|
Lt.
Col. Grossman,
One of the ideas that you put forth in your book was that
strategic or air bombardment rarely works to break the will
of an enemy and their population. Rather, it has the reverse
effect of strengthening his resolve to continue the fight.
This has been demonstrated in the resolve of the citizens
of Berlin and London during the blitz of WW2.
However it seems as though this model has changed. If you
observe the conduct of soldiers in recent conflicts (the
Gulf war, Kosovo, and most recently the Afghan Campaign),
they seem much more ready to lay down their arms when they
are subject to a modern "precision guided" air campaign.
I suppose the best question would be, what is the difference
between the citizens of Berlin and London and the citizens
of Belgrade? Why was the latter so eager to turn on their
government. Also how do Serbian, Iraqi, and Afghani soldiers
(who were easily convinced to quit the field) differ form
other military organizations in the past that were also
exposed to an intense air assault but did not (for the greater
part) break?
I
also wanted to say that I very much enjoyed the book and
that I think that you are correct. Violence and killing
is humanity's last taboo topic. Have a merry Christmas and
a happy new year.
Airborne.
Tom Smith, esq.
Tom,
Many thanks for your kind note, my friend, and for your
very appropriate question. Posted on my web site is a paper
I presented several years ago to a DOD, Quadrennial Review,
USAF sponsored conference on the topic of air power. What
I said in that paper was:
"...there is very little justification for basing national
policy on the effectiveness of air strikes. Or for directing
precious national resources toward conducting any air strike.
UNLESS it is in support of, and directed by, ground troops
who can and will psychologically exploit it." [Emphasis
in the original paper.]
Forgive
me if I say that, in light of current events, that statement
was almost prescient. Thus, the air war in Afghanistan (directly
supported by ground troops), or even in Kosovo (in support
of some indigenous forces on the ground, and with the recent
model of the Gulf war and the eminent threat of NATO ground
forces massing on the border) were significant successes.
Whereas the cruise missiles sent into Afghanistan and the
Sudan, by the Clinton administration, were incredibly ineffectual
and counterproductive, truly strengthened our enemy's resolve.
To a horrible and tragic degree.
Airborne, indeed!
Dave
|
|
|
|
Read
a different article:
|
© 1999 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction
in any form reserved.
|
