Opposing viewpoint on debate question one

Airpower Debate

Debate Question: Given that the demand for air power is likely to exceed available resources, centralized control and decentralized execution should remain as the central tenet of airpower C2 in order to be responsive and flexible to JFC requirements across all levels of war.

Opening Remarks - In the contemporary world of the modern military, technological advances have moved both the strategic and tactical decision making paradigms to a new level. Gone are the days when air strikes were ordered based on enigmatic coordinates hastily penciled down by harried personnel -- GPS, advanced radar capabilities, and a network of communications have replaced those tried and true methods for something that is, for all intents and purposes, vastly superior in both practicability and safety. Furthermore, 21st century capabilities require precision, information technology, intelligence, and command and control effectiveness in order to meet the goals of the modern warrior.

Much of this technology, however, has the tendency to cause centralized command to interpret warfare as an exercise to be fought at major command levels, rather than understanding that it is still the operational and tactical commander who has the best chance of executing the appropriate response to threat.

Statement: First Rebuttal - While one can certainly acknowledge that a deeper understanding of the broad battle plans exists more at the central level than field operations, and clearly a balance must be engendered in order to preserve chain of command and structure, we may still argue that the various levels of ground command, despite the advances in their ability to "see" the battle through computer aided design are still too numerous and bureaucratic in tender to allow for the flexibility of trained combat pilots to do the jobs for which they have been trained.

For example, as the Air Force entered the Afghani Conflict in 2001 with Operation Enduring Freedom, a balance was struck between JFACC and airmen. This relationship allowed a freer discourse of intelligence, as well as a relationship between field and core that more closely aligned to the overall battle goals. One may think of it as trying to manage not one or two horizontal priorities, but hundreds -- something will get lost in the shuffle. However, if clear and concise orders are given and then individual airmen allowed to use best judgment in carrying out those orders, both sides have a win-win situation with a great deal more accountability and acumen.

Second Rebuttal -- Certainly, the goals for each mission and battle plan should align. It is less an issue of authority in command and control as it is multitasking and turning the Titanic when an iceberg suddenly appears. CFACC and AOC are, by their very nature, located several hundred, sometimes thousands of miles from the air battle. And, as emphasized prior, we understand that technology allows command far more specific details than in the history of the military. That being said, no amount of technology can translate a blip on a screen to an actual threat, and react with the appropriate response within milliseconds. One would think, for instance, that with the thousands upon thousands of dollars the service spends on training their pilots, the number of scenarios engendered, and the amount of air time required to pilot a multimillion dollar piece of extraordinary equipment that command would acknowledge that there needs to be a certain level of trust and allowance for experience and pilot assessment of various high stress situations. While it is certainly true that, at times, the individual pilot cannot see the "big picture," and needs advice from central, individual decisions made in combat situations are clearly field based.

Closing Remarks - While cycles are in place at the ATO level and others, to establish efficient employment of available resources controlled by central operations, there are several strategic and tactical reasons to establish a protocol that would allow for more robust field control in highly volatile combat situations:

Decision making can be instantaneous, based on visual and technological acumen, as well as local intelligence and experience in the combat area.

Pilots are highly trained and regarded for their ability to make decision that not only affect the lives of others, but expensive equipment; why hobble a highly trained officer with experience?