What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Conflict, Diplomacy, and Peace
Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force
The United States needs airpower, but does it need an air force? In Grounded, Robert M. Farley persuasively argues that America should end the independence of the United States Air Force (USAF) and divide its assets and missions between the United States Army and the United States Navy.
In the wake of World War I, advocates of the Air Force argued that an organizationally independent air force would render other military branches obsolete. These boosters promised clean, easy wars: airpower would destroy cities beyond the reach of the armies and would sink navies before they could reach the coast. However, as Farley demonstrates, independent air forces failed to deliver on these promises in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terror. They have also had perverse effects on foreign and security policy, as politicians have been tempted by the vision of devastating airpower to initiate otherwise ill-considered conflicts. The existence of the USAF also produces turf wars with the Navy and the Army, leading to redundant expenditures, nonsensical restrictions on equipment use, and bad tactical decisions.
Farley does not challenge the idea that aircraft represent a critical component of America's defenses; nor does he dispute that—especially now, with the introduction of unmanned aerial vehicles—airpower is necessary to modern warfare. Rather, he demonstrates that the efficient and wise use of airpower does not require the USAF as presently constituted. An intriguing scholarly polemic, Grounded employs a wide variety of primary and secondary source materials to build its case that the United States should now correct its 1947 mistake of having created an independent air force.
In the wake of World War I, advocates of the Air Force argued that an organizationally independent air force would render other military branches obsolete. These boosters promised clean, easy wars: airpower would destroy cities beyond the reach of the armies and would sink navies before they could reach the coast. However, as Farley demonstrates, independent air forces failed to deliver on these promises in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terror. They have also had perverse effects on foreign and security policy, as politicians have been tempted by the vision of devastating airpower to initiate otherwise ill-considered conflicts. The existence of the USAF also produces turf wars with the Navy and the Army, leading to redundant expenditures, nonsensical restrictions on equipment use, and bad tactical decisions.
Farley does not challenge the idea that aircraft represent a critical component of America's defenses; nor does he dispute that—especially now, with the introduction of unmanned aerial vehicles—airpower is necessary to modern warfare. Rather, he demonstrates that the efficient and wise use of airpower does not require the USAF as presently constituted. An intriguing scholarly polemic, Grounded employs a wide variety of primary and secondary source materials to build its case that the United States should now correct its 1947 mistake of having created an independent air force.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
3 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 16, 2014
The title makes it clear that this a defense wonk book. Farley argues that airpower theory is inherently flawed and wrong and that the Air Force as an institution continues to elevate that flawed theory to policy. Among the policy missteps were over investing in strategic bombing, failing to develop a adequate fighter until late WW2, failing to develop an air arm capable of supporting the Army in Korea and Vietnam and finally promoting the idea that military force has become uniquely clean and efficacious with the development of precision guided munitions.
The last bit is the most damning. Since the Cold War, the US has stumbled into conflicts that it could not resolve in a way that met the desires of political leadership. This is an extension of the a-strategic thinking that has plagued the Army since Vietnam.
It's a short book written in a classical international relations style. Imagine a lengthy Foreign Affairs article. If that sounds great, you will likely enjoy this one.
The last bit is the most damning. Since the Cold War, the US has stumbled into conflicts that it could not resolve in a way that met the desires of political leadership. This is an extension of the a-strategic thinking that has plagued the Army since Vietnam.
It's a short book written in a classical international relations style. Imagine a lengthy Foreign Affairs article. If that sounds great, you will likely enjoy this one.
July 12, 2014
Very thought provoking. I think the writer makes a good case for abolishing the air force structure and re distributing the aircraft and the missions to other services. The Air Force does not like the Close air support mission even though it has superb dedicated aircraft to do it. The Air Force's view that strategic bombing can win wars has not been proven over time to be true. Two of the air forces excellent close air support aircraft, the A10 and the AC130, in my humble opinion, should be reallocated to the Army and Marine Corp. From what I understand those aircrafts primary mission is to provide close ground support for the army/usmc ground forces. So, the question for me is if that is their primary role, why not let the army/usmc take care of themselves and give those aircraft to the army/usmc . I think in doing that there would be increases in organizational efficiency and decreases in cost and less friction between services. One thing that is very apparent in this book is the constant inter service political wrangling that goes on. It detracts from the mission of the various services and the mission of DoD in general. The Air Force really likes the sexy mission, high and fast, not flying in the dirt or flying the beans and bullets that are very necessary to win a war. Even the ICBM mission could be handled by the Navy. they have plenty of experience with ICBMs and keep a constant survivable deterrent at sea. Besides that the AF has had problems with nuclear surety lately. The heavy airlift/in flight refueling could be dealt with in a manner much akin to replenishment/shipping by USNS. The medium airlift, C130 or other medium airlift assets, could go to each service, where i think those assets would be appreciated. The USN and USMC already fly C130's. Plus the USMC has its own in flight refueling capability. The future mission for the AF could be strategic bombing, air superiority, space recon and cyberspace. A USMC Sgt Major once told me "the only way to win a war, is to make the other guy give up his toys, boots on the ground." I believe him. This book is the tip of the iceberg and the catalyst for a broader conversation. I'm just novice at this. Thanks for listening and reading.
March 27, 2014
Robert Farley makes a bold assertion in his book - the US Air Force should be abolished and its planes and people distributed to the US Army and US Navy. His argument, in summary, is in two parts.
Part 1 is the idea that independent air forces tend to focus on strategic bombing and bomber interception, to the detriment of roles such as maritime patrol, transport and close air support. Given the arguments between the USAF and the US Army over the C-23 light transport and the ongoing efforts to scrap the A-10, I would have to say this argument is a no-brainer.
Part 2 of the argument is that having independent air forces means that, when it comes time to consider military action, there is a voice at the table arguing for a quick and bloodless (for the aggressor) air campaign. On this, I'm not so sure. The Army Air Corp in WWII and the Israeli Air Force in Lebanon both argued for these bloodless air campaigns despite being not fully independent. I suspect that no matter who controls the air, somebody will argue for "airpower over all."
Having said that, I found Grounded an interesting read.
Part 1 is the idea that independent air forces tend to focus on strategic bombing and bomber interception, to the detriment of roles such as maritime patrol, transport and close air support. Given the arguments between the USAF and the US Army over the C-23 light transport and the ongoing efforts to scrap the A-10, I would have to say this argument is a no-brainer.
Part 2 of the argument is that having independent air forces means that, when it comes time to consider military action, there is a voice at the table arguing for a quick and bloodless (for the aggressor) air campaign. On this, I'm not so sure. The Army Air Corp in WWII and the Israeli Air Force in Lebanon both argued for these bloodless air campaigns despite being not fully independent. I suspect that no matter who controls the air, somebody will argue for "airpower over all."
Having said that, I found Grounded an interesting read.
December 31, 2014
I'd hoped my last book of 2014 would be something stirring, but this wasn't it. Mr. Farley, an academic, present s the argument that the US Air Force has outlived its usefulness, and indeed he argues that it was never needed as a separate service to begin with. The idea is that the Air Force exists solely to perpetuate the notion that independent "Airpower" is necessary to defend our nation, and that in carrying this notion, the service has neglected missions that it sees as less critical.
January 23, 2018
Awesome thesis, a bit repetitive. USAF needs to be abolished and it’s parts sent to the Army and Navy. I agree with the author of the resultant streamlining and cost savings.
November 18, 2022
One of the best-researched and most insightful books that I've read in recent years. Definitely recommend.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews