In World War II, US air units deployed worldwide, island-hopped across the Pacific, and advanced from base to base across North Africa and Europe.

One often hears that a "garrison mentality" arose during the Cold War as Air Force units became ensconced in cozy main operating bases in the continental United States (CONUS), the Pacific, and Europe.

However, during the Cold War, the Air Force repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to deploy large forces across intercontinental distances, establish new bases, and conduct campaigns as diverse as the Berlin airlift, Linebacker I, and Operations Desert Shield/Storm.

The Air Force's current expeditionary emphasis essentially amounts to a post�Cold War cultural change that emerged following experiences such as the Gulf War of 1991 and various operations in the Balkans during the 1990s.

Such change builds on the service's expeditionary tradition and functions on at least three levels: strategic, service, and individual.

On a strategic level, the United States reduced the infrastructure of its overseas military bases during the 1990s, yet most problems that call for military involvement occur overseas.

Therefore, the need to project power from the CONUS to distant places logically spurs efforts to make the Air Force more physically deployable.

Current demands for improved airlift capacity and smaller, lighter equipment reflect this physical aspect of being expeditionary. At the service level, organizational changes�most notably dividing the Air Force into air and space expeditionary forces (AEF) and promulgating associated operating procedures�mirror the bureaucratic aspect of becoming more expeditionary.

Finally, at an individual level, the Air Force seeks to instill an expeditionary mind-set in each Airman, but the difficulty of precisely defining such an attitude may prove the most challenging aspect of the ongoing cultural change. All of these expeditionary aspects interact as the service's culture evolves and adapts to a changing world environment.

Cultural changes seldom occur quickly or easily. One can more easily conceptualize some Air Force functions in expeditionary terms than others. For example, most airlift and combat air units fit neatly into the traditional physical-deployment paradigm of expeditionary operations.

Such units can move from CONUS bases to overseas locations much as they have since World War I, but technological and doctrinal advances promise to move them more efficiently.

Assigning units and personnel to AEF "buckets" is easy enough to understand but entails administrative and practical complications. However, some units do not appear very expeditionary at first glance.

For example, how expeditionary are space-operations units that can perform their functions from the CONUS without any need to relocate? Do B-2 missions flown to and from CONUS bases qualify as expeditionary operations? How about overseas missions flown by unmanned aerial vehicles yet controlled from CONUS ground stations?

In some ways, such operations typify the Cold War�era garrison mentality that expeditionary operations are supposed to change. How can Airmen who perform these vital roles truly think in expeditionary terms?

Effects-based operations (EBO), a style of thought that emphasizes producing desired effects related to achieving strategic objectives, can answer these questions and place expeditionary operations in proper perspective.

In EBO terms, the Air Force is expeditionary in order to produce desired effects anywhere in the world on short notice, an objective that may or may not require the physical deployment of assets. Proper organization and procedures are important but need to remain adaptable to changing circumstances.

If we must instill an expeditionary mind-set in each Airman, then EBO represents one way to cultivate the requisite flexible approach to operations. Airmen may sometimes produce expeditionary effects without leaving home.

Professional discourse about the challenges inherent in expeditionary operations can advance the Air Force's capabilities and effectiveness. We dedicate this issue of Air and Space Power Journal to furthering that professional debate.

Disclaimer: The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Source: Air & Space Power Journal - Summer 2005

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only