The Air Force, Conservatives & Crusaders

This morning I came across this article by Michael Noonan at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Next-War-Itis, This-War-Itis, and the American Military mostly covers familiar territory, framed around Bacevich's Atlantic Monthly article on Crusaders and Conservatives, but it has one section I found helpful: a breakdown of how each service has been affected by the Crusader-Conservative debate (which Noonan reworks into a framework of traditionalists, transitionalists, and modernists). This is what Noonan writes about the Air Force:

The Air Force of the four services seems least affected by the turbulence over its professional conception. While the scale of activities have shifted from the Cold War days, particular for its strategic forces, the aerospace service still provides the same essential goods: control of the skies, strikes, and transport. Still, its traditionalists hold most dearly to aerospace supremacy (which is a vital mission) and the efficacy of air strikes to solve complex problems. The transitionalists came of age in a period where humanitarian aid missions were seen as a useful adjunct to traditional roles. Modernists, while still clinging to many precepts of the dominant professional views, seem more sanguine about the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned combat vehicles (UCAVs; e.g., armed Predators), working on the ground with the sister services, and are not as invested in the idea that the air arm can solely determine outcomes.

I think that's a fair, if brief, summary of the Air Force as I see it. My biggest concern--and the reason I frequently challenge the Air Force on this blog--is that its organizational culture is still very much dominated by the traditionalist mindset. In my experience, doctrine, PME, and conversations around the squadron bar all generally reflect a traditionalist mindset. The Air Force needs to stir up more introspective discussion and encourage its officers to question conventional wisdom.

With that said, despite the prevailing organizational culture, the Air Force still has many sharp leaders who understand the complex nature of irregular and hybrid wars, and are working hard to meet modern challenges. I'm always happy when I see the Air Force doing things right, which is why I can heartily recommend this interview with Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for ISR. His answers on ISR, UAVs, and future threats are clear and sensible, and are fully on board with what Secretary Gates has been saying about a balanced strategy.

As a side note, General Schwartz (AF Chief of Staff) is another leader who I'm deeply impressed with. I saw him speak at a conference in 2005 when he was commander of US Transportation Command. This was during a low point in my career, when Iraq was spiraling out of control, I was hearing a lot of things that didn't make sense from military leadership, and I was experiencing a crisis of confidence. Of all the prominent leaders I saw at the conference, Schwartz left the biggest impression on me. His professionalism was impeccable. He was realistic and knowledgeable about the seriousness of our problems in Iraq, but he was fully dedicated to fighting on, rising to seemingly impossible challenges because that's what our country had asked us to do. He expected no less from the aircrew he was addressing, despite a crushing ops tempo with no end in sight. I trusted him. I still do. I'm pleased with what I've seen and heard, and believe the Air Force is on the right track, even if it has some distance to go.