From another site we have this —
“Air power alone would not have defeated Saddam. On the other hand, the Legions were perfectly capable of imposing a regime change on Iraq.”
This has been said multiple times and in different ways. It has been repeated often enough that it’s almost a truism. But… is it?
Seems to me that a systematic extermination of Iraqi units from the air would work fine. What appears to be holding back doing this sort of thing seems to be the notion that air power alone can’t win anything. Some of this is obviously due to past experience with the pre-modern smart bomb wielding air force. And part of it is due to internecine warfare with other military branches; e.g. the USAF doesn’t want to deal with choppers or harriers or other ground support units because, it seems, the USAF would as soon be dogfighting over the English Channel in Sopwith Camels.
Set this aside for a moment, though. Let’s assume that we could’ve gone into Iraq and do so with air units alone regardless of service branch in control. Are the naysayers trying to honestly say that complete air control and unlimited shoot to kill authorisation wouldn’t have defeated Iraq just as handily? Whether an artillery unit is taken out by a tank or by a helicopter, it’s still just as dead. And helicopters get there faster.
Seems to me that the US owns the requisite technology to get things done; what is needed seems to be leadership that gets it, is willing to wield it correctly, and can put a plan in operation that works. I think the notion that air power can’t win wars is antiquated and has yet to be fully attempted/demonstrated in the modern era.
