More on the Delusional USAF View of Airpower in Counterinsurgency.

This time from Air Force Magazine, the organ of the Air Forces Association, see my post last night on the batsh%$ insane Air Force two star.

Petraeus basically argues that aggressive use of Air Force capabilities, except in a Tet Offensive situation, is actually counter productive.

Given the fact that the US air strike happy doctrine has led the Brits to demand that the US cease operations in their area (blogged here), it's clear that Petraeus is right, "However, air assets should be at the disposal of the ground commander, according to the new doctrine manual."

Needless to say, the USAF hates this with a passion. Not only does this belittle them, it also makes most of their newer toys unnecessary:

Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center at Maxwell AFB, Ala., said he had seen the doctrine penned by Petraeus and Amos, and said that it reflected “a very two-dimensional view of how to fight a counterinsurgency.” If airmen had written it, it would be “different,” Peck observed.

He's also completely wrong.

It's like allowing a pyromaniac to advise on fighting house fires.

Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center at Maxwell AFB, Ala., said he had seen the doctrine penned by Petraeus and Amos, and said that it reflected “a very two-dimensional view of how to fight a counterinsurgency.” If airmen had written it, it would be “different,” Peck observed.

And it would be wrong, and strengthen insurgencies, and cost soldiers and marines their lives.