Stupid Officer Tricks.

I'm generally a fan of Ralph Peters, and I still am. We have much in common except he's smarter, richer, and has a lot more access, readers and influence. Which is why it was sad to see him lose his temper two days ago, and sink to the level of the people he's peeved at. His vitriol, which undermines his point as his anger dominates, simply serves to further harden stereotypes - such as those held by the Army Colonel sent out the piece in an email he obviously thought his mailing list would be sympathetic to (by the way, Colonel - the proper word is "on a roll" not "on a role," but I digress). Such hyperbole *does* keep up the readership! In his op-ed in the NY Post on April 13, Ralph lays into the Air Force.

Here's a teaser:

Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters. With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget.

Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters, doing their best for America — and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear.

Okay. Strong words. Wanna read the rest? You know you do. You can do so by clicking here.

There is much to pick through here. The budget having a limit, there is *always* tension between the services. The very different nature of this war from the ones we've fought prior does have this dichotomy of the ground arms up to their waists in combat, while the other two legs of the military force triad, naval and air, find themselves somewhat at loose ends (though the elements of those guys in Transportation Command are probably giving me the hairy eyeball right now). Which means that they look to the future, as both are doing. The ground arms are also trying to keep an eye on that ball - I make good money doing just that for the Army - but they *are* understandably a bit distracted by the killing and dying in the present... as the near daily *ping* in my mailbox of a DoD casualty announcement attests.

But Ralph just loses it here. I confabulated with my friends in the Air Force and Army, honorable men all. What follows is a synthesis of their thoughts, set off in a blockquote to emphasize the fact that while I may have merged and edited, they are not my thoughts, nor are they a direct quote. All emphasis in the blockquote is mine and any comments are in brackets, not parentheses).

Since this is in the NY Post, it's already being worked by the Air Staff, I'm sure. I think this is a fairly typical attitude among most Army officers anyway, so the USAF may just ignore it. Then again, he might hear from a number of people who take umbrage. I'm sure some senior Army guys loved it, but I don't think they'll have the balls to cheerlead publicly for Peters' position [no, they'll just forward it through email]. Frankly, I think Ralph might end up regretting writing this. It sounds so loony. Interestingly enough, the second-highest casualty rate in the Second World War, after the US Marines, was the United States Army Air Corps. [A bit of a defensive non-sequitor, but a true fact, nontheless - the average infantryman in Europe had a better survival rate than bomber crewmen.]

The USAF took no losses in Iraq. I wonder what an acceptable number of Air Force deaths would have been? Is Mr. Peters willing to give us a number? As a retired Army officer, it's apparent he still has that old "need to bleed" attitude that I find just...weird. [There's some truth to this, we Army types can get sensitive on this issue, somewhat irrationally, right after some Air Force jock has just snarked us about something... much like that twit AF general in the article - our 'defensive non-sequitor' that is also true]

The Marines have old equipment. True statement. Should they not ask for new gear? Is asking for new gear somehow unprofessional? Unmanly? Today's A-10 fleet is 30 years old...older than the F/A-18 that most Marines fly. The F-15 is older than the F/A-18 (and maybe the Harrier, not sure). So is the F-16. And just because the Army lost some major programs to Transformation pressures, doesn't mean that *everybody* has too, from some bizarre idea of equity.

I think he's right about two very important things:

IF it in fact took place, the USAF GO who asked the heinous rhetorical question about "dominating battlespace" is a guttersnipe, pure and simple...and he's DEAD. F**KING. WRONG. The Army and Marines have no-shit DOMINATED every frickin' "battlespace" they've encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fallujah looked bad, but the Marines kicked the living crap out of the enemy, not only unquestioningly but quickly, too. The paragraph just proves that generals can be breathtakingly, pugnaciously and blindingly stupid, too.

Point #2: Yes, the career fields he mentioned are second-class citizens...BUT...saying it today is really unfair to John Jumper. No one since...well...ever, in modern USAF history at least...has done more for the ETAC, Combat Controller or SOTAC. As far as his championing the F/A-22, that's sort of his job, I think--trying to get the best jet he can for his combat pilots. Both sides have good arguments over the way ahead vis-a-vis major weapon systems like that, but it was that attitude--try your damndest to get the best for your troops--that helped win both cold and hot wars.

This was written to make Army officers and Marines feel better. At least that's what my personal experience tells me on the inside. The Army I knew thought we were cowards and just didn't do enough dying. It's one of the reasons I'm gonna jettison this job as soon as I can--too close to a cloistered society that's really, really sick, doesn't know it, and never will. I'll bet COL Xxxxxxx [officer who started the email] loved it.

I should add that the officer who provided that last para has lived and worked among the deployed Army for years.

Aside from a little editing for language (a few asterisks), that looks like a pretty good reply to Peters. I agree with these guys, btw, as do all the artillerymen I hang around with. I snark the AF about beds and a/c, but never about the dying. I do the same to Army aviators (right Bill?) - pretty much anyone who sleeps in a hole in the ground has that attitude about everybody who is 6 feet or farther to the rear... an increasingly less-useful concept itself, given the casualty rate amongst the Combat Service Supporters in this war.

I *do* have a personal message for the "Guttersnipe"... quoting from Ralph:

I heard the con directly from one of the Air Force generals who tried to sell me on the worthless F/A-22. The poison goes like this: "The Air Force and Navy can dominate their battle space. Why can't the Army and Marines?"

General, it wasn't *that* long ago you were claiming the ground war *as* your battlespace, and inferring all the Army needed to be was an occupation force. Forgotten the squabbles of the 90's? That talk is all gone now... I wonder why? Perhaps because when you have the benefit of the largest economic engine in the history of the world, and the tech base to go with it - and in your battlespace you've not had to face a peer competitor in some time - and when you do get to perform that mission, it's generally in a civilian-free zone, so the rules of engagement are pretty easy - bad guy, shoot to kill, it's easy to dominate that space. I do believe if we ever do go up against a peer competitor, AF pilots will go in with skill, dash, and daring - and win. And fight hard, and die hard. But, as we all re-learned, taking and holding ground without killing everything on it requires an 18 year old with a bayonet - and you guys just don't wanna fight like that.

But it's a much easier tactical paradigm General, than what the average ground troop faces. When you go nose to nose with a fighter, it's a joust between professionals. The ground war is different - you can't just kill anything that fails an electronic IFF check. And, unlike your mid-twenties and older, college grad pilots, our decision makers on the ground are fresh out of high school in a target-rich enivronment in which the targets hide among the non-combatants... and if you don't think the March Upcountry and Battle of Fallujah don't represent a watershed of military history - you're as blind as you are bigoted - not too mention failing the "Jointness Test." *Nowhere,* *Nowhen* in history has a ground force fought it's way through an urban environment - a knife fight - with such targeted killing and destruction, with such a comparative minimum of damage and non-combatant deaths. If Fallujah had been covered by the great journalists of WWII who witnessed the fighting in Manila, Cologne, Berlin, Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad... they'd have written much differently about Fallujah than journalists with little sense of proportion.

To me, the most critical sentence of this whole post is this:

It's one of the reasons I'm gonna jettison this job as soon as I can--too close to a cloistered society that's really, really sick, doesn't know it, and never will.

Because in many respects, it's true. And it was written by an Air Force officer whose career was dedicated to supporting soldiers. Who lived among us, and hung his ass out for us. And *that* Ralph, is an *Army* problem. Which you, and the Senior Leaders who are spreading your calumny around - are *NOT* helping. There are good journalistic reasons for not revealing the name of that General, and GEN Jumper knows who it is anyway - mebbe if we get lucky, there will be a surprise retirement, I dunno. But how about offering a solution next time Ralph, rather than just bitching to world like a bunch of tired dirty officers clustered around a HMMWV hood drinking coffee thinking no one's listening?

What say you? I like CDR Salamander's comment!