Affiliation:
1. Stephen D. Biddle is Senior Fellow in National Security at the Council on Foreign Relations. At the time this article was written, he was Associate Professor of National Security Studies in the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. ArmyWar College. The views expressed here are the author's and are not necessarily positions of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the Army War College.
Abstract
The Afghan model of warfare uses indigenous allies to replace American conventional ground troops by exploiting U.S. airpower and small numbers of American special operations forces. Some argue that this model is widely applicable, enabling a major restructuring of the U.S. military and considerable freedom for American military intervention. An assessment of such claims in light of recent combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, finds the model's applicability to be more limited. Where U.S. allies have had skills and motivation comparable to their enemies', the Afghan model has proven extremely lethal even without U.S. conventional ground forces. But where U.S. allies have lacked these skills, they have proven unable to exploit the potential of American airpower. The model can thus be a powerful tool, but one with important preconditions for its use—and these preconditions limit its potential to transform U.S. force structure or defense policy.
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献