The “In Lieu Of” Myth : Airmen in Joint Ground Operations

By Lt. Col. David W. Marttala, USAF

Book Id: WPLBN0002170248
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 7.10 MB
Reproduction Date: 10/12/2012

Title:	The “In Lieu Of” Myth : Airmen in Joint Ground Operations
Author:	Lt. Col. David W. Marttala, USAF
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Non Fiction, Military Science, Air Force
Collections:	United States, Science Fiction Collection, Military Science, Authors Community, Naval Science, Literature, History, Education
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Air University Press

Member Page:	Air University Press
Citation APA MLA Chicago Col. David W. Marttala, Usa, B. L. (n.d.). The “In Lieu Of” Myth : Airmen in Joint Ground Operations. Retrieved from http://self.gutenberg.org/

Description
In this paper an Air Force ground commander and scholar, Lt Col Dave Marttala, brings to light a problem previously overlooked in popular discussion: Air Force deployment of large numbers of Airmen to augment the joint ground fight and the consequent breakage of the US war-fighting capability writ large.

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 This Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Convoy Airmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Assumptions and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . 7 In-Lieu-of Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Current Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Joint Requirements and Sourcing . . . . . . . . 8 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Command and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Popular Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Studying the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 CASE STUDY: SECURITY FORCES . . . . . . .17 Description of Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . .18 Personnel Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Functional Roles and Core Competencies . . 18 Operational Tempo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Post-Khobar Career Field Merger and Task Overmatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Security Forces Transformation 2004–Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Role Relationships of Military Police and Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 In-Lieu-of Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Mission Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Positive Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Negative Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Temporary “Fixes” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Home Unit Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Direct Reenlistment Incentives . . . . . . . . . .32 Quality-of-Life Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Redrawing the Sustainment Model . . . . . . . 34 Increased Accessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Battlefield Outsourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Augmenting Security Forces Teams . . . . . . 35 Reclaiming “Lost” Manpower . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Reserve/Guard Mobilization . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Competency-based Mission Sourcing . . . . . 36 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4 MODERN BATTLEFIELD, LEGACY FORCE . . .41 US Force Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 The Modern Battlespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Sustainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 A Point of Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5 CLOSING THE GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Increase Department of Defense Force Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Reduce Service Home-Base Demand . . . . . 64 Increase Zero-Growth Deployable Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Reduce Combatant Command Demand . . . 66 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71