Air Force Starts to Sing from Gates' Hymnal

The most startling change in Robert Gates' Pentagon has been the outbreak of common sense. Today's real-world wars has been emphasized over tomorrow's imaginary ones; battle-planning bluster has been replaced with quiet, measured competency. Two years into Gates' tenure, even the Air Force brass is getting in on the act.

I caught up Monday with Lt. Gen Raymond Johns, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Programs. He's the guy who's supposed to think about what the Air Force will need, decades in the future. So he could be forgiven for adopting a common air service line -- that we've got to prepare, first and foremost, for a traditional, conventional-war showdown with "peer competitor" like China or Russia. Instead, the general sang from Gates' hymnal -- and looked at guerrillas, terrorists, and militants as the most likely threats.

"What does the nation want from its military?" Lt. Gen. Johns asks. "First and foremost to defend the homeland. Second is to win this global war on terror, and to respond to all this irregular warfare. Then, we still have an obligation to be able to win major conventional operations."

Lt. Gen. Johns is also realistic about what the air service's advanced equipment really does best. In February, Air Force generals howled, risking insubordination when Gates said that the F-22 stealth fighter had no role in the war on terror -- and therefore shouldn't be bought in large numbers. On Monday, Lt. Gen. Johns echoed Gates' point of view.

"I need enough fighter attack platforms to make sure we can defend the homeland, to respond to crisis globally. But some of these irregular war[s] may not require the highest, the most [advanced fighters]," Lt. Gen. Johns says. "But they require an MQ-9 [Reaper drone]. They may require an A-10. They may require a lower-end platform. So I'm into being cost effective."

Of course, gazillion-dollar stealth fighters will have their place. And of course, China and Russia have to be closely watched. But its their weapons-dealing businesses -- rather than a conventional attack -- that sparks the most concern. "Will we ever fight China or Russia? We sure hope not. Will we fight against their equipment that's been exported globally across the world? Yes," he says. "They have a huge industrial base that's still producing weapons systems." And not just small arms or helicopters -- but "high-end fighters" and advanced surface-to-air missile systems, too. What happens to the balance of power when countries all over the planet have those weapons? How many advanced jets will the U.S. need then? That's what planners like Lt. Gen. Johns are trying to figure out. It's easier to do, with feet planted on the ground.
Wired