Note from AFA President -- Words Matter

AFA members, Congressional staff members, civic leaders, DOCA members,

Last month a senior AF leader used terms to describe forward-based forces and those not forward. The terms he used were “expeditionary” forces and “garrisoned” forces. The terms are commonly used … but they made me stop and think. Are B-2s at Whiteman AFB expeditionary? Are they in garrison? They can certainly reach out almost anywhere on the planet and achieve strategic effects. How about the ICBMs at FE Warren AFB? Or the space squadron at Peterson AFB? Or the MQ-9 squadron flying Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) in Iraq from Creech AFB? What about the F-16 squadron at Kunsan AB – it fights from “garrison” … but is it expeditionary?

It seems to me that Airpower transcends these land-based, historical terms.

I asked a former boss and mentor of mine what he thought … and his very good answer is below. Like him, I am not fired up about his suggested alternatives in the last paragraph.

Perhaps one of you could come up with a better description of Airpower than either of us. Think about it and let me hear from you.

For your consideration.

Mike

Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association
________________________________________

In our strategy program, we include discussion of a set of Cardinal Rules, one of which is Focus on the Future. A part of Focus on the Future and simultaneously an illustration of it is the idea of changing labels and vocabulary if you want people to do something different in the future than they are doing now. So as an example (which we have discussed a little in the past), if you want people to think in new ways about Airpower, you avoid ancient and anachronistic words like “battle” and its off-shoots such as “preparing the battle-field.” “Warrior” also fits into this category. These kinds of words have such strong connotations and produce such evocative images, that they create a big barrier to people understanding that Airpower is not mechanism for fighting, but rather one for winning through creation of system change. [Emphasis added.]

The above was really a long-winded way of saying that I agree fully with your concern over the use of “garrisoned and expeditionary forces.” Both inevitably drag the listener (or reader) back to the American Indian wars and to our allies into Central America (nothing wrong with either, but not quite our problem today.) Identifying the problem is step one with step two being finding new terms—not to replace the old, but to capture an image of a desired future (Airpower accomplishing something that ancient garrisons and expeditions could not accomplish). [Emphasis added.]

It seems to me that the first conceptual idea is that with Airpower, we don’t need foreign garrisons (which is also a very defensive-sounding word) or clunky expeditions (at least in theory and in the future that will be controlled by the current budget deliberations). Ideally, with Airpower we impose solutions on an opponent in a very short time period with little or no residual effects (manpower on the ground, barbed wire, political entanglements). A “power projecting” air force would be a big improvement, but it is not very catchy and has become a bit overused. “Power projection,” “garrisoning” and “expedition-ing” are all means as opposed to ends. How to capture the ends, the result of the means, and to do it with evocative words that need little explanation, is the challenge. (A little differentiation from our joint friends also wouldn’t hurt.) The following are some possibilities:

The Impact Air Force; untethered impact force; the discriminate effects force; the precision effects force; the dominator (perhaps a bit over the top); the global reach/global effects force; the global impact force; the distant impact force; or perhaps the rectifiers. I am not sure that I am overwhelmed by any of these but they do suggest some alternatives. I’ll keep thinking about it; as you have rightly suggested, it is not a trivial issue. Words count!