One Step Back, Two Steps Forward an Analytical Framework for Airpower in Small Wars
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2006-06 One step back, two steps forward an analytical framework for airpower in small wars Stuewe, Ronald F. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/2711 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS ONE STEP BACK, TWO STEPS FORWARD: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR AIRPOWER IN SMALL WARS by Ronald F. Stuewe, Jr. June 2006 Thesis Advisor: Kalev Sepp Second Reader: Anna Simons Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2006 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS One Step Back, Two Steps Forward: An Analytical Framework for Airpower in Small Wars 6. AUTHOR(S) Ronald F. Stuewe, Jr. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited A. 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) Airpower capability and military technology have created a vision of airpower that focuses on the lethality of weaponry instead of the use of that weaponry as a political tool. Unfortunately, such a lethality- focused force optimized to fight interstate conflicts, by definition, ensures that this force is sub-optimal for waging wars at the sub-state level. Small wars are conflicts where the political and diplomatic context, and not the military disposition of the combatants, is usually the determining factor. Following World War II there emerged an era of insurgencies and limited wars of territorial dispute. These small wars required new operational and tactical innovations involving the use of airpower, as the very nature of these wars differed from conventional conflict towards which most of aviation was geared. This thesis analyzes six historical cases involving the use of airpower across a wide spectrum of small wars through the lens of an analytical framework for countering insurgencies. While the typologies of no two conflicts are identical, and the application of airpower equally varied, this work provides fundamental assertions and implications regarding the proper use of airpower for waging war at this level. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF Airpower, Small War, Leites and Wolf, insurgency, counterinsurgency, Malaya, Falklands, Indochina, PAGES Algeria, Philippines, Huk Rebellion, El Salvador 99 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18-298-102 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited ONE STEP BACK, TWO STEPS FORWARD: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR AIRPOWER IN SMALL WARS Ronald F. Stuewe, Jr. Major, United States Air Force B.S., United States Air Force Academy, 1993 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEFENSE ANALYSIS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 2006 Author: Ronald F. Stuewe, Jr. Approved by: Kalev Sepp Thesis Advisor Anna Simons Second Reader Gordon McCormick Chairman, Department of Defense Analysis iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT Airpower capability and military technology have created a vision of airpower that focuses on the lethality of weaponry instead of the use of that weaponry as a political tool. Unfortunately, such a lethality-focused force optimized to fight interstate conflicts, by definition, ensures that this force is sub-optimal for waging wars at the sub-state level. Small wars are conflicts where the political and diplomatic context, and not the military disposition of the combatants, is usually the determining factor. Following World War II there emerged an era of insurgencies and limited wars of territorial dispute. These small wars required new operational and tactical innovations involving the use of airpower, as the very nature of these wars differed from conventional conflict towards which most of aviation was geared. This thesis analyzes six historical cases involving the use of airpower across a wide spectrum of small wars through the lens of an analytical framework for countering insurgencies. While the typologies of no two conflicts are identical, and the application of airpower equally varied, this work provides fundamental assertions and implications regarding the proper use of airpower for waging war at this level. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A. RELEVANCE ..................................................................................................1 B. PURPOSE.........................................................................................................2 1. Primary Research Question................................................................2 2. Secondary Research Questions...........................................................2 C. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................3 1. Definitions.............................................................................................3 2. Case Study Selection............................................................................5 D. ORGANIZATION ...........................................................................................6 E. BENEFITS OF THE STUDY .........................................................................7 II. LEITES AND WOLF SYSTEM MODEL.................................................................9 A. BACKGROUND ON ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS ............................9 B. THE LEITES AND WOLF FRAMEWORK..............................................10 C. COUNTERS BASED ON THE LEITES AND WOLF FRAMEWORK..............................................................................................12 III. SMALL WARS OF THE BRITISH.........................................................................15 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................15 B. THE MALAYAN EMERGENCY................................................................16 1. Background ........................................................................................16 2. Environment.......................................................................................16 3. Opposition Strategy ...........................................................................17 4. Popular and External Support .........................................................17 5. Framework for Analysis....................................................................17 a. Input Denial ............................................................................17 b. Countering the Production Process .......................................18 c. Counterforce............................................................................18 d. Active Defense.........................................................................19 C. THE FALKLAND ISLANDS .......................................................................20 1. Background ........................................................................................20 2. Environment.......................................................................................20 3. Opposition Strategy ...........................................................................21 4. Popular and External Support .........................................................21 5. Framework for Analysis....................................................................22 a. Input Denial ............................................................................22 b. Countering the Production Process .......................................23 c. Counterforce............................................................................23 d. Active Defense.........................................................................24 D. ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................24 IV. SMALL WARS OF THE FRENCH ........................................................................25