Lt Col Dave Marttala discusses the Air Force deployment of large numbers of Airmen to perform various combat support functions doctrinally assigned to the Army or Marine Corps. Known as "In Lieu Of" (ILO) deployment (since then the term has changed to "Joint Expeditionary Tasking" [JET]), this program has evolved from a temporary assistance measure to a de facto permanent reallocation of service roles and missions. This study gives attention to the serious, central problem of the long-term negative effects of this program on the comprehensive military capacity to fight modern wars. Using Air Force security forces as a case study, he demonstrates that ILO solutions actually do more harm than good, creating an illusion of adaptation that obscures the nature and scope of the problem, thereby jeopardizing future war-fighting capability among our collective military forces. He concludes by offering practical recommendations to rebalance requirements and resources for modern warfare. United States Air Force Walker Paper.

This anthology discusses the converging operational issues of air base defense and counterinsurgency. It explores the diverse challenges associated with defending air assets and joint personnel in a counterinsurgency environment. The authors are primarily Air Force officers from security forces, intelligence, and the office of special investigations, but works are included from a US Air Force pilot and a Canadian air force officer. The authors examine lessons from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts as they relate to securing air bases and sustaining air operations in a high-threat counterinsurgency environment. The essays review the capabilities, doctrine, tactics, and training needed in base defense operations and recommend ways in which to build a strong, synchronized ground defense partnership with joint and combined forces. The authors offer recommendations on the development of combat leaders with the depth of knowledge, tactical and operational skill sets, and counterinsurgency mind set necessary to be effective in the modern asymmetric battlefield.

Airpower, especially strategic bombing, frequently generates controversy. Ever since the US Army bought it first "aeroplane" in 1909, debates have raged over the utility, effectiveness, efficiency, legality, and even the morality of air power. These debates continue despite (or perhaps because of) the hundreds of books that have been written on the subject and the scores of examples witnessed. Much of the debate regarding airpower and strategic bombing has been colored by accusations, misconceptions, inaccuracies, myths, and simple untruths. If airpower needs criticizing it must be based on accurate information. This manuscript highlights points and counterpoints that attempt to clear away some of the detritus that obscures the subject, thus allowing more informed debate on the real issues concerning air power and strategic bombing.

Dr. Donald J. Mrozeks research sheds considerable light on how the use of air power evolved in the Vietnam War. Much more than simply retelling events, Mrozek analyzes how history, politics, technology, and the complexity of the war drove the application of air power in a long and divisive struggle. Mrozek delves into a wealth of original documentation, and his scholarship is impeccable. His analysis is thorough and balanced. His conclusions are well reasoned but will trouble those who have never seriously considered how the application of air power is influenced by factors far beyond the battlefield. Wether or not the reader agrees with Mrozek, the quality of his research and analysis makes his conclusions impossible to ignore. John C. Fryer, Jr. Brigadier General, United States Air Force Commander, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education

Volume 5, Deep Maneuver: Historical Case Studies of Maneuver in Large-Scale Combat Operations, presents eleven case studies from World War II through Operation Iraqi Freedom focusing on deep maneuver in terms of time, space and purpose. Deep operations require boldness and audacity, and yet carry an element of risk of overextension - especially in light of the independent factors of geography and weather that are ever-present. As a result, the case studies address not only successes, but also failure and shortfalls that result when conducting deep operations. The final two chapters address these considerations for future Deep Maneuver.

This handbook implements AFPD 36-22, Air Force Military Training. Information in this handbook is primarily from Air Force publications and contains a compilation of policies, procedures, and standards that guide Airmen's actions within the Profession of Arms. This handbook applies to the Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. This handbook contains the basic information Airmen need to understand the professionalism required within the Profession of Arms. Attachment 1 contains references and supporting information used in this publication. This handbook is the sole source reference for the development of study guides to support the enlisted promotion system. Enlisted Airmen will use these study guide to prepare for their Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) or United States Air Force Supervisory Examination (USAFSE).

For nearly two decades the United States Air Force (USAF) oriented the bulk of its thinking, acquisition, planning, and training on the threat of a Soviet blitzkrieg across the inter German border. The Air Force fielded a powerful conventional arm well rehearsed in the tactics required to operate over a central European battlefield. Then, in a matter of days, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait altered key assumptions that had been developed over the previous decade and a half. The USAF faced a different foe employing a different military doctrine in an unexpected environment. Instead of disrupting a fast paced land offensive, the combat wings of the United States Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) were ordered to attack a large, well fortified, and dispersed Iraqi ground force. The heart of that ground force was the Republican Guard Forces Command (RGFC). CENTAF's mission dictated the need to develop an unfamiliar repertoire of tactics and procedures to meet theater objectives. How effectively did CENTAF adjust air operations against the Republican Guard to the changing realities of combat? Answering that question is central to this study, and the answer resides in evaluation of the innovations developed by CENTAF to improve its operational and tactical performance against the Republican Guard. Effectiveness and timeliness are the primary criteria used for evaluating innovations.