Corum (2007) claims that the use of airpower has been marred with controversy since 1945. In this regard, there are those that believe that airpower has helped in emerging victorious while there are critics who believe that airpower has been a failure in the U.S. warfare. The aim of this paper is to analyze the successes and failures of airpower based on case studies. Opinion is divided down the middle regarding the effectiveness of airpower in warfare. On one hand is a section of the society that believes that airpower has played a huge role in enhancing the success rates of the U.S. force in the wars it has fought in the past. On the other hand, are critics who feel that air power has not achieved any meaningful success in some of the wars that the U.S. has fought. The U.S. has fought, the U.S. military has been using airpower as a tactics of maintaining superiority by suppressing the enemy’s ability to fight. This was witnessed during the World War II in which the U.S. and its allies used airpower to gain superiority over their opponents (the German forces especially) through aerial bombardments. As a result, it became very hard for the German forces to mount strong resistance against the U.S. and its allies (Keegan 1990, p. 31). This enabled the allied forces win the war more easily than earlier anticipated. The events of WWII are one of the success stories of airpower in warfare. Apart from the success of Airpower in WWII, there exists other warfare where airpower has been successful. For instance, the use of airpower played a huge role in winning the Gulf War during Operation Desert Storm. The Desert Storm was a war against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. The war begun on August 2, 1990 and ended on February 28, 1991 with the U.S. and its allies emerging victorious. However, the success in winning this war has been linked mainly to the use of airpower. Momyer (2003, p. 5) reveals that the U.S. and its allies used airpower during the first days of intervention in the war to destroy Iraq’s air defense system, thereby allowing the allied forces to gain control of Iraq’s air before introducing the ground forces. The U.S. forces and its allied forces carried out massive bombardments from the air to gain control over Iraq’s airspace. In so doing, the allied forces also managed to capture all the Iraq government’s infrastructures before deploying the military to takel vantage positions. Momyer (2003) notes that the main aim of air attacks was to pave way for the U.N. backed ground forces. In fact, reports show that after taking control of the air through aerial bombardments, the ground forces found it easy fighting the Iraqi forces as their major efforts was now devoted mainly to attacks against the communication lines that the Iraqi forces used. This was followed by assaults on the defense lines of the Iraq forces. In the end, the U.S. led forces emerged victorious in the war. Supporters of airpower have argued that without the use of airpower, the war would have taken the U.S. and allied forces more time to win than it actually took. This is because the Iraqi forces would have taken advantage of the air to attack the allied forces. Even though the airpower proved effective in winning the Gulf War, it was a total failure in the Vietnam War. Tilford (2011) argues that, despite spending large sums of money to support air power in the Vietnam War, the air power proved indecisive. The failure of the air power in the Vietnam War has been a subject of controversy in warfare. This is because, despite spending more $100 billion to support air operation, no positive result was achieved. The war that was fought for more than a decade beginning 1962 to 1973 saw the U.S. drop more than 8 million tons of bombs on Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Chinnery (1987, p. 22) reveals that South Vietnam was bombed with about 4 million tons of bombs. This makes Vietnam the most bombed country in the history of air assault. However, the most disturbing thing is that such massive airstrikes did not achieve much. Instead, the war resulted in the shooting down of 2,257 fighter jets. Estimates show that the U.S. lost 8,588 rotary-wing and fixed wing aircrafts in the war (McNamara 1995, p. 31). Critics have questioned the rational of using air power when it results in such high numbers of losses instead of bringing success. Nastasi (2001, p. 22) notes that the air power was not used for the purpose, which it was supposed to serve in South Vietnam. In fact, critics have argued that the use of aircrafts in providing support to the ground troops unnecessarily prolonged the war by making it difficult for the Marines and Army on the ground to stay engaged in a warfare, which they had no knowledge of how to win. It is also said that of all the air power that the U.S. forces used beyond South Vietnam, where nearly 4 million tons of bombs were dropped, only the operation the air strikes carried in Linebacker I, which was in response to North Vietnam's Spring Offensive of 1972 proved successful. The rest, including air power in Laos and Cambodia were a complete failure. In addition, the air operation in North Vietnam termed the Rolling Thunder also failed to accomplish its objectives. Critics of air power claim that shifting from the guerilla tactics to air power made moving supplies and troops from Hanoi to the South difficult, thereby, making the Rolling Thunder ineffective and a complete failure. However, air power again proved effective by helping the U.S. win the Serbia war. Momyer (2003, p. 6) notes that the deployment of air power in the war against Serbia enabled the U.S. forces destroy the Yugoslavian Air Force, which effectively rendered its air defense system ineffective. Reports indicates that after gaining superiority of the Yugoslavian air, the Allied Air Force found it easy fighting the enemy forces by devoting much of its efforts of strategic goal of suppressing the capability and will of the Yugoslavian government to continue fighting the war. Keaney (2005) notes that the airpower weakened the Yugoslavian economy and infrastructure rendering it unable to sustain it military forces in the battlefield at a strength required to defeat the strong Allied Forces. In this regard, it can be argued that the air power attack on Yugoslavia was a successful strategic attack, which aimed at rendering the country unable to function (Berger 1984, p. 7). The air power also played a huge role in ensuring that the U.S. and allied forces win the Afghan war. This is because the air strikes helped in paving the way for the Allied Forces on the ground to move deep into the Taliban and Al-Qaida territory easily (Rothstein 2006, p. 16). In fact, air power played a significant role in destroying the military based of Taliban troops rendering them ineffective and weak to continue fighting. In conclusion, the use of air power in warfare in a controversial issue in the U.S. today. The controversy surrounds claims of its ineffectiveness in warfare. However, based on the analysis of the case study above, it becomes apparent that air power has both benefits and shortcomings. As such, it would be appropriate that air power be used, mainly in tactical warfare. References Berger, C1984, The United States air force in Southeast Asia, 1961-1973: An illustrated account. Office of Air Force History, Washington, DC. Chinnery, P 1987, Air war in Vietnam. Bison Books Corp, New York, NY. Corum, J. S 2007, It’s not just air control anymore: The historical evolution of airpower in counterinsurgency. Lecture at Air Force Counterinsurgency Symposium 2007, Maxwell AFB, AL. Huebert, K. D 1995, The role of airpower in irregular warfare for the 21st century. United States Air Force, p. 1-76. Keaney, T 2005, Air power: What a difference a decade makes, viewed 6 Dec. 2013 http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives05spring/keaney.htm. Keegan, J 1990, The Second World War. Viking Press, New York, NY. McNamara, R.S 1995, In retrospect: The tragedy and lessons of Vietnam. Vintage Books, Inc., New York, NY. Momyer, W. W 2003, Airpower in three wars. US Air Force. P. v-381. Nastasi, M 2001, The role of airpower in the Vietnam War, viewed 6 Dec.2013 http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/vietnam/airpower/. Rothstein, H. S 2006, Afghanistan and the troubled future of unconventional warfare. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. Read More