DOCSLIB.ORG

The Air Commanders' Perspectives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Air Commanders' Perspectives Airpower in Afghanistan 2005—10 The Air Commanders’ Perspectives Edited by Dag Henriksen Foreword by Hon. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Airpower in Afghanistan 2005–10 The Air Commanders’ Perspectives Edited by Dag Henriksen Lieutenant Colonel, Royal Norwegian Air Force Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy Foreword by Jaap De Hoop Scheffer 11th Secretary General of NATO, 2004–09 Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jerry L. Gantt Henriksen, Dag. Copy Editor Tammi K. Dacus Airpower in Afghanistan 2005-10 : the air com- manders’ perspectives / edited by Dag Henriksen, Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations Lieutenant Colonel, Royal Norwegian Air Force, Daniel Armstrong Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy ; foreword by Composition and Prepress Production Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, 11th Secretary General of Michele D. Harrell NATO, 2004-09. pages cm Print Preparation and Distribution Includes bibliographical references. Diane Clark ISBN 978-1-58566-235-7 1. Afghan War, 2001—Aerial operations 2. Air power—Afghanistan—History—20th century. 3. Norway. Luftforsvaret—Foreign service—Afghani- stan. 4. United States. Air Force—Foreign service— Afghanistan 5. Canada. Royal Canadian Air Force— Foreign service—Afghanistan 6. Afghan War, 2001—Participation, Norwegian. 7. Afghan War, 2001—Participation, Canadian. 8. Afghan War, AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE 2001—Personal narratives. 9. Combined operations (Military science)—Afghanistan. I. Title. AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS DS371.412.H46 2014 958.104’748--dc23 Director and Publisher 2014038665 Allen G. Peck Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Demorah Hayes Published by Air University Press in November 2014 Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press 155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 [email protected] http://aupress.au.af.mil/ http://afri.au.af.mil/ Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the organizations with which they are associated or the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, AFRI United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. This publication is cleared Air Force Research Institute for public release and unlimited distribution. ii Contents List of Figures v Foreword vii Honorable Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Author Biographies xi Acknowledgments xxi Introduction xxiii Lt Col Dag Henriksen, RNoAF Abbreviations xxxv PART I THE STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY’S MILITARY ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN, 2005–06 1 Silence before the Storm 3 Maj Gen Jaap Willemse, RNLAF, Retired 2 Airpower: The Theater Perspective 19 Lt Gen Allen G. Peck, USAF, Retired PART II ISAF ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR AFGHANISTAN 3 Operation Medusa 41 Maj Gen Charles S. Sullivan, Canadian Forces, Retired 4 The US-NATO Military Dichotomy 57 Maj Gen William L. Holland, USAF, Retired 5 From Saint-Mihiel (1918) to Afghanistan 69 Lt Gen Frederik H. Meulman, RNLAF, Retired 6 Airpower as a Second Thought 107 Maj Gen Maurice H. Forsyth, USAF, Retired 7 Moving toward Counterinsurgency 123 Lt Gen Jouke L. H. Eikelboom, RNLAF, Retired PART III THE COUNTERINSURGENCY DEBATE 8 The Shift from Iraq to Afghanistan 137 Maj Gen Douglas Raaberg, USAF, Retired 9 Game-Changing Strategies for Counterinsurgency and Complex Joint Operations 157 Maj Gen Charles S. Sullivan, Canadian Forces, Retired 10 Airpower over Afghanistan: Observation and Adaptation for the COIN Fight 235 Lt Gen Stephen L. Hoog, USAF Epilogue 259 Lt Col Dag Henriksen, RNoAF Appendix 283 Bibliography 291 iv List of Figures Figures 1 US Central Command area of responsibility 284 2 Map of Afghanistan 286 3 US close air support sorties, Afghanistan and Iraq, 2004–10 287 4 US CAS strike munitions dropped, Afghanistan and Iraq, 2004–10 288 5 US ISR Sorties, Afghanistan and Iraq, 2004-11 289 v vi Foreword Afghanistan has been a rewarding, complex, and challenging mis- sion for all nations involved, not least for Afghanistan itself. Few, if any, anticipated that the initial attacks on the Taliban regime in Af- ghanistan in fall 2001 would become the longest war in the history of NATO and the United States of America. Today, more than 12 years later, it is still too early to conclude the successes and failures of this campaign or predict how Afghanistan will evolve once the majority of international military forces leave the country in 2014. In the end, it will be up to the Afghans themselves to make their own decisions, destiny, and future. When I took office as the 11th secretary general of NATO in early 2004, the transatlantic wounds from the US invasion in Iraq in spring 2003 were still fresh. Many European nations rigorously opposed that war and felt the United States had manufactured the rational for the invasion. But the wounds healed sooner than I thought. In summer 2003, NATO assumed responsibility for the ISAF mission in Afghan- istan, and I saw how NATO, through its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, gradually brought the allies together. Looking back at the Iraq war, I learned two important lessons: (1) whenever Europe presents itself as a counterweight for the United States, the result is a divided Europe, which saddens me as a European; and (2) a United States that thinks it can do it all alone is also doomed to fail. To a certain extent, these lessons guided my approach to Afghanistan in my numerous discussions and meetings with alliance members and representatives from the wider international community. Afghani- stan was always going to be a team effort if we were to succeed. If anything, the international effort in Afghanistan has required patience. Patience with the political process of NATO and its mem- ber nations; patience with the government in Afghanistan and its ca- pability to address the many challenges of its nation; patience in transforming our mentality, structures, and organizations to adhere to the comprehensive approach we all knew was a prerequisite for success; patience with the political dynamics of Western govern- ments seeking quick and identifiable results, as opposed to the con- ventional wisdom of counterinsurgencies that prolonged time is often required and results seem to have a pace and presentation style of their own; patience from our domestic constituencies, which year after year saw an ever increasing accumulated number of their service men and vii FOREWORD women sacrificing their lives and limbs without a clear end state or exit strategy in sight. The handling of Afghanistan should be seen as a process. In the early twenty-first century, NATO forces were not adequately pre- pared, trained, educated, and equipped to fight a counterinsurgency in mountainous Afghanistan. International and security politics lit- erally changed overnight after 9/11. It had taken years to change our mentality and international structures after the Cold War a decade earlier, and in many ways we were still in that transformational mode when the airplanes hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon. Adapting to the new situation and the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq) needed time. I sometimes felt the often harsh criticism of our efforts in Afghani- stan did not reflect that reality. When evaluating our efforts, there are positives and negatives that need to be addressed. Surely a commonly agreed upon and cohesive strategy of how to handle Afghanistan took too long to develop. With Iraq draining much of the US resources, Afghanistan for years did not receive the resources and political attention this difficult opera- tion needed to make the progress we all wanted for this nation. For years the operation was an allied patchwork of individual nations be- ing responsible for PRTs and provinces without a sufficient overarch- ing allied cohesive effort. It proved difficult to implement the theo- retical construct of a comprehensive approach to real-life challenges in theater. The Afghan ability to deal with corruption, narcotics, and governmental competencies has proved less efficient and more chal- lenging than first expected. Although these efforts have had dedi- cated operational lines since 2006, achieving the level of “security,” “governance and reconstruction,” and “development” we all strived for has proved very difficult. None of these issues had its origins in ill will, lack of empathy with the Afghans, or lack of dedication. Some- times it is just hard to succeed. Conversely, there is no doubt that progress has been made. The influence of al-Qaeda in the theater has diminished significantly. Democratic elections have been held, a government elected, a parlia- ment formed, and a constitution adopted. Infrastructure has been strengthened, and the Afghan economy is much stronger today than before the international involvement. Basic health care in Afghani- stan has improved dramatically, and education is now a norm for millions of Afghan children. Women’s status has improved in Af- ghanistan, and the millions of young girls attending school compared viii FOREWORD to the pre–9/11 situation is perhaps the most heartening success of all progress made in this country. The number and competence of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are increased to a level that hopefully soon enables them to provide basic security and stability for Afghanistan. This is a fundamental for any nation. It is a basic foundation to ensure the long-term economic and political invest- ments necessary to meet the expectations of most Afghans and en- able Afghanistan to face the challenges of a volatile and increasingly economic competitive region. Educating, mentoring, and growing its military and police forces to be better positioned to provide basic security and the rule of law will perhaps be our most significant con- tribution and legacy. As the ISAF and OEF mission comes to an end in 2014, it is time to identify the lessons we have learned after more than a decade of war.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digital Literacy’, ‘Fosters Inclusion’ Foundational Competencies Now in Myvector Self-Assessment Tool
    THE SOUND OF FREEDOM | Wednesday, March 10, 2021 | 5 USAFE completes CJADC2 demonstration BY SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PUBLIC AFFAIRS RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) -- U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa, in conjunction with the Department of the Air Force’s Chief Ar- chitect’s O ce, conducted a Combined, Joint All-Domain Command and Control demonstration in international waters and airspace in and around the Baltic Sea. Participation included assets from U.S. Naval Forces Europe – Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, U.S. Army Europe – Africa, U.S. Strategic Command, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Netherlands air force and the Polish air force. This demonstration was designed to test and observe the ability of the joint force, our allies and partners to integrate and provide command and control across multiple networks to multiple force capa- bilities. “Conducting a complex and real-world U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO BY TECH. SGT. EMERSON NUÑEZ focused CJADC2 demonstration allowed A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 555th Fighter Squadron, Aviano Air Base, Italy, is refueled by a KC-135 our joint and allied team to nd areas Stratotanker assigned to the 100th Air Refueling Wing, RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom, during a mission over the Black Sea, where we can innovate with systems we Jan. 14, 2021. U.S. military operations in the Black Sea enhance regional stability, combined readiness and capability with our already have and also to identify areas NATO allies and partners. where our war ghters need assistance from the Air and Space Forces’ Chief Ar- ported the demonstration.
    [Show full text]
  • Multimodal Transport 28 Charting the History of Tents Are Informative and Not Regulatory Or Is a Joint Effort of Multiple Air Force One Directive
    THE MOBILITYTHE MAGAZINE OF AIR MOBILITY COMMAND | SUMMER 2017 FORUM Rota’s Multimodal Transport is a Joint Effort of Multiple Branches and Nations HURRICANES: Brig Gen Richoux Speaks from Experience Volume 26, No. 2 CONTENTS THE MOBILITY FORUM Summer 2017 AIR MOBILITY COMMAND Gen Carlton Everhart II 3 10 16 26 34 DIRECTOR OF SAFETY Col Michael R. Seiler FROM THE TOP 18 Unit Deployment Manager: Are [email protected] 3 Hurricanes: Brig Gen Richoux You Mission Ready? Speaks from Experience 34 Benchmark Cybersecurity 5 So Long, Fellow Airmen Assessment on C-5M EDITORS Kim Brumley RISK MANAGEMENT SEASONAL [email protected] 6 My Pride is All That Hurt CONSIDERATIONS Sherrie Schatz Having a Blast at Home 12 Aerial Port LOSAs Increase 22 Sheree Lewis Safety, Efficiency 30 Water: The Fickle (and [email protected] Deceptive) Element FLIGHT SAFETY Graphic Design Elizabeth Bailey 8 Aviation Ground Mishaps: MOTORCYCLE CULTURE A ‘Good Guy’ Club Four-Year Indicators 26 The Mobility Forum (TMF) is published four times a year by the Director of Safety, Air SAFETY CULTURE AMC HERITAGE Mobility Command, Scott AFB, IL. The con- 10 Rota's Multimodal Transport 28 Charting the History of tents are informative and not regulatory or is a Joint Effort of Multiple Air Force One directive. Viewpoints expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the Branches and Nations policy of AMC, USAF, or any DoD agency. 13 Critical Days of Summer 2017 Contributions: Please email articles and 14 7 Steps to Setting and REGULAR FEATURES photos to [email protected], fax to Reaching Your Safety Goal 20 Center Spread: (580) 628-2011, or mail to Schatz Publishing, 24 I Had Junk in My Trunk! The Rescue Reflex 11950 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Commander and the Law – 2019
    THE MILITARY • 2019 COMMANDER AND THE THE LAW MILITARY THE MILITARY COMMANDER AND THE LAW TE G OCA ENE DV RA A L E ’S G S D C H U J O E O H L T U N E C IT R E D FO S R TATES AI The Military Commander and the Law is a publication of The Judge Advocate General’s School. This publication is used as a deskbook for instruction at various commander courses at Air University. It also serves as a helpful reference guide for commanders in the field, providing general guidance and helping commanders to clarify issues and identify potential problem areas. Disclaimer: As with any publication of secondary authority, this deskbook should not be used as the basis for action on specific cases. Primary authority, much of which is cited in this edition, should first be carefully reviewed. Finally, this deskbook does not serve as a substitute for advice from the staff judge advocate. Editorial Note: This edition was edited and published during the Secretary of the Air Force’s Air Force Directive Publication Reduction initiative. Therefore, many of the primary authorities cited in this edition may have been rescinded, consolidated, or superseded since publication. It is imperative that all authorities cited herein be first verified for currency on https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/. Readers with questions or comments concerning this publication should contact the editors of The Military Commander and the Law at the following address: The Judge Advocate General’s School 150 Chennault Circle (Bldg 694) Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6418 Comm.
    [Show full text]
  • Der Krieg Gegen Die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien 1999
    Der Krieg gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien - 24. März bis 10./20. Juni 1999 Inhalt 1. Zum Luftkrieg Verteidiger, Angreifer und die Verluste 2. Zum Hintergrund des Krieges: Literaturtips und einige Beiträge 3. Zu allen Zeiten: Propaganda 4. Die "Helden" der US-Air-Force: 509th Bomb Wing 5. Dokumentierte Abschüsse: F-117-Abschuß durch MiG-21 und Fla-Rakete MiG-29-Abschuß durch F-15 Eagle 6. andere Berichte: Links 1. Zum Luftkrieg Die jugoslawische Luftverteidigung Die jugoslawischen Luftabwehr hatte vorwiegend verschiedene sowjetische Raketensysteme in ihrem Bestand. Die etwa 60 bis 68 selbstfahrenden Systeme SA-6 Kub sollen besonders wirksam gegen tief fliegende Kampfflugzeuge und Raketen in einer Reichweite von 100 bis 200 Kilometern sein. Hinzu kamen noch - in geringen Stückzahlen - bei der Luftverteidigung die SA-8b, SA-9 und SA- 13. Die stationären Systeme SA-2 und SA-3 schützten vor allem die großen Städte, Militäreinrichtungen sowie wichtige Industrieanlagen. Hiervon standen jeweils 60 Abschußvorrichtungen zur Verfügung. Die jugoslawischen Luftstreitkräfte waren in zwei Fliegerkorps, eine Aufklärungsstaffel sowie eine Lufttransportbrigade unterteilt. Die "westlichen" Schätzungen der Stückzahlen an Flugzeugen schwanken zwischen 225 und 252 Maschinen [Zahlendreher?]. Gesichert scheint, zu Beginn des Krieges, der Bestand an 16 MiG-29 (darunter 2 zweisitzige Schulmaschinen) und 60 MiG-21. Die 65 Maschinen der jugoslawisch - rumänischen Koproduktion Soko Orao und die etwa 80 Maschinen vom Typ Galeb G-4 und G-2 sowie Jastreb sind als Trainer und leichte Erdkampfflugzeuge ausgelegt und dürften für Luftverteidigungsaufgaben nur sehr bedingt tauglich gewesen sein. Hinzu kamen rd. 70 Hubschrauber (andere Angaben sprechen von 110 oder gar 180) vom Typ Partizan (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Buildup and Battle
    Buildup and Battle Afghanistan’s Bagram Airfield has grown to accommodate a greater Air Force mission. Photography by Clive Bennett Text by June Lee 46 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2010 Buildup and Battle A C-17 Globemaster III rolls to a stop on a Bagram runway after a resupply mission. Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, has been a hotspot for NATO and US operations in Southwest Asia and there are no signs of the pace letting up. AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2010 47 n Afghanistan, Bagram Airfield Ihosts several thousand airmen and other troops, deployed from all over the world. The 455th Air Expedition- ary Wing at Bagram provides air support to coalition and NATO Inter- national Security Assistance Forces on the ground. |1| The air traffic control tower is one of the busiest places on Bagram Airfield, with more than 100 movements taking place in a day. Civilian air traffic control- lers keep an eye on the runway and the skies above Afghanistan. |2| An F-15E from the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath, UK, taxis past revetments for the start of another mission. All F-15s over Afghanistan fly two-ship sorties. |3| A CH-47 Chinook from the Georgia Army National Guard undergoes line main- tenance by Army Spc. Cody Staley and Spc. Joe Dominguez (in the helicopter). 1 2 3 48 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2010 1 22 3 4 5 |1| A1C Aaron Simonson gives F-16 C-17 at Bagram wait to be unloaded. EFS, Hill AFB, Utah, and the 79th pilot Capt. Nathan Harrold the ap- These mine-resistant ambush-pro- EFS, Shaw AFB, S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Left in the Dark
    LEFT IN THE DARK FAILURES OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CIVILIAN CASUALTIES CAUSED BY INTERNATIONAL MILITARY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. First published in 2014 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom © Amnesty International 2014 Index: ASA 11/006/2014 Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] Cover photo: Bodies of women who were killed in a September 2012 US airstrike are brought to a hospital in the Alingar district of Laghman province. © ASSOCIATED PRESS/Khalid Khan amnesty.org CONTENTS MAP OF AFGHANISTAN .......................................................................................... 6 1. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 7 Methodology ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2007
    Case 1:06-cv-01707-GK Document 20 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) RUZATULLAH, et al.,) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 06-CV-01707 (GK) ) ROBERT GATES, ) Secretary, United States Department of ) Defense, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) RESPONDENTS’ REPLY TO PETITIONERS’ REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION Respondents respectfully submit this reply brief in response to Petitioners’ Reply and Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Petition. In their opening brief, respondents demonstrated that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the present habeas petition because the petition, filed by two alien enemy combatants detained at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, falls squarely within the jurisdiction-limiting provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCA”), Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006). Respondents also demonstrated that petitioners do not have a constitutional right to habeas relief because under Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), aliens detained abroad, such as petitioners, who have no significant voluntary connections with this country, cannot invoke protections under the Constitution. Subsequent to respondents’ motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1478 (2007), which removes all doubt that the MCA divests federal courts of jurisdiction to review petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by aliens captured abroad and detained as enemy Case 1:06-cv-01707-GK Document 20 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 2 of 22 combatants in an overseas military base.
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan Security Situation in Nangarhar Province
    Report Afghanistan: The security situation in Nangarhar province Translation provided by the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, Belgium. Report Afghanistan: The security situation in Nangarhar province LANDINFO – 13 OCTOBER 2016 1 About Landinfo’s reports The Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo, is an independent body within the Norwegian Immigration Authorities. Landinfo provides country of origin information to the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (Utlendingsdirektoratet – UDI), the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE) and the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Reports produced by Landinfo are based on information from carefully selected sources. The information is researched and evaluated in accordance with common methodology for processing COI and Landinfo’s internal guidelines on source and information analysis. To ensure balanced reports, efforts are made to obtain information from a wide range of sources. Many of our reports draw on findings and interviews conducted on fact-finding missions. All sources used are referenced. Sources hesitant to provide information to be cited in a public report have retained anonymity. The reports do not provide exhaustive overviews of topics or themes, but cover aspects relevant for the processing of asylum and residency cases. Country of origin information presented in Landinfo’s reports does not contain policy recommendations nor does it reflect official Norwegian views. © Landinfo 2017 The material in this report is covered by copyright law. Any reproduction or publication of this report or any extract thereof other than as permitted by current Norwegian copyright law requires the explicit written consent of Landinfo. For information on all of the reports published by Landinfo, please contact: Landinfo Country of Origin Information Centre Storgata 33A P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreign Military Presence in the Horn of Africa Region
    SIPRI Background Paper April 2019 THE FOREIGN MILITARY SUMMARY w The Horn of Africa is PRESENCE IN THE HORN OF undergoing far-reaching changes in its external security AFRICA REGION environment. A wide variety of international security actors— from Europe, the United States, neil melvin the Middle East, the Gulf, and Asia—are currently operating I. Introduction in the region. As a result, the Horn of Africa has experienced The Horn of Africa region has experienced a substantial increase in the a proliferation of foreign number and size of foreign military deployments since 2001, especially in the military bases and a build-up of 1 past decade (see annexes 1 and 2 for an overview). A wide range of regional naval forces. The external and international security actors are currently operating in the Horn and the militarization of the Horn poses foreign military installations include land-based facilities (e.g. bases, ports, major questions for the future airstrips, training camps, semi-permanent facilities and logistics hubs) and security and stability of the naval forces on permanent or regular deployment.2 The most visible aspect region. of this presence is the proliferation of military facilities in littoral areas along This SIPRI Background the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.3 However, there has also been a build-up Paper is the first of three papers of naval forces, notably around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, at the entrance to devoted to the new external the Red Sea and in the Gulf of Aden. security politics of the Horn of This SIPRI Background Paper maps the foreign military presence in the Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Integration of Swedish and Dutch Forces in EU Naval Force Operation Atalanta, 2015
    In 2015, the Netherlands and Sweden provided a joint contri- bution to the EU’s counter-piracy military mission EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta. During their three-month deployment to the area of operation, Swedish troops and enablers – including two Combat Boat 90 assault craft and two AW109 helicopters – were stationed on board the Dutch warship HNLMS Johan de Witt, which also hosted the Force Headquarters (FHQ) led by a Swedish Admiral. This kind of cooperation, in particular having a tactical headquarters led by one nation and the fl agship led by another, was quite unique. In general, the integration was considered to have been suc- cessful – to some extent surprisingly so. This report describes and analyses the planning and execution of the fusion of Dutch and Swedish forces, identifying key lessons that may be of value in similar future collaborations. National regulations and procedures, command and control structures, preparatory training and exercises, the chosen level of integration and per- sonal mindsets are among the issues discussed. Bilateral Partnership on an Even Keel The Integration of Swedish and Dutch Forces in EU Naval Force Operation Atalanta, 2015 David Harriman and Kristina Zetterlund FOI-R--4101--SE ISSN1650-1942 www.foi.se September 2015 David Harriman and Kristina Zetterlund Bilateral Partnership on an Even Keel The Integration of Swedish and Dutch Forces in EU Naval Force Operation Atalanta, 2015 Bild/Cover: Mattias Nurmela, COMBATCAMERA, Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten) FOI-R--4101--SE Titel Bilateralt samarbete på rätt köl – Svenska och nederländska styrkors integrering i EU Naval Force Operation Atalanta, 2015 Title Bilateral Partnership on an Even Keel – The Integration of Swedish and Dutch Forces in EU Naval Force Operation Atalanta, 2015 Rapportnr/Report no FOI-R--4101--SE Månad/Month September Utgivningsår/Year 2015 Antal sidor/Pages 70 ISSN 1650-1942 Kund/Customer Försvarsdepartementet/Ministry of Defence Forskningsområde 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Wins in Shootout
    AIR FORCE WINS IN SHOOTOUT Keeps trophy from Army another year Page 5 FEBRUARY 22, 2019 • VOLUME 11 • NO. 7 • NO. 11 22, • VOLUME 2019 FEBRUARY 100% INSPECTION DoD pushes commanders to examine all base housing by March Page 4 CHANGING OF THE GUARD Alaska Air National Guard welcomes new commander No. 220 220 No. No. PERMIT PERMIT Page 9 FEATURE 2018 key spouse speaks at JBER By AIRMAN 1ST CLASS Although partially par- CRYSTAL JENKINS alyzed and unable to walk, JBER Public Affairs within a year and a half, she taught herself to walk again Kristen Christy, the 2018 and graduated from high Air Force Key Spouse of the school on time. Year, toured Joint Base El- “I began attending college mendorf-Richardson Feb. 11 and felt a little out of place, to 13, speaking to numerous but my military upbringing members of the community. had taught me to start looking During Christy’s tour, the for my community,” Christy Military and Family Readi- said. “I started by hanging ness Center hosted her as a out where I felt most com- guest speaker for more than fortable, ROTC gatherings. 120 attendees at a military One night I was at an ROTC spouse town hall and lun- party when I met my first cheon with the theme “Tak- husband, a cadet named Don ing Care of People.” Christy. Although his first “It is an honor to have words to me were, ‘I can the opportunity to share my never marry you because my story with the JBER spouse last name is Christy,’ it was community, because I know not long after we fell in love all of us come from different and were married.” places and each of us has our Despite a decorated ca- own unique story we bring to reer of military service, and the table,” Christy said.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force World by Autumn A
    Air Force World By Autumn A. Arnett, Associate Editor House Passes Fiscal 2015 Defense Spending Bill Langley-Eustis, Va. Carlisle has served as commander of The House approved HR 4870, its version of the Fiscal Pacifi c Air Forces at JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, since 2015 defense spending bill, June 20, providing $491 bil- August 2012. lion in discretionary funding and $79.4 billion for overseas Obama also on July 15 nominated Lt. Gen. Lori J. Robinson contingency operations, including the war in Afghanistan. for a fourth star and for assignment as commander of Pacifi c Air Among the Air Force-related amendments adopted on Forces. She has been ACC vice commander since May 2013. the House fl oor is one introduced by Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) that blocked the Air Force from using Fiscal 2015 funds to divest, retire, transfer, or place into storage any A-10 aircraft or to dissolve any A-10 units. An amendment brought forth by Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.) that prohibits KC-10 retirements in Fiscal 2015 also passed. The House in May passed its version of the Fiscal 2015 screenshot defense authorization bill, which also prevents divestiture of the A-10 fl eet. Medal of Honor Awarded to Marine President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to retired Marine Corps Cpl. William “Kyle” Carpenter, 24, on June 19 for his conspicuous gallantry during a 2010 battle in Afghanistan where he was seriously injured. “Anybody who has had a chance to get to know this young man knows you’re not going to get a better example of what you want in an American or a marine,” said Obama during the White House ceremony.
    [Show full text]