Cus America isn’t fighting a force of force on war and we haven’t been.
America could turn the middle east into a parking lot over night. But that’s not the goal. Do some research on Gen Petraus and read up on his objectives, it has never been a force on force traditional kill em all war.
The US goal in the middleeast right now is to protect the population, rebuild national infrastructure, protect the peace, train their military to stand on its own (thats coming slowly for some damn reason), and protect them… untill they can take care of themself.
The enemies object in the middle east is to cause as many civilian casualities as possible and put the blame on the US so that US loses support from the population becuase 20 years from now the one the population supports is gonna the last one standing, then they want to cause as many US soldier casualities without actually engaging US soldiers in real combat becuase they die too fast, then they want to harrass and distract, then…they simply want to wait for us to leave after they have caused us to lose our support from the population.
It is not a force on force kinetic war.. if it was like say WW2 against the terrorists it wouldn’t last 24 hours. The US Army alone is the most powerful land force in the world hands down and the middle east doesn’t have anything that even resembles a fighting force at all, much less one that can challenge the united States. 40% of the population of Afghanistian is under the age of 15 years old though a 15 year old male is fighting age male. They do not pose a threat in terms of force on force.
Air power is only one part of the equation. Air power is used to gain an advantage on the ground.
Wars are still won with ":boots on the ground":….something that was not understood by the Clinton Administration.
This is why wars take more than technology and more than just military might. To win wars there must be a national resolve behind them, because the nation as a whole must bear the burden.
Even our enemies know the U.S. still has the best overall military….which is why they have depended more on our shaky national resolve to gain the advantage.
Today’s wars are not designed to be won or lost: just sustained…
Some companies see truly fantastic increases in profit margins through selling their weapons in times of war. It is very-much in the interests of these companies to ensure that long-term mechanized conflicts are sustained permanently (the ‘war on terror’ for example) at as many locations around the globe as they can. They then use the ":news": media, over which they exercise almost complete control, to tell the tax-payers, whose money is being used to buy weapons, rather than for the benefit of those tax-payers, that the wars are justified – and not criminal acts of an oppressor nation: which is what they really are. Of course many American soldiers will die in these wars, but the heads of these industries aren’t related to any soldiers are they? This is capitalism working exactly as was predicted two centuries ago.
1) We don’t take so long. We win in record time (Afghanistan, Iraq).
2) It’s the aftermath, the insurgents, that make it seem otherwise (look at how long that lasted after WWII in Japan and Germany – years and years).
3) We are the only nation that is expected to make pin-point attacks with NO civilian casualties.
4) We are the most legislated military in the world.
You voted for it, folks. Then you wonder why.
":to ensure that a rustic to even have air superiority, they could injury the enemy’s means to apply a minimum of around ninety 5% of their aerial autos, planes, helicopters, and so on …": Is completely too inflexible a definition. the place did you pull it from? We had air superiority in Anzio throughout WWII and maintained it thriyght he relax of the conflict in Europe. We had and maintained air superiority interior the pacific after the conflict of halfway Island as quickly as we destroyed nearly all of Yamamoto’s distributors. We had Air superiority in Korea and Vietnam however the jungle replace into too dense for ":air superoirity to be a decisive factor.
Air power alone has never won a war.
Your fighting unconventional warfare. There are no large concentration of forces or equipment to use airpower on. It’s a few guys setting a IED in the dark next to a road. What good is your airpower then?
Because air power alone does not win wars, boots on the ground does.
I don’t know, maybe air superiority is not the goal of a war?
Because of the changing tactics of the wars they are fighting.
Similar to how the US had new tactics vs Britain in their war. More hit and run, then normal warfare.
send the bastards in office over there… once they are killed or they cry and change their policies, we can do our jobs