This should be useful for spreading some more light on the subject from someone very close to the original article...but with a different viewpoint. I recieved this in an email thread from a discussion among former students of the USMC command and staff college about the same article as the original in this thread, and it was written by an AF one-star (name has been removed)
Kind of long, but well worth it for anyone interested in this topic more indepth.
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:08 PM
> To: 'Peters'
> Subject: FW: CLASHING MILITARY CULTURES
> Ralph,
> Wow...I must say this article seems way over the top. Geez, I'm
> genuinely shocked that you've reacted this way to my note to you
about
> your earlier piece. I can assure you that I wasn't "lobbying" you -
is
> that really what
> you thought? Until I read today's article, I would have thought the
> notion
> of "lobbying" Ralph Peters to be preposterous. But if you want to
talk
> about lobbying, no one does it better than the U.S. Marine Corps.
Just
> ask them. Believe me, the Air Force is a rank amateur vis-à-vis the
> Marine Corps in the lobbying business!!
> Speaking of "old" aircraft, I assume you know when the USAF B-52s
were
> built or, for that matter, the F-15s and F-16s we have these days....
> But more importantly, isn't the Marines main aviation priority the
> V-22 Osprey? It has a fascinating record... Still, it may be the
right
> answer for them, but the point is that it isn't exactly a low-tech -
> or inexpensive
> - solution to a mobility problem. I'm amazed it wasn't referenced in
> your article.... Moreover, didn't the Marines get the Super Hornet,
> and aren't
> they buying the Joint Strike Fighter? (And there are other
USAF-funded
> programs for which Marine aviation is getting the benefit.) Was none
> of this mentioned to you?
> And what "pressing need" - exactly - is being denied them by the Air
> Force?
> What exactly has the Air Force turned a "blind eye" to? Amphibious
> assault
> doctrine?
> And what's this about the Air Force being "morally bankrupt"? Is that
> what you really want to say about 360,000 mostly-young Americans
> serving their country all over the world? I don't think that many of
> our most energetic critics in the Army or Marine Corps would say
that.
> Yes, we were deeply humiliated by Darleen Drulyan and Tom
> Fiscus....but the Air Force had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib
mess
> (except that now airmen have had to be detailed to serve as guards
> there). In fact, no USAF people have been accused of torturing or
> killing any detainees in Guantanamo or Afghanistan or anywhere. Is
the
> Army or the Marine Corps making claims of moral superiority in these
> cases? I would suggest to you that these latter misconduct events
have
> had far more adverse consequences to the U.S. effort in the GWOT than
> anything any airman did.
> I'd also add that we have had nobody who refused missions
>
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/05/iraq.reservists/index.html
> (In
> fact, there are 2,500 airmen seconded to the Army for convoy duty in
> Iraq...and none of them have refused dangerous missions to my
> knowledge.) Moreover, before you moralize about services, compare
> rates of drug abuse, desertion, or any other criminal behavior. I
> think you will find that your Air Force runs a relatively clean
> operation; in fact, none of the services are "morally bankrupt"...
> Ralph, you don't need to seize the rhetoric of the extreme left to
> make your points...and it is perfectly legitimate for you or anyone
to
> question things like the F/A-22...it ought to be scrutinized like
> every other aspect of national defense.
> But why should the other services be exempt from scrutiny? I think
> it's sad that you conclude that any critique of the land component
> performance is "slander." Slander? Is that really the right word for
> any disagreement with Army dogma? At one time you were a critic of
> some of the things that the Army did... And there are quite a few
> soldiers and Marines who firmly believe in critiquing their own
> performance...and welcome such critiques from whatever sources.
That's
> the genius of the American military, the ability to question
> assumptions and scrutinize performance.
> It is a legitimate question as to why we are having so much
difficulty
> with an insurgency the land component leaders tell us is about 20,000
> in strength versus what, 110,000 soldier and Marines? Ok, there may
be
> bona fide reasons that even with that kind of advantage, success
isn't
> in the cards for the near term. But isn't it still fair question as
to
> whether the forces are properly organized, trained, and equipped - as
> to whether there
> might be some way we can do better? Shouldn't we try to determine if
> the
> current strategy is the right one? Is it wrong for me or others in
the
> Air
> Force to be concerned about soldiers and Marines being killed and
> maimed every day?
> Hypersensitivity to asking legitimate questions about the conduct of
> the war is not the way to save the lives of young troopers going into
> harms' way.
> You advocate silence as we watch our comrades in arms die, but that's
> just wrong. Challenging assumptions is not challenging the personal
> courage of individual soldiers and Marines, rather it is intended to
> try avoid losing even one of their lives unnecessarily. Maybe you are
> right and the Army and Marines are doing everything perfectly and
> there are no better answers, but that doesn't mean it is Ok to
> question the morality and patriotism of those who ask tough
questions.
> Asking hard questions makes us better...exempting the Army and the
> Marine Corps from such queries does them a disservice.
> Ralph, let me say this as a friend and admirer: you were very wrong
to
> disparage the courage of people serving in your Air Force...that is
> not the Ralph Peters I know and respect. Moreover, you really don't
> know these young people or the sacrifices they have made and make
> every day. I don't know what this Colonel Davis told you, but there
> are a lot of soldiers and Marines with combat time who are pretty
> happy with our Air Force, and who would disagree with you
> vociferously.
> You are upset because the Air Force takes care of its people better
> than the other services. Guilty as charged. But why does it make you
> so unhappy that anyone serving their country has a decent place to
> live and work?
> Would it be such a crime if Army and Marine families could have a
> similar standard?
> Maybe one reason the USAF has such low rates of drug abuse and other
> misconduct is the environment we provide for our people. Maybe it's a
> reason we always meet our recruiting targets (and recruiting the kind
> of people the USAF mission requires isn't easy). Perhaps our sister
> services could learn something from us.
> And, by the way, take a look at the senior officer housing in the
Army
> and the Navy (though can't honestly tell you I've been in a Marine
> flag officer's quarters)...believe me, we have nothing to compare
with
> some of the mansions I've seen just on the other side of the river
> here.
> On more important subjects, you obviously are not concerned about
> China or any of the other potential peer competitors...and I
sincerely
> hope you are right...but I think you ought to look at the literature
> (and this may surprise you, but many thoughtful soldiers and Marines
> are concerned about China as well...ask the Marines in Okinawa).
> It may be, as you suggest, that the Army and Marines are wise to
> prepare to fight replays of Iraq in the future. I just don't think
> that that is the likely scenario; indeed, I think that those who do
> believe that are, in essence, already re-fighting the proverbial
"last
> war" - but that is a debate we ought to be able to have without a lot
> of name-calling.
> Regardless, as a Nation we just can't assume that all future wars
will
> be Iraq redux...or that everyone will bury their airplanes.
> I'll be the first to say that the Air Force has its problems (and,
> true, many of them are self-inflicted). We are "down", and - like you
> - everyone
> is seizing the opportunity to kick us. In many respects, the Air
Force
> is
> being taken to school as to its naiveté about parochialism.
> Nevertheless, I will openly say that I believe that you and all of
our
> critics are indeed making real headway, and may well succeed in
> deconstructing the Air Force as you desire. The result will be not a
> bunch
> of Air Force deaths that you seem to want to see (how many Air Force
> people need to die before the service has "courage" in your view?).
> Rather, the sad truth is that the deaths will be of the soldiers and
> Marines you believe are better Americans than those wearing Air Force
> blue. It will be a very sad day when the ground forces of this
country
> find out what it is like to try to fight without the control of the
> air they have enjoyed for fifty years.
> Still your fan, but very perplexed.... Warm Regards,
:icon_wink (Since I quoted A4s I had to put in the requisite number of smilies)
