Reduction in the Air Force: Not Now - Case Study Example

Reduction in the Air Force: Not Now Introduction Not too long ago, we faced a devastating terrorist attack on our sovereign soil. Today we live in the aftermath of the war which was declared on us by fundamentalist terrorists and the American government has devoted considerable resources towards bringing those responsible for those attacks to justice. As a part of those efforts, we have mobilized forces against countries which have harbored terrorists and supported them in their designs against American interests. Considering the evidence given in this paper, there can be no doubt about the fact that America is engaged in a war and a reduction in our Air Force at this point in time would be nothing less than folly. According to current plans, the American Air Force is set to be reduced in size by 20,000 personnel. Such a reduction would mean a decrease of almost 30% in numeric strength and weaken the Air Force considerably. The war we are fighting today means having the ability to drop soldiers into combat hot zones, provide them with terrain information, air cover and bring them back home once an operation is complete (Wikipedia, 2006). All these functions demand that we keep a capable and strong Air Force which would be very difficult to have with a third of the Air Force seeking jobs elsewhere. It can be said that a reduction in the armed forces overall would be good for peace and prosperity of the nation as a whole, but it is not correct to say that now is the right time to take such actions. Not the Right Time The concept of war is indeed a concept of suffering and there is no argument on the point that when we are at peace we would have little need for a huge Air Force. However, at the present moment, we are not at peace therefore a reduction in the Air Force is simply illogical. Additionally, the war we are fighting is different from any other in our history and we have to develop new tools as well as techniques to take on a hidden enemy who strikes from the shadows. Without our Air Force at full strength, such a task would be difficult if not impossible. After the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, America barely had time to enjoy its status as the sole superpower in the world because of the changing geopolitical scenarios. In fact, the current situation shows that America is more involved in protecting its foreign interests than it has been at any point in history (Wikipedia, 2006). However, to expect that America can offer protection to its allies and friends by simply exerting diplomatic force is unrealistic. War is often inevitable and small scale conflicts demand the creation of air superiority and air control before the army can go in to contain a situation. Without the Air Force cleaning the way, precious lives would be lost at a much higher rate than what it is now. At the moment, the primary role of the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan is to hunt out the terrorists and to maintain peace in the region to prevent instability. Admittedly, the armed forces as a whole are having a difficult time in both the areas precisely because they are spread pretty thin. It is obvious that even though we have the training which will let the armed forced handle these missions, we do not have the resources or the manpower for all our primary needs (Spencer, 2003). This also means than many of the vital secondary functions performed by the Air Force e.g. deterring large scale conflicts, providing protection to our allies, maintaining free access to the high seas etc. can not be given much attention. Moreover, the long delays in rotating the troops stationed in Iraq simply show us that that the United States does not have enough forces for even its primary missions in Iraq (Spencer, 2003). Not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, if things keep on their present path Americans might have to intervene in areas like Liberia and Iran which will only cause our already stretched resources to become even more spread out, making them ripe for a counter attack. The Deepest Cuts If the present plans continue then by the end of the decade, the Air Force will be shrunk significantly since the plan is to lay off 57,000 persons by 2011 (Lopez, 2004). The plans call for the retirement of the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter and the U2 reconnaissance plane. The F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter flew more than a third of the bombing runs on the first day of the war. In all during Desert Storm, the stealth fighter conducted more than 1,250 sorties, dropped more than 2,000 tons of bombs, and flew more than 6,900 hours. The U-2 is a venerable reconnaissance plane that has gathered data for the Air Force and intelligence agencies for more than five decades (Colarusso, 2006). The F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter and the U-2 have combined to save countless lives during the war, but yet the government wants to do away with them. While it would be possible and certainly advantageous to replace these aircrafts with better, more powerful versions, America should not give up its strategic advantage of being able to see what no one else can see and being able to go into enemy areas undetected. Furthermore, even though the Air Force is experimenting with unmanned aircraft and other tools which will help take out the need for a large standing Air Force, at the present moment these experiments are still in their infancy and not nearly close enough to replace human beings. Future aircraft are still a few years away and to take present Air Force staff and planes out of service at this moment in time would be a false economy (Wikipedia, 2006). These cuts would also severely affect American presence on foreign bases around the world since fewer personnel would mean less station staff. These bases serve many broader purposes and support US interests on foreign soils in more ways than simply providing military might. The broader role of the Air Force has been outlined in their mission statement which is to defend America and its global interests in the air, space and cyberspace. It is difficult to imagine how future challenges can be met (with an agenda as broad as this) with a reduction in force. Counter arguments and rebuttals An argument often presented in favor of a reduction in the Air Force is that American forces on the ground are more important the ones in the air. This is a rather weak argument since each arm of the military would be next to useless without the other in modern warfare. A second argument presented states that the military should focus on developing tools and robotic fighters which are easily replaceable and not employ humans at all. While this is a good argument, the situation as it stands is that these tools are only in the experimental stage and not yet ready to replace a trained human being. Most importantly, a question is raised about the state of the economy and whether we can afford to have an Air Force which causes such a ‘drain’ on our economy. The argument is very strong indeed since the American economy could certainly benefit from government resources being diverted from the Air Force towards other functions, but it must be realized that the research and development done by the Air Force also gives us economic and strategic advantages in the long term. Additionally, the Air Force provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of people connected with the aviation industry and material suppliers around the world. The economic function of which can not be denied. Moreover, any naysayer could try and explain the negative impact on the economy of the country when nearly 60,000 trained, professional, educated men and women start competing for jobs in the present market. It can easily be foreseen that many such men and women will seek jobs at or near the top of business and industry related organizations and could upset the current job market. We must also consider the viewpoint of government officials who recommend increasing the number of service personnel rather than decreasing them. While Donald Rumsfeld believes that the current rise in demand for service personnel is merely a temporary situation, Rep. Heather A. Wilson (former Air Force officer and member of the House Armed Services Committee) has called for more troops. She has asked for an additional 150,000 service persons to be exact, simply because our country needs the power in numbers to handle the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere (Spencer, 2004). Jack Spencer is the Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security at the Heritage Foundation and has appeared on such shows as C-SPAN, Fox News, and MSNBC in support of getting more troops in our present time of need (Spencer, 2004). Ultimately, the United States may simply need more uniformed personnel to meet its entire defense needs especially to decrease dependence on the reserve forces. By making smart decisions and investing in the people, the U.S. armed forces can increase their capability in the near term and be better prepared to fight and win Americas wars. (Spencer, 2004) Impact of Downsizing It is clear to see that the Air Force has changed dramatically over the last fifteen years. It is nearly half the size that it was at the end of the Cold War, yet at the same time, there are more people deployed on combat duty since World War II. After every major air conflict in the twentieth century, the United States has dramatically reduced the size and combat effectiveness of its military in response to the nations desire for an expeditious harvesting of the anticipated peace dividend (Grier, 2004). Many airmen now on active duty went through the turbulent time of the drawdown in the early 1990s. Now Air Force members face another upheaval as service leaders trim the force by some 57,000 personnel and reshape it to correct current manning and skill imbalances. Troop reductions tend to way heavily on the overall readiness and capabilities of the mission of the Air Force. These reductions tend to hurt the overall morale and training of the force which in turn will require longer and more frequent deployments for the active duty members left on the rosters (Grier, 2004). Conclusion The United States remains a country at war and as we have seen in the past, terrorist groups are now quite capable of attacking the U.S. on its own soil. As the country moves forward, the conventional ways of fighting a war are long past. The United States poses the world’s most advanced Air Force. An Air Force which is sworn to protect the citizens of the United States but it might not be able to do so if reductions in the force continue. The men and women serving in the service are already stretched thin, and this is simply not the right time to reduce them any further. In a joint letter to all the U.S. Air Force Service Personnel, the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley wrote: “Our task is to provide the president, the combatant commanders, and our nation with an array of options. Options that are not limited by the tyranny of distance, the urgency of time, or the strength of our enemy’s defenses… With one hand the Air Force can deliver humanitarian assistance to the farthest reaches of the globe, while with the other hand we can destroy a target anywhere in the world.” (Gettle, 2002) Should America really have less of such men and women? One would have to say, not yet. Word Count: 2,299 References Gettle, Mitch. (2005). Air Force releases new mission statement. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from Air Force Link website: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013440 Grier, Peter. (2004). The New Drawdown. Air Force Association. Retrieved January 2, 2006 from InfoTrac One File. Lopez, Todd. (2004). Air Force avoiding Draconian measures while shaping force. Air Force Print News. Retrieved December 21, 2005 from InfoTrac One File. McNally, Jeffrey. (2001). The Adult Development of Career Air Force Officers. New York: Praeger. Spencer, Jack. (2003). Reducing the Stress of an Overstretched Force. The Heritage Research. Retrieved December 21, 2005 from InfoTrac One File. Wikipedia. (2006). US Air Force. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airforce Read More