Air University Review: November-December 1965 Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE MILITARY PROFESSION...COMMANDER SELECTION, TRAIN- ING, AND EFFECTIVENESS... REPUBLIC OF KOREA AIR FORCE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1965 ANNOUNCEMENT In response to recent Secretarial and Chief of Staff eneourage- ment to stimulate an ever greater flow of professional thought within the Air Force, Air University Review takes pride in announcing the inception of a program of awards and prizes to authors beginning with the J a n u a r y -F e b r u a r y 1966 issue. In addition to author awards, there will be a prize for the best article in each issue of the Review and an annual award for the out- standing article of the year. Prizes will be announced in the Review. If your Office does not receive the Review regularly through official USAF distribution, check with your base Publications Distribu- tion Officer. A personal subscrip- tion to the Review will ensure regular receipt. See facing page for subscription inform ation. THE PROfESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE Some Refl ec t ion s on the Mil it a r y Pr o f essio n .............................................................................. 2 Honorable Eugene M. Zuckert Sel ec t ion and Training of Comman ders...........................................................................................10 Col. Alma R. Flake, usaf A New Assessmen t of Co mma n der Effectiveness? ........................................................................23 Capt. Lyle D. Kaapke, usaf Lt. Col. Rav VV. Alvord, usaf Military Affairs Abroad T he Devel o pmen t of ROKAF as a M ature Instrument of P ea c e...........................28 Maj. Gen. Chang, Chi Ryang, rokaf Or c a n iz a t io n a l Integration—K ey to the Mil it a r y Appl ic a t io n of Computer Technology........................................................................................................................................ 37 Col. Harold R. Johnson, usaf O bjec t ives in Future Strategic W ar...............................................................................................................43 Lt. Col. Harold L. Hitchens, usaf M athematics and Stratecy.................................................................................................................................. 52 Lt. Col. John E. Mock, usaf 2d Lt. Willard E. Hobbs, Jr., usaf Science Frontier U ltrapurification........................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Maj. Guy H. Moates, usaf Dr. Alton F. Armington Dr. Marvin S. Brooks In My Opinion F lexible Respon se vs. D et er mined R et a l iat ion : A C ritique...................................................80 lcdr Forrest Forsythe, usn W hat Is Co o r d in a t io n ? ...................................................................................................................................83 Col. Horace W. Lanford, Jr., usaf C ontributory Ret iremen t ? ............................................................................................................................89 Maj. William D. Clement, usaf Books and Ideas T he Role of the Mil it a r y in Latin America........................................................................90 Dr. Raymond Estep A Per spec t ive Look at Our A mer ica n Mil it a r y Policy.......................................................94 Maj. John H. Scrivner, Jr., usaf T he C ontributors............................................................................................................................................................98 the cover Address manuscripts to the Editor, Air Uni- One of our sister Services, the Repub- cerrity Revietc, Aerospace Studies Institute, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. Printed by the lic of Korea Air Force, testifies to its Government Printing Office, Washington, concem for professionalism and lead- D.C. Subscriptions are sold by the Air Uni- ership by its new Air Force Academy. versity Book Department, Maxwell Air Force In this issue of Air University Review, Base, Ala.: yearly S4.50, back issues 75 Major General Chang, Chi Ryang, Vice cents. USAF recurbinc pu bl ic a t io n 50-2. Chief of Staff, writes of ROKAF, and Honorable Eugene M. Zuckert dis- Vol. XVII No. 1 November-Dec ember 1965 cusses professionalism in the USAF. H oxorable Eucexk M. Zuckert OR M ORE than ten of the last twenty for themselves. Civilian observers like Samuel years, I have been associated with the Huntington, Morris Janowitz, and Walter Mil- F Air Force as Special Assistant to the lis, who have written about the military profes- Assistant Secretary of VVar for Air, as an Assist- sion, can provide very helpful insights and ant Secretary of the Air Force, and most re- historical background. I don’t believe, however, cently as the Secretary. During those years, that any profession can fully understand itself I’ve seen Air Force people as a group become until its members have thought deeply about truly professional in techniques and skills, and their common attitudes, responsibilities, ethi- approach what I would consider a high qual- cal and moral codes, and relationships with ity of professionalism in their attitudes and other elements of society. Outlook. The brief statement that follows is not The contrast between professional stand- intended to be a description or an analysis. I ards of the early postwar years and those of set it down only to establish a basis of under- today probably has been more striking to me standing for my concluding observations. than to most of you, since I was out of the Air You will recall that in The Suldier and the Force from 1952 to 1961. Perhaps I had a basis State, Samuel Huntington described the three for comparison more clear-cut than did those characteristics of professionalism as corporate- who were in the service continuously during ness (the feeling of belonging to an identifiable that criticai period. At any rate, my interest in group with common ideais and purpose), re- professional development led me to speak and sponsibility, and expertise. write rather extensively about the Air Force There are hundreds of different skills—a as a profession when I was Secretary. wide area of expertise—needed in the Air Force. This article is about professionalism—but One could argue that there is no such thing as not in the usual descriptive or analytical sense. a military profession—that it is merely a collec- I propose only to set down some observations tion of different professions and disciplines. that may be useful to Air Force people as they This is not true. There is a binding force that continue to think about their profession. One makes you part of an identifiable profession. characteristic of professionalism, it seems to That force is inade up of a great many elements me, is self-examination. wliich could be grouped under the headings of “corporateness” and “responsibility.” The items that go to make up corporate- What is military professionalism? ness range from such simple things as wearing The military profession cannot be deline- the same uniform, through the time-honored ated by any neat, compact definition. It is too military virtues of courage, loyalty, integrity, big, too heterogeneous in its component func- and self-discipline to more complex ideas like tions, too complex in its relationships, too dif- duty and sense of mission. ferent from any other profession. These last two—duty and mission—estab- It can be described, but that would take lish your responsibilities. They define the job a great deal of space, and anyway you who are you have to do and the spirit in which you professionals can do that better than I. earry out that job. They include a stem impera- It can be analyzed, but that, I sincerely tive which, in itself, sets the military profession believe, is a job the professionals ought to do apart from all others—the total commitment to 4 AIR UNIVERSITY REV1EW place your responsibilities and duty to your “Damn it, I joined the Air Force to fly aiqdanes country ahead of personal convenience or gain, —not to do this.” Well, we all would have or life itself. agreed that flying airplanes in combat was the The military profession would not be what payoff, but it was not the sole measure of pro- it is if it lacked any one of Huntington s three fessional standing for a sênior officer. A lot of characteristics: our people found this out the hard way when Without expertisc, corporateness and re- first they sat down at the conference table with sponsibility would be ineffective. Army and Navy officers of equal rank. Without corporateness, expertise and re- Then there were the myths that died hard sponsibility probably would result in a low —especially the myth of Air Force omnipo- order of efficiency. tence. A lot of blue-suiters simply refused to believe that there was any war that couldn’t Without responsibility, corporateness and be won by air power alone. They knew, and expertise could be a threat to society. rightly, that air power was then the supreme deterrent to general war; but for the sake of the earltj years interservice harmony in a professional atmo- Now let me go back for a moment to the sphere, they might have settled for the equally late 1940’s and early 1950’s and trace briefly praiseworthy concept that there was no war the rise of Air Force professionalism. The great which could be won without air power. bulk of our officers and airmen of those years Some also believed there were few if any had come into the Service during