While I appreciate the sentiment in this post, and while it is also interesting and contains good information for the reader, it is somewhat misleading (although unintentionally, I’m sure).
The heavier use of air power has nothing, per se, to do with the surge. Nor does the USAF call what they’re doing a surge. This is part and parcel of an overall strategic implementation of air power in small wars, something that had been debated as far back as last year in the air force by the likes of Major General Dunlap:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/06/05/air-power-in-small-wars/
While my blog is a “ground-pounder” blog, and while air power can NEVER supplant the infantry (the infantry is king in small wars), its use was welcomed (by me and others) and was intended to get the AF back in the COIN fight and re-engage their people in the global war.
I’m saying that it is a doctrinal development rather than simply part of the surge in Iraq. There is official and formal effort going on within the AF community to formulate this participation in small wars into doctrine at the highest levels of the AF. They overplay their hand and claim too much, but their increased participation should still be welcomed by the Army and Marines to the extent that they are useful and can control collateral damage.
If they (the AF) have to write doctrine that tells them that they’re important to the GWOT in order to sell their increased participation, then so be it. Doctrine is just that. What’s important is leveraging all assets.
Just like it has nothing to do with the surge, it also has nothing to do with losing or other leftist talking points (the left is here apparently just behind the times about a year – they should be reading my blog and other Milblogs). The doctrinal development of air power in small wars and COIN will continue in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places where our forces are deployed.
Also not discussed here (or in the post I link) is that part of this has to do with the fear (probably justified) that unless the AF re-engages in the fight, they will lose their standing to UAVs controlled by the Army. In fact, the AF has tried to take over responsibility for UAVs from the Army, something on which they have received pushback from the Army — obviously.
