In terms of how it plans to fight the enemies the America might face, not so much, but in terms of how it can fight the Navy and the Army for precious procurement funds, absolutely. Thomas Ricks:
Here, the Air Force uses the jargon of modern warfare to discuss its competition with the Army and Navy. Usually, it is China that U.S. officers describe as a "peer competitor" -- that is, a real or potential adversary. But in these briefing slides, it is the other services that the Air Force is targeting. And this "Budget Battle" is a "Zero Sum Gain" -- meaning that some services are going to win and some are going to lose. Hey, it's a "non-permissive environment" (that is, hostile situation) out there.
Ricks is writing in reference to a set of PowerPoint slides that emerged out of preparation for the fight over the next QDR, or Quadriennial Defense Review. In fairness to the Air Force, the other services aren't shy about arguing for a larger slice of the pie, either. The recent declarations by Charles Dunlap about the centrality of airpower to counter-insurgency warfare should be understood in light of this battle.
The larger point to be made is that while there may be some good reasons to build organizational walls between services, the creation of such walls inevitably leads to bureaucratic conflict and competition. In the context of government defense procurement, this competition doesn't necessarily mean that we get more for our dollar; rather, it can often mean that we just spend a lot more dollars for a lot more stuff that we don't actually need. Consequently, it's probably best to have as few independent military organizations as possible.
Also see Armchair Generalist and Abu Muqawama.
-- Robert Farley
