AIRPOWER I: CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS IN THE COMMAND OF AIRPOWER SYLLABUS AY 20

JOINT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION PHASE I INTERMEDIATE LEVEL COURSE

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE Twenty-First Century Leaders for Twenty-First Century Challenges

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE MAXWELL AFB, AL

FOREWORD

This syllabus for the Airpower I course for the Air Command and Staff College, October- December 2019, provides both an overview of the course narrative and objectives, as well as a detailed description of each lesson to assist students in their reading and preparation for lecture and seminar. Included herein is information about the course’s methods of evaluation, the schedule, and the fulfilment of joint professional military education core goals.

Airpower represents one of the greatest opportunities and challenges of modern times. How we approach that challenge is now in your hands.

SIGNED

Jordan R. Hayworth, PhD Course Director, Airpower I

APPROVED

James W. Forsyth, Jr., PhD Dean

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE FOREWORD 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

ACSC RESIDENT PROGRAM OUTCOMES 3

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES 3

COURSE ORGANIZATION AND NARRATIVE 3

JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES 5

AY20 SPECIAL AREAS OF EMPHASIS 9

COURSE REQUIREMENTS 9

COURSE ADMINISTRATION 10

COURSE SCHEDULE

DAY 1 12 DAY 2 14 DAY 3 16 DAY 4 17 DAY 5 19 DAY 6 21 DAY 7 23 DAY 8 25 DAY 9 26 DAY 10 28 DAY 11 29 DAY 12 31 DAY 13 33 DAY 14 35 DAY 15 37

APPENDIX: COURSE FACULTY 38

2

AIRPOWER I COURSE OVERVIEW

ACSC RESIDENT PROGRAM OUTCOMES Airpower I (AP1) mainly links to two of the ACSC Resident Program Outcomes: 1. Articulate the capabilities and limitations of military force, particularly airpower, in the effective integration of the instruments of national power. 2. Apply military theory, operational art, joint concepts, and doctrine to develop effective warfighting plans for multi-domain operations. COURSE DESCRIPTION AP1 examines the emergence and development of airpower from the First World War through the early 1970s. It analyzes the development of key ideas, capabilities, organizations, practices, and limitations that framed the conduct of air warfare in the first three-quarters of the twentieth century. These landmark case-studies in the application of airpower continue to inform debates about airpower’s purpose, utility, and effectiveness. This course will allow students to comprehend the historical development of airpower and the organizational DNA of the United States Air Force. Course readings, lectures, and seminar discussions will cultivate adaptive leaders and critical airpower thinkers by challenging officers to examine the evolution of airpower and how it fulfills national security outcomes.

COURSE OBJECTIVES 1. Comprehend the development of airpower from the First World War through the early 1970s. 2. Comprehend the relationship between current doctrine and the application of airpower at the tactical and operational levels of war. 3. Comprehend the influence of leadership, doctrine, organization, technology, and theory on the evolution of joint airpower and the organizational DNA of the United States Air Force. 4. Comprehend the lessons of airpower history to analyze the capabilities, limitations, and effectiveness of airpower in the current and future joint fight to fulfill national security outcomes in complex and uncertain environments. COURSE ORGANIZATION AND NARRATIVE In a 2017 book titled The Future of War: A History, Lawrence Freedman identifies three distinct periods in the history of twentieth century conflict. The first period was dominated by great power conflict in which the militaries of the great powers focused on attaining decisive victories to end wars as quickly as possible. This period included the First and Second World Wars and lasted until the end of the Cold War. What followed has been defined by various terms such as the “End of History,” the “Unipolar Moment,” and the “Pax Americana.” Although these ideas suggested a future of peace and prosperity, the rising prevalence of irregular wars indicated that utopian optimism was unfounded. In a series of conflicts from Africa to the Balkans to the Middle East, Western militaries found that traditional strategies for decisive battles often failed to produce satisfying national security outcomes.

3 By the twenty-first century, many strategists had attempted to rethink strategy for an age of so- called “New Wars” that required less kinetic force and more nuanced strategies. Yet just as Western militaries were refocusing on irregular wars, Freedman identifies a shift to a third period that involves a renewed possibility for great power conflict. The rise of China and the resurgence of Russian power and aggressiveness, along with states like Iran and North Korea, indicate that great power wars are a possibility that Western militaries cannot ignore. How to prepare for large-scale conflicts while still possessing the right strategies for smaller, irregular wars has become a central challenge for the American military. The fact that it and its partners have to achieve this delicate balance amid an on-going Information Revolution in which technology is increasing the prominence of the space and cyber domains makes this an even greater challenge. Airpower I and II adopt Freedman’s model to examine the development and employment of airpower in the twentieth and twenty-first century. Both courses use historical case studies to promote critical thinking about the capabilities and limitations of airpower as a tool of national security strategy. Given the terrible human and material costs of conventional great power wars, American military leaders have devoted considerable effort to winning them as quickly and decisively as possible. In particular, the bloody stalemate of the First World War – perhaps best epitomized by the slaughter at Verdun – drove interest in achieving decisiveness in warfare. As you learned in War Theory, airpower provided one of the most attractive means of achieving decisiveness in twentieth century conflict, either by destroying the enemy surface forces from the air or by attacking the enemy’s home front. It was in this context of great power conflict and total war that airpower was born. For most American Airmen, the outcome of the Second World War vindicated their belief that airpower was an instrument of decisiveness and that it produced inherently strategic effects. AP1 allows students to explore this debate in depth while studying the past to learn how airpower can be effective in great power conflict. The idea of airpower as a decisive instrument with deterrent capabilities became foundational for the newly independent US Air Force in 1947, and it remains essential today. In the context of the Cold War, both conventional and nuclear airpower were used to deter the Soviet Union and to achieve decisive victory if deterrence failed. At the same time, American involvement in limited proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam forced the USAF to adapt to other forms of warfare. Finding the proper balance between tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war became a central concern for American airpower, especially as tactical and operational success in Korea and Vietnam did not translate into clearly achieved strategic objectives. In particular, the military’s ability to achieve decisive victory seemed highly suspect after Vietnam. What followed was nothing less than an attempted transformation of American military power and airpower. Remaining focused on possible war with the Soviet Union and other conventional threats, the American military pursued new ways of training, new doctrine, and innovative technology to stay ahead in the fight. Drawing upon lessons learned from previous and contemporary conflicts – including Vietnam and the Arab-Israeli Wars – the US military searched for a new paradigm to achieve decisive victory should the next great war occur. In addition to improved conventional military means, the continued expansion of American deterrence capabilities in air and space left the Soviet Union strategically disadvantaged. When the Cold War ended, the American military strategy seemed to have been largely validated. Not long after, the aggression of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was countered in Operation Desert Storm. 4 Coming at the end of the Cold War, Desert Storm seemed to display airpower’s potential to achieve decisive victory in any regional conflict that the United States and its allies were likely to embark upon. Unlike the preceding century, the 1990s were characterized by the absence of foreseeable great power conflict. The USAF was reformed in light of a new geopolitical and military theory that suggested it would most likely not fight in great power conflicts. Instead, it had to be prepared to intervene when necessary in smaller regional conflicts and civil wars. In 1999, the Kosovo conflict provided an opportunity to test this new paradigm. Though debate persists regarding the exact impact of airpower in the success of Operation Allied Force, most observers recognize that airpower greatly contributed to the outcome, with some claiming that OAF demonstrated airpower’s ability to win wars by itself. The confidence and certainty with which Americans entered the twenty-first century was shaken but not destroyed by the events of 9/11. As the United States embarked upon Operation Enduring Freedom, the belief that airpower and other forms of military power would produce decisive results was nearly unquestioned. And in fact, the campaign did decisively defeat the Taliban and helped destroy Al Qaeda’s global terrorist network. In 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s “shock and awe” campaign saw airpower topple the regime of Saddam Hussein, seemingly producing even greater decisiveness than ODS. Yet in both Afghanistan and Iraq, violent insurgencies soon undermined American confidence in military power’s ability to bring about ongoing positive strategic outcomes. Today, as we face increased uncertainty regarding the future, the American military may be left with significant questions about the proper role of airpower. As land and sea power remain vital to American national security, and as space and cyber power continue to develop and evolve amid an on-going Information Revolution, the joint force faces the challenge of achieving strategic effect with airpower through multiple domains. While terrorists and insurgents remain significant threats to American national security, we are already seeing a return to great power rivalry and conflict. While the future is always unclear, it seems likely that the emergence of near-peer threats will profoundly shape American national security strategy. After careful study and discussion of the historical and contemporary development of airpower, you will be better prepared to help develop the best course of action to ensure that airpower remains capable of achieving national security outcomes.

JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP1 addresses Intermediate-Level College Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), established by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff via the Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP), CJCSI 1800.01E, signed 29 May 2015. The course supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives, listed below with points of explanation:

Learning Area Objective 1 – National Military Capabilities Strategy a. Comprehend the capabilities and limitations of US military forces to conduct the full range of military operations in pursuit of national interests.  Lessons AP-501, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518,

5 AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-528 discuss the capabilities and limitations of naval and air forces from both theoretical and historical contexts in achieving strategic objectives at the tactical and operational levels of war. c. Comprehend how the U.S. military is organized to plan, execute, sustain, and train for joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational operations.  Lessons AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526 relate/examine historical and current US military and airpower structures (people/units, equipment, employment, limitations) to meet national-level military and political objectives in a complex and uncertain environment. Learning Area Objective 2 – Joint Doctrine and Concepts a. Comprehend current joint doctrine.  Lessons AP-504, AP-508, AP-510, AP-512, AP-514, AP-518, AP-520, AP-522, AP-524, AP-526, AP-528 introduce students to joint doctrine that relates to airpower. b. Apply solutions to operational problems in a volatile, uncertain, complex or ambiguous environment using critical thinking, operational art, and current joint doctrine.  Lessons AP-501, AP-502, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-527, AP-528 examine both continuity and change in the conduct of war and the changing character of conflict. Additionally, they address the adaptation and assessment of framing/re-framing objectives, lines of effort, and measures of performance in meeting strategic questions and objectives. Learning Area Objective 3 – Joint & Multinational Forces at the Operational Level of War a. Comprehend the security environment within which Joint Forces are created, employed and sustained in support of JFCs and component commanders.  Lessons AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-511, AP-513, AP-515, AP-516, AP-519, AP-523, AP-527 examine the security environment and/or provide context for understanding the application of airpower. b. Comprehend Joint Force command relationships.  Lessons AP-506, AP-509, AP-511, AP-512, AP-516, AP-518 examine and analyze the strategic, operational, and tactical level conduct of air forces and its leaders in relation to the overall command structures and how the use of the airpower weapon contributes to the overall conduct of war, including continuity and change in the relationships between them.

6 c. Comprehend the interrelationships among the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war.  Lessons AP-501, AP-502, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-528 explain the theory and principles of joint operations at the operational level of war via historical case studies and examples. d. Comprehend how theory and principles of joint operations pertain to the operational level of war across the range of military operations to include traditional and irregular warfare that impact the strategic environment.  Lessons AP-501, AP-502, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-508, AP-521, AP-522, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526 draw from both historical and contemporary examples of how the US military formulated theories and strategies to affect the outcome of strategic objectives. f. Analyze a plan critically for employment of joint and multinational forces at the operational level of war.  Lessons AP-505, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-527, AP-528 examine planning military operations that include joint and multinational forces at the operational level of war, with a particular focus on the role of airpower. g. Comprehend the relationships between national security objectives, military objectives, conflict termination, and post conflict transition to enabling civil military authorities.  Lessons AP-501, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-528 consider the relationships between war and political objectives to achieve meaningful national security outcomes. Learning Area Objective 4 – Joint Planning and Execution Process c. Comprehend the integration of joint functions (command and control, intelligence, fires, movement and maneuver, protection and sustainment) to operational planning problems across the range of military operations. a. Lessons AP-501, AP-503, AP-505, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-528 discuss the capabilities and limitations of operational planning and functions across the range of military operations in theoretical and historical context.

7 f. Comprehend the roles that factors such as geopolitics, geo-strategy, society, region, culture/diversity, and religion play in shaping planning and execution of joint force operations across the range of military operations.  Lessons AP-502, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-515, AP-516, AP-519, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-527 examine the myriad of responses to the implementation of aviation and its capabilities in effecting the outcome of major conflict while being measured against geopolitical, societal, cultural, and religious factors to include an understanding of how to manage emerging vulnerabilities and the risks to US and global security interests.

Learning Area Objective 6 – Joint Operational Leadership and the Profession of Arms a. Comprehend the role of the Profession of Arms in the contemporary environment.  Lessons AP-501, AP-502, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-527, AP-528 examine the roles and actions of military leaders in the shaping and implementation of the Profession of Arms in the contemporary environment. b. Comprehend critical thinking and decision-making skills needed to anticipate and recognize change, lead transitions, and anticipate/adapt to surprise and uncertainty.  Lessons AP-501, AP-502, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-527, AP-528 provide examples of theorists and practitioners anticipating and recognizing change in the conduct of war, whether the sources of such change are political, social, cultural or technological. c. Comprehend the ethical dimension of operational leadership and the challenges it may present when considering the values of the Profession of Arms.  Lessons AP-501, AP-502, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-527, AP-528 examines and analyzes the human dimension and the challenge it presents in decision-making and strategy in relation to the values of the Profession of Arms. e. Communicate with clarity and precision.  Writing assignments: AP-801 Midterm and AP-802 Final Exam assess students’ ability to think and write critically about military operations.  Lessons AP-502, AP-504, AP-506, AP-508, AP-510, AP-512, AP-514, AP-518, AP-520, AP-522, AP-524, AP-526, AP-528 examines the ability of leaders to communicate ideas, theories, plans, strategies, tactics, and changes/adaptations

8 across all levels of operational planning to fulfill national security outcomes. The lessons engage students in critical thinking exercises that allow them to analyze and interpret events and outcomes in airpower employment. f. Analyze the importance of adaptation and innovation on military planning and operations.  Lessons AP-501, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-528 analyze the importance of adaption and innovation on military planning and operations in both military theory and contemporary and historical cases SPECIAL AREAS OF EMPHASIS (SAE) SAE 1: Global Integrated Operations Information Environment: AP-501, AP-502, AP-506, AP-508, AP-510, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-521, AP-522, AP-523, AP-524, AP-525, AP-526, AP-528

SAE 2: Strategic Deterrence in the 21st Century: AP-502, AP-504, AP-506, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-519, AP-520, AP-525, AP-526

SAE 4: Space Warfighting Domain: AP-502, AP-506, AP-519, AP-520

SAE 5: Return to Great Power Competition: AP-501, AP-502, AP-503, AP-504, AP-505, AP-506, AP-507, AP-508, AP-509, AP-510, AP-511, AP-512, AP-513, AP-514, AP-515, AP-516, AP-517, AP-518, AP-519, AP-520

SAE 6: Ability to Write Clear, Concise, Military Advice Recommendations: AP-508, AP-510, AP-512, AP-514, AP-520, AP-524, AP-526, AP-801, AP-802

COURSE REQUIREMENTS 1. READINGS. Students are expected to complete all assigned readings for the day prior to lecture and seminar. Students should review the lesson objectives and overviews provided in the syllabus before reading the assigned texts. 2. LECTURES. Students will attend faculty lectures relating to assigned readings and seminar. These presentations complement the readings and seminar discussion, and therefore enhance knowledge of the course concepts. Lectures provide additional historical background and different perspectives to stimulate and enhance learning in seminar. 3. SEMINAR PARTICIPATION. Student participation in seminar discussions is vital to individual learning and success. Each member of seminar is expected to contribute to the discussion. Day 11 will include a group presentation. 4. WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS. Two graded written assignments also fulfill part of the requirements of the Airpower I course: a four-page take-home midterm examination, and a four-page in-class comprehensive final exam.

9 5. METHODS OF EVALUATION. The four-page take-home midterm examination is worth 40 percent and the four-page in-class comprehensive final examination is worth 60 percent of the final course grade.

COURSE ADMINISTRATION There are two types of readings in this course: 1) readings from books issued by ACSC, which can be seen listed below with full bibliographic information; and 2) selected electronic files posted on Canvas indicated as “[EL]” (electronic). Full bibliographic information for [EL] readings can be found on the relevant days in the syllabus. Students can access the syllabus, course calendar, and selected readings as well as other supplemental materials online. In addition, lecture slides will be posted when available after the lecture. ACSC provides students with copies of the following course books, listed below in the order that they appear in the course. These readings must be returned at the course’s conclusion:  Olsen, John Andreas, ed. A History of Air Warfare. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2010.  Pape, Robert A. Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996.  Biddle, Tami Davis. Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.  Mitchell, William “Billy.” Winged Defense: The Development and Possibilities of Modern Air Power –Economic and Military. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2009.  Daso, Dik A. Hap Arnold and the Evolution of American Airpower. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 2001.  Overy, Richard. The Battle of Britain: The Myth and Reality. New York: Norton, 2002.  Overy, Richard. The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe 1940-1945. New York: Penguin Books, 2013.  Griffith, Thomas E. MacArthur’s Airman: General George C. Kenney and the War in the Southwest Pacific. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998.  Crane, Conrad. American Airpower Strategy in World War II: Bombs, Cities, Civilians, and Oil. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2016.  Nutter, Ralph H. With the Possum and the Eagle: The Memoir of a Navigator’s War Over Germany and Japan. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 2012.  Crane, Conrad. American Airpower Strategy in Korea, 1950-1953. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2000.  Corum, James S. and Wray R. Johnson. Airpower in Small Wars: Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2003.

10  Clodfelter, Mark. The Limits of Air Power: The American Bombing of North Vietnam. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.  Olsen, John Andreas, ed. Airpower Applied: U.S., NATO, and Israeli Combat Experience. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2017. Please refer any questions to:  Dr. Jordan R. Hayworth (Course Director, [email protected], Office 184)  Lt Col Frédéric Guenette (Deputy Course Director, [email protected], Office 188)  Lt Col Kirk Hoffman (Deputy Course Director, [email protected], Office 186).

11 AIRPOWER I COURSE SCHEDULE

DAY 1 DATE: 17 October 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES 1. Comprehend the course objectives, course narrative, course syllabus, methods of evaluation, and expectations for seminar. 2. Comprehend the relevance of using historical examples in assessing the development of airpower in the twentieth century and discuss the Core Missions of the United States Air Force. 3. Comprehend Robert A. Pape’s theories of airpower as a coercive instrument and identify and discuss his four coercive air strategies: punishment, denial, risk, and decapitation.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-500 (L): Course Overview (Hayworth) Overview: “Airpower” refers to the air, space, and cyber assets available to military leaders for use in conflicts. This course is designed to examine how airpower can contribute effectively to a nation’s security, as well as how it has been employed in past conflicts and how it might influence future wars. This day’s lecture introduces students to the key concepts and framework of the course. CONTACT HOURS: 0.5-hour lecture

AP-501 (L): In Search of Decisive Victory (T. Beckenbaugh) Overview: This lecture will provide an overview of the concepts of decisive battle and maneuver warfare that dominated Western military theory and practice before the appearance of fixed-wing, heavier-than-air aircraft over the world’s battlefields. By reviewing the evolution of decisive battle and maneuver warfare in the nineteenth century and through the First World War, the lecture will build on concepts discussed in War Theory that remain pertinent in the history of airpower. It was precisely this warfighting paradigm – one that included Napoleon Bonaparte and Helmuth von Moltke the Elder among its chief architects – that informed and influenced the earliest airpower leaders’ efforts to integrate the air domain into long-established approaches to warfighting. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-502 (S): Introduction to Airpower I Overview: In this seminar, instructors introduce themselves to their seminars, discuss classroom policies, and set the stage for seminar discussions scheduled for Day 2. Students should also be prepared to discuss the lecture and the assigned readings, which explore the relevance of military history for military practitioners. Students will also be able to identify and discuss the Air Force Core Missions in order to commence our discussion of airpower’s development in the twentieth century. Most important, students will be able to discuss the coercive air strategies identified by Robert A. Pape in order to apply these ideas in subsequent course seminars. CONTACT HOURS: 1.5-hour seminar

12 REQUIRED READINGS (110) 1. Luvaas, Jay. “Military History: Is it Still Practicable?” Parameters 25, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 82-97. [EL] 2. John Andreas Olsen, A History of Air Warfare, xiii-xvii. 3. Air Force Future Operating Concept: A View of the Air Force in 2035, 11-13. [EL] This document explains how the Air Force Core Missions have developed from the Air Force’s founding in 1947 to today, and how they will evolve into the future. Students will be able to identify these core missions and, in subsequent course lessons, will study how they have evolved. 4. Robert A. Pape, Bombing to Win, 1-86. JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-501 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-502 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 2c, 3c, 3d, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e.

13 DAY 2

DATE: 21 October 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how nineteenth century notions of decisive battle in great power war shaped ideas and preconceptions of airpower effectiveness before, during, and after the First World War.

Experience: Comprehend how the application of airpower in the First World War helped refine pre-war assumptions about the utility of airpower as an instrument of British and U.S. national security policies.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the role of cognitive dissonance in shaping and institutionalizing enduring ideas about the optimal effectiveness of cutting-edge military capabilities in future conflict.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-503 (L): Airpower in the First World War (Lukasik) Overview: When the First World War erupted in Europe in 1914, heavier-than-air flight was barely a decade old, and was used in very few military operations. However, it quickly became a vital component to strategy in the First World War, and an indispensable aspect of military operations, particularly on the Western Front. By the end of the war, airpower was used in virtually every role that it fulfills in modern applications, albeit in a much more primitive fashion. This lecture provides a broad overview of the first significant attempts to use military airpower, and demonstrates how important airpower was in the development and employment of strategy during the war. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-504 (S): The Emergence of Airpower Theory and Doctrine Overview: The First World War witnessed the birth not only of airpower application, but also of the ideas that would shape airpower theory and doctrine for decades to come. Many of these ideas were grounded in fantasy and imagination as much as in concrete reality and practical experience. Nevertheless, the relatively limited use of airpower in the strategic attack role would shape the contours of far-reaching discussions among American and British Airmen about the future potential of air warfare to generate strategically meaningful outcomes in wars between industrialized nation-states. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (152) 1. Tami Davis Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare, pp. 1-102, 128-175. 2. JP 3-0 Joint Operations, III-35 – III-36 (Strategic Attack / Global Strike) Students should consider the ways in which current joint doctrine on Strategic Attack has been informed by past discussions and debates about airpower’s effectiveness as a strategic instrument. JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-503 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2c, 3c, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f.

14 AP-504 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3a, 3c, 3d, 3g, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

15 DAY 3

DATE: 24 October 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the legacies of the First World War and the geopolitical, economic, and technological frameworks of the interwar period influenced the development of airpower in Europe and North America.

Experience: Comprehend how Gen Henry Harley “Hap” Arnold forged a set of tangible intellectual, technological, and organizational frameworks that served as the basis for the emergence of the United States as the world’s greatest air power during and after the Second World War.

Assessment: Comprehend the long-term impact and legacy of the airpower visions of Gens William “Billy” Mitchell and Hap Arnold for American national security policy and strategic culture.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-505 (L): Interwar Airpower Theory & Application in France and Germany (Muller) Overview: This lecture examines the myriad of responses to the aviation experiences of the First World War that were followed by major powers during the interwar period. By comparing the types of aerial services created by France and Germany, Dr. Muller of SAASS demonstrates the “paths not taken” by the British and American airpower organizations, and shows there was no common conception of aviation in the interwar period. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-506 (S): Innovation in Airpower Theory, Technology, and Organization Overview: Gen William “Billy” Mitchell was an American airpower innovator who saw the emergence of airpower as critical for American national security. Gen Henry Harley “Hap” Arnold was the central leader in the organizational development of American military airpower that led to the creation of the USAF as an independent service in 1947. Before and during the Second World War, his institutional leadership and vision set the foundation for the strategically coherent employment of American airpower on a global scale. His efforts proved indispensable to the Allies’ victory over the Axis powers, and provided the USAF with a strategic orientation focused on leveraging technological innovation and a holistic understanding of airpower. This seminar explores the legacies of Mitchell and Arnold and their enduring contributions to airpower theory and practice. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (157) 1. William “Billy” Mitchell, Winged Defense, vii-xix, 3-26. 2. Dik A. Daso, Hap Arnold and the Evolution of American Airpower, pp. 1-6, 101-214. JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-505 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3a, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c and 6f. AP-506 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3g, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f. 16 DAY 4

DATE: 28 October 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend the origins, conduct, and outcome of the Second World War in Europe.

Experience: Comprehend the operational dynamics of the air campaign over Britain in the summer and fall of 1940.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the importance of the Battle of Britain in shaping past and present understandings of airpower effectiveness.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-507 (L): Overview of the Second World War in Europe (Pavelec) Overview: This lecture will provide a brief but relevant overview of the Second World War in Europe. It will explain the origins of the war, the geopolitical and ideological stakes involved, the major strategies and operational approaches, the role of industry, and the experience of total war. While much of the course’s readings will focus on the British and American war efforts, the lecture will highlight the German and Soviet war experiences to provide context and an alternative perspective. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-508 (S): The Battle of Britain Overview: The Battle of Britain remains the only significant example of a successful defensive air campaign in history. Consequently, it merits careful study by military professionals. The battle’s conduct and outcome provide compelling insights into the dynamics of such universal factors in air warfare as the interplay of strategy and technology, the function of leadership and reliable intelligence in shaping the contours of an aerial campaign, and the elusive nature of air superiority. As one of the first major, sustained aerial encounters of the Second World War, the Battle of Britain exercised an important influence on the mindsets of the American and British Airmen who, later in the war, sought to erode Germany’s capacity and will to fight by means of a major strategic bombing campaign. The epilogue to Mark Clodfelter’s The Limits of Airpower provides a helpful model for analyzing air campaigns and the effectiveness of airpower. Students should consider how this model might help us analyze the Battle of Britain, and the other applications of airpower examined in the course. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (157) 1. Mark Clodfelter, The Limits of Airpower, 211-223. 2. Richard Overy, The Battle of Britain, all. 3. JP 3-01 Countering Air and Missile Threats, I-3 – I-8. 4. JP 3-0 Joint Operations, III-33 (Control of the Air / Integrating Air and Missile Defense) Students should consider the implications of the Battle of Britain for current doctrinal concepts pertaining to Control of the Air and Integrated Air and Missile Defenses. What does the Battle of Britain tell us about the importance of Air Superiority or Adaptive Domain Control? JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1)

17 AP-507 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 2c, 3a, 3c, 3g, 4f, 6a, 6b, and 6c. AP-508 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

18 DAY 5

DATE: 31 October 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend the origins of the theory and practice of tactical airpower in the Second World War.

Experience: Comprehend the conduct of the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) and evaluate its effectiveness in facilitating the Allies’ overarching war aims.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the conceptual differences between independent and auxiliary approaches to airpower by comparing and contrasting “tactical” and “strategic” airpower in Europe in the Second World War.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-509 (L): The American Approach to Tactical Airpower: Theory and Practice in the Second World War (Venable) Overview: Although many of the leading American and British theorists of air warfare expected to conduct a strategic bombardment campaign, to make such a campaign possible, the Allied needed to establish air superiority. Airpower was also used in a tactical role, providing close air support to troops on the ground, and carrying out aerial interdiction missions that crippled the German army’s ability to maneuver on the battlefield while placing enormous pressure on its lines of communications and resupply. Each of these missions proved both effective and important in the eventual Allied victory. This lecture examines the role of innovative airmen such as O. P. Weyland, Elwood “Pete” Quesada, Joe Cannon, and Arthur Coningham in developing the theories and practices of tactical airpower. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-510 (S): The Combined Bomber Offensive Overview: The strategic air offensive against Germany defined strategic bombardment in both history and memory. It was the most complex air offensive ever undertaken. The U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) were compelled to adapt in real-time along a steep learning curve when operations did not mirror planning. Regardless, American, British, and Commonwealth Airmen mounted an all-out air offensive against German civilian, military, industrial, petroleum, synthetic fuels, and transportation targets in an effort to destroy Germany’s ability to continue to fight the Allies. The USAAF’s contribution to the Combined Bomber Offensive directly influenced its subsequent institutional independence. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (128) 1. Richard Overy, The Bombers and the Bombed, 107-230. 2. JP 3-0 Joint Operations, III-33 – III-35 (Interdiction) 3. JP 3-03 Joint Interdiction, II-9 (Strategic Attack Operations) Students should consider how the day’s lecture and reading inform our understanding of current joint doctrine on Aerial Interdiction. Although the CBO was conceived of by many as a Strategic Attack, Overy suggests that one of its major contributions was impairing Germany’s ability to move troops and supplies 19 across its various fronts. JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-509 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3b, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-510 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

20 DAY 6

DATE: 4 November 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the Pacific theater’s strategic environment demanded greater flexibility from American airpower including naval aviation.

Experience: Comprehend the conditions that both facilitated and constrained Gen George Kenney’s ability to effectively function as Gen Douglas MacArthur’s air component commander.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the roles and responsibilities of the theater air commander in relation to the theater commander’s strategic priorities.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-511 (L): Naval Aviation in the Pacific (Springer) Overview: This lecture provides an overview of naval airpower operations in the Pacific theater during the Second World War. It begins with an examination of the Pearl Harbor attack, which demonstrated the revolutionary nature of aircraft carriers, and follows the U.S. Navy’s counteroffensive through the Central Pacific, culminating with cross-domain operations against the Marianas Islands, a series of attacks designed primarily to create airbases for strategic attacks against the Japanese homeland. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-512 (S): George Kenney: Airpower Leadership in Joint, Combined, and Coalition Operations Overview: The air campaign in the Southwest Pacific during the Second World War is not as well-known as other, more high-profile air campaigns of that conflict. Nonetheless, it proved a crucial element in the larger strategic context, which framed the ability of American forces to defeat Japan. It also provided the backdrop for the emergence of Gen George Kenney as an airpower leader whose success in confronting a set of leadership and operational challenges marked him as one of the most effective and innovative American air commanders of the twentieth century. Kenney’s ability to direct an effective air campaign in a complex operational environment with minimal resources makes his leadership worthy of careful study by contemporary military professionals. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (156) 1. Thomas E. Griffith, MacArthur’s Airman, pp. 42-176, 231-247. 2. JP 3-30 Command and Control of Joint Air Operations, I-1 – I-4 (Command and Control of Joint Air Operations) Gen George Kenney essentially filled the role of the first JFACC under Gen Douglas MacArthur in the South West Pacific Theater. Students should consider how his experience help us understand current doctrine on Command and Control of Joint Air Operations? JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-511 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f.

21

AP-512 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3b, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

22 DAY 7

DATE: 7 November 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the character of the Pacific War shaped American airpower strategy against Japan.

Experience: Comprehend competing visions of airpower’s effectiveness as a tool of national strategy in the air campaign against Japan, and how these visions shaped the planning and conduct of the campaign.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the validity and implications of the claim that the air campaign against Japan fulfilled the prophecies of the classical airpower theorists.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-513 (L): American Airpower Strategy against Japan (Crane) Overview: At the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, President Roosevelt called upon the warring nations to refrain from bombing “civilian populations or unfortified cities.” Yet by 1945, the USAAF was doing precisely that, targeting densely populated areas in 64 Japanese cities before dropping the atomic bombs. This lecture highlights the role of transnational knowledge in this process, as U.S. officers and civilian experts studied the ideas of interwar European proponents of strategic bombing like Douhet, as well as the evolving tactics of British and U.S. area-bombing in Europe. By 1945, the USAAF had become persuaded of the value of massive urban area attacks, incendiary bombing, and even the possibility of destroying civilian “morale.” CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-514 (S): Strategic Airpower against Japan Overview: The strategic bombing of Germany, though an important part of the effort, failed to deliver on the ultimate promise of “victory without ground invasion.” With the war in Asia driving towards an amphibious landing of terrible promise, the newly operational B-29, according to many accounts, fulfilled Douhet’s vision of strategically effective airpower, replacing the bloodshed of ground combat. This seminar examines the USAAF’s air campaign against Japan and the emergence to prominence of Curtis E. LeMay, one of the most successful operational commanders in the history of American airpower. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (158) 1. Ralph H. Nutter, With the Possum and the Eagle, pp. ix-xii, 187-201, 211-285. 2. Conrad Crane, American Airpower Strategy in World War II, 64-100, 161-186. 3. JP 3-0 Joint Operations, III-36 (Limiting Collateral Damage) Does the firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan accord with current joint doctrine on Limiting Collateral Damage? Does this application of airpower meet the principle of proportionality as established in current joint doctrine? JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-513 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2c, 3a, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-514 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3f, 23 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

24 DAY 8 – MIDTERM EXAM TURN-IN DATE: 14 November 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend the influence of the grand strategy of containment and the emergence of limited geopolitical crises such as the Korean War on the employment of airpower.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-515 (L): Strategies of Containment (Redman) Overview: This lecture provides an overview of U.S. nuclear policy from 1945 through 1962. John Lewis Gaddis identified five strategies of containment that informed U.S. policy during the Cold War. This lecture will examine the first four: the original concept as presented by George Kennan in the “long telegram” and expressed by President Harry Truman (1947-1949); President Eisenhower, Secretary Dulles, NSC-68, and the imperative of the Korean War (1950-1953); President Eisenhower, Secretary Dulles, and the “New Look” (1953-1961); and the early Kennedy Presidency and the beginnings of “Flexible Response.” The lecture examines how national security strategy and national military strategy adapted to the strategic change brought about by nuclear weapons and the rise of the Soviet Union in the two decades after the end of the Second World War. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-516 (L): Overview of the Korean War (L. Beckenbaugh) Overview: This lecture covers the causes, major combat operations, and the outcomes of the Korean War. Highlights include the political, diplomatic, and military activities of the period. Students will leave the lecture with a better understanding of how the Korean War fit into the Cold War as a global historical event and an appreciation for the war’s ground combat before reading about the air component. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-801 (S): Midterm Exam Submission Overview: Midterms will be submitted in seminar rooms after lectures or electronically, depending on instructor guidance.

REQUIRED READINGS 1. N/A JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-515 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 3a, 3c, 3g, 4f, 6a, 6b, and 6c. AP-516 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f.

25 DAY 9

DATE: 18 November 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend the influence of the grand strategy of containment and the emergence of limited geopolitical crises and wars on the employment of airpower in the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War, respectively.

Experience: Comprehend the technological, organizational, and command and control challenges that the newly-established USAF confronted in the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War, and evaluate its success in overcoming them.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the extent to which airpower functioned as an effective instrument of national policy in the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-517 (L): The Development of American Air Mobility (Walton) Overview: This lecture traces the maturation of air mobility from its infancy as a strategy in search of technology to its successful operationalization in peace and war. First it examines how the core competencies of air mobility – airlift, air refueling, and aeromedical evacuation – took root in the Second World War. It then examines the Berlin Crisis of 1948- 1949 as a remarkable demonstration of the capacity of non-kinetic airpower to facilitate broader goals of national policy. Through a massive airlift to alleviate the Soviet Union’s blockade of West Berlin, Lt Gen William Tunner and the Berlin Airlift illuminated the growing importance of strategic and tactical airlift as a non-kinetic counterpart to the USAF’s development of kinetic airpower roles and missions. Turning to the Korean War, the lecture traces the maturation of mobility’s core competencies through the war’s uncertain end in 1953. By this time airlift had proven itself as an effective means of deploying troops into a combat zone and supporting them once they were engaged. These successes foreshadow the future of American Air Mobility in Vietnam and Operation Nickel Grass during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-518 (S): American Airpower Strategy in Korea Overview: In Korea, a USAF increasingly focused on developing its nuclear capability faced a conventional conflict where strategic airpower did not enable achievement of wartime goals. The disconnect between strategic airpower capability and limitations imposed by national policy challenged airpower leaders to develop an effective strategy to win a limited war in the midst of the larger Cold War context. Forced to adapt, the USAF maintained air superiority, countered communist numerical superiority on the ground and applied pressure to communist forces, which eventually resulted in a negotiated cease-fire. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (124) 1. Conrad Crane, American Airpower Strategy in Korea, pp. 1-9, 40-92, 110-131, 155-184. 2. JP 3-17 Air Mobility Operations, vii – xvi (Executive Summary) Air Mobility (and today’s Rapid Global Mobility) has always been an important mission in the application of airpower. How does the development of American air

26 mobility help us understand current joint doctrine on this Air Force Core Mission today?

JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-517 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-518 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3b, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

27 DAY 10

DATE: 21 November 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the proliferation of increasingly powerful nuclear weapons influenced the USAF’s perception of its role in America’s national security posture as well as its vision of strategic air war. Experience: Comprehend how the organization and development of the Strategic Air Command and the scientific effort to create the hydrogen bomb cemented the USAF’s place as the premier tool of the strategies of containment and deterrence. Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the extent to which the advent of nuclear weapons has enhanced or detracted from airpower’s effectiveness as an instrument of American national security. LESSON OVERVIEW AP-519 (L): American Nuclear Strategy through the Cuban Missile Crisis (Kaplan) Overview: US Air Force Col Ed Kaplan, PhD will discuss the airpower origins of nuclear strategy and how it developed in the first twenty years of the Cold War. His talk will emphasize the major changes in air-atomic strategy and their impact on Air Force identity. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-520 (S): Strategic Air Command and Nuclear Deterrence Overview: The approach to strategic bombing dramatically changed in the early Cold War. During the Second World War, massive fleets of bombers delivered large quantities of conventional weapons against single targets; in many ways, this approach held true following the detonation of the atomic weapons. In the period after the development of hydrogen weapons, massive fleets of bombers were eschewed in favor of single bombers and a single bomb being delivered against a single target. This seminar will examine the transformation of strategic airpower that resulted from this new technology. In particular it will examine how this new technology drove a fundamental shift in strategic thinking from winning wars to deterring them. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (167 + review) 1. Philip Meilinger, Bomber, 97-122, 129-164, 215-317. [EL] 2. JP 3-0 Joint Operations, VI-3 – VI-4 (Deterrence) Students should be prepared to discuss how foundational notions of deterrence as established in the 1950s are reflected in current joint doctrine. 3. Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age, 264-305. [EL] Students should review this chapter, which was assigned in War Theory. JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-519 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3a, 3c, 3g, 4c, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-520 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

28 DAY 11 – Group Presentations

DATE: 25 November 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the confluence of dominant airpower theory, USAF organizational culture, and the character of the First Indochina War shaped the patterns of air warfare in Southeast Asia. Experience: Comprehend the various ways that French, British, and American air services approached using airpower in small wars in the twentieth century and evaluate the strategic utility of each. Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the effectiveness of airpower in producing meaningful strategic outcomes in irregular conflicts. LESSON OVERVIEW AP-521 (L): The First Indochina War: Prelude to America’s Vietnam War (Hayworth) Overview: This lecture examines the complex geopolitical and strategic situation that led the United States into an ill-defined conflict in Southeast Asia. In the two decades before America’s Vietnam War, the French – with substantial American support – fought their own conflict to retain control of Indochina, combatting the same opponents the Americans would face in the 1960s and early 1970s. The United States – and the USAF – found itself tasked with a myriad of new responsibilities ranging from battlefield support, to strategic bombing, to allied training, to support of counter insurgency. Despite Cold War concerns, the Americans ultimately did not directly intervene to save French Indochina, which was finally overthrown after the Vietnamese victory at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The Americans, however, saw protecting the newly independent and anti-communist South Vietnam as a geopolitical imperative. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-522 (S): Airpower in Twentieth Century Small Wars Overview: This seminar will provide a platform for a broader discussion concerning the utility of airpower in irregular wars by drawing attention to its use dating back to 1916. What aspects of airpower heritage were helpful in the Vietnam War? Conversely, what aspects of that heritage hindered the effective use of airpower by the United States? What can this teach us about the way we choose to use airpower today? For this seminar, students will all read selected parts of the assigned text while other parts of the text will be covered in groups. Each group will be expected to present the main points from their assigned reading to the entire seminar during this meeting. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (90 – to be read by all students, plus Group assigned section) 1. James Corum and Wray Johnson, Airpower in Small Wars, pp. 1-10, 225-274, 423-439. (To be read by all students in the seminar) Group A, pp. 11-44. Group B, pp. 51-86. Group C, pp. 179-218. Group D, pp. 325-372.

29 2. JP 3-24 Counterinsurgency, ix – xxi (Executive Summary) Corum and Johnson lay out several lessons learned regarding the use of airpower – and military power more broadly – in COIN operations. How are these reflected in this selection from current joint doctrine? JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-521 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-522 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

30 DAY 12

DATE: 2 December 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the nature of the Vietnam War and the broader backdrop of the Cold War complicated airpower’s ability to further America’s policy aims in Southeast Asia.

Experience: Comprehend the factors that accounted for American ground and air forces’ inability to produce favorable strategic outcomes despite their numerous tactical and operational successes between 1965 and 1968.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the Vietnam War’s influence on enduring debates concerning airpower’s utility as a military instrument in limited war.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-523 (L): America’s War in Vietnam (Weaver) Overview: This lecture will cover the complex geopolitical and strategic situation that led the United States into an ill-defined conflict on the far side of the planet. This was a war against an outmatched opponent, but a war that was subject to such severe strategic and tactical limitations that it has often been characterized as “unwinnable.” The lecture will examine American involvement in Vietnam with a particular focus on the challenges of land forces conducting operations against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese conventional forces from 1964 through 1968. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-524 (S): The Air-Ground War in Vietnam Overview: The Air Force struggled to adjust to the ground war in South Vietnam, a role it had neither equipped nor prepared for, but one that was critical to a successful strategic outcome in the war. The Air Force adapted and provided increasingly effective support to the ground forces, but the overall strategy could not address the underlying causes of the insurgency, nor prevent the insurgents from building an effective organization. In the end, the Air Force learned valuable lessons about conventional war and partnering with the joint team, but it could not capitalize on this capability in South Vietnam to achieve anticipated strategic outcomes. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (151) 1. John Schlight, Help from Above: Air Force Close Air Support of the Army (Washington, D.C.: Air Force History and Museums Program, 2003), 299-363. [EL] 2. Donald Mrozek, Air Power and the Ground War in Vietnam (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 1988), 27-46, 77-86, 90-94, 106-119, 125-132, 139-145, 155-160, 180-187. [EL] 3. JP 3-09.3 Close Air Support, xi – xviii (Executive Summary) How does the analysis of Close Air Support in Vietnam – and other conflicts examined in the course – help us understand current joint doctrine on Close Air Support? To what extent does current joint doctrine reflect developments with CAS that emerged in the Vietnam era? JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1)

31 AP-523 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3a, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 4f, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f. AP-524 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

32 DAY 13 DATE: 5 December 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend how the shifts in domestic politics, great power relations, and the dynamics of the Vietnam War laid the groundwork for airpower’s contribution to ending the war by 1973.

Experience: Comprehend the relative effectiveness of the major bombing campaigns in America’s Vietnam War: Operation Rolling Thunder and Linebackers I and II.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the Vietnam War’s implications for airpower theory and practice and the USAF’s organizational culture.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-525 (L): The Vietnam Air Wars (Lukasik) Overview: Dr. Sebastian Lukasik will provide an overview of the air war over Southeast Asia and the use of the air weapon for decisive, strategic effect from 1965-1972. During this period the US Air Force and Navy conducted an air war over North Vietnam to achieve U.S. political objectives with limited success while the US also conducted bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia. This lecture will outline the campaigns, as well as the effectiveness of the use of airpower in war. The lecture will conclude with an overview of the lasting lessons of the air war over Vietnam and the enduring importance of U.S. airpower. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-526 (S): Bombing Vietnam Overview: Many commenters view Operation Rolling Thunder as a landmark case study in the history of airpower because it presents the useful perspective of “what not to do.” In contrast, the culmination of the Vietnam War was a dedicated and hard-hitting strategic bombing campaign against enemy cities and port facilities. Linebacker II is often held up as the decisive air activity of the war, and continues to be interpreted by many as a “war- winning” campaign. This seminar will require students to analyze the use of bombing in Vietnam and the narratives about airpower that have become part of the war’s legacy. Did bombing in fact win the war in Linebacker II, as many airpower theorists have alleged? Could it have won the war earlier? This seminar analyzes the successes and failures of the bombing campaigns, and the role airpower played in the final battles of the Vietnam War. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (146) 1. Mark Clodfelter, The Limits of Airpower, 39-146, 177-210. 2. JP 3-0 Joint Operations, III-27-III-30 (Intelligence) What lessons does the Vietnam War have for our understanding of joint doctrine on ISR? JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-525 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6f.

33 AP-526 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 1c, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3d, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

34 DAY 14 DATE: 12 December 2019

LESSON OBJECTIVES Context: Comprehend America’s relationship with the Middle East starting mainly from the end of the Second World War and ending in 1973 to understand American policy during the Arab-Israeli Wars.

Experience: Comprehend the importance of airpower in Israeli national security strategy and the Israeli application of airpower in the Arab-Israeli Wars up to 1973.

Assessment/Integration: Comprehend the immediate and lasting implications of the application of airpower in the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1967 and 1973 for airpower theory and practice.

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-527 (L): Overview of American Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 1945-1973 (Terino) Overview: This lecture provides an overview of America’s relationship with the Middle East in the middle of the twentieth century. The Modern Middle East took shape after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. American interests in the region grew after the Second World War as a consequence of several factors. The importance of oil was a constant theme in American foreign policy and shaped American relations with several Middle Eastern states. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 led to heightened tensions with the Arab States and a series of wars that greatly impacted American interests. Finally, the Cold War made the United States concerned about Soviet influence in the region, both political, economic, and military. In addition to helping students understand the Arab-Israeli Wars, one cannot understand America’s position in the Middle East today without some awareness of the events discussed in this lecture. CONTACT HOURS: 1.0-hour lecture

AP-528 (S): Airpower in the Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-1973 Overview: The Israeli Air Force merits attention in this course as one of the world’s leading air forces. Historically, airpower has been central to Israeli national security and military strategy. It continues to be one of Israel’s most prominent military instruments today. Facing an existential threat after its creation in 1948, Israel saw a need for a military capable of achieving decisive victories against numerically superior opponents. Airpower compensated for Israel’s lack of strategic depth and has often been the decisive instrument in its military campaigns. Perhaps no better illustration of this exists than Israel’s achievement of air superiority in 1967. At the same time, the Arab States – supported by the Soviet Union – responded to Israel’s air capabilities with new air defense systems that seemed to blunt Israel’s offensive striking power. The lessons learned from the Arab-Israeli Wars had an immediate impact on the American military as it confronted the new Soviet air defenses in the 1970s and largely reinvented its approach to airpower in the following decades to ensure that it could achieve air superiority. In particular, the Israeli approach focused on airpower missions rather than the application of airpower at different levels of war. This blurring of the lines between “strategic” and “tactical” airpower – a division at the heart of most classical airpower theories – proved enormously consequential for air powers around the

35 world in subsequent decades, including the United States. CONTACT HOURS: 2.0-hour seminar

REQUIRED READINGS (74) 1. Alan Stephens, “Modeling Airpower: The Arab-Israeli Wars of the Twentieth Century,” in John Andreas Olsen, Airpower Applied, 217-285. 2. JP 3-01 Countering Air and Missile Threats, IV-12 – IV-16 (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) Students should consider how Israel’s experience in the Arab-Israeli Wars from 1967- 1973 helped lay the foundations of modern SEAD doctrine. JOINT LEARNING AREAS AND OBJECTIVES (JPME-1) AP-527 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 2c, 3a, 3f, 4f, 6a, 6b, and 6c. AP-528 supports the following Joint Learning Areas and Objectives for JPME: 1a, 2a, 2c, 3c, 3f, 3g, 4c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6e, and 6f.

36 Day 15 – Final Exam

DATE: 16 December 2019

LESSON OVERVIEW AP-802 (S): In-Class Comprehensive Final Exam CONTACT HOURS: 4.0-hour exam

37

APPENDIX: COURSE FACULTY

Airpower I Course Director

Dr. Jordan R. Hayworth is an Assistant Professor of Military and Security Studies in the Department of Airpower at the Air Command and Staff College. He teaches the Airpower I and Airpower II courses for the Department of Airpower and is the Course Director for Airpower I. Hayworth received his B.A. in History from High Point University in the Piedmont-Triad region of North Carolina. He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in European History from the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas, where he studied under Dr. Michael V. Leggiere as a Student Fellow of the Military History Center. Dr. Hayworth's article, "Evolution or Revolution on the Battlefield? The Sambre and Meuse Army in 1794," was published by War in History in 2014. He recently authored a book chapter on the French Way of War for an edited volume on Napoleon and the Operational Art of War published by Brill. His doctoral dissertation won the 2016 Edward M. Coffman First Manuscript Prize through the Society for Military History. His first book, Revolutionary France’s War on Conquest in the Rhineland: Conquering the Natural Frontier, 1792- 1797 was published by Cambridge University Press in spring 2019. Currently, he is writing a new history of the 1794 Campaign during the French Revolutionary Wars. Research Interest/Expertise includes: Early Modern and Modern Military History, French History, Modern European History, Political and Diplomatic History.

Faculty

Dr. Lisa L. Beckenbaugh is an Assistant Professor of Military and Security Studies at Air University’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Dr. Beckenbaugh received her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from St. Cloud State University and her PhD from the University of Arkansas. Dr. Beckenbaugh has taught at a variety of undergraduate and graduate civilian institutions. Last year her book, The Versailles Treaty: A Documentary and Reference Guide for ABC-CLIO, was published. Dr. Beckenbuagh also serves as the faculty advisor for the Gathering of Eagles elective and has edited three of their recently published books, Leading Airpower into the 21st Century: Stories of Courage, Innovation, and Resiliency, Spirit of the Storm: A Collection of Interviews from the Gulf War Era, and Soaring Above: Stories of Leadership, Heroism, and Overcoming Adversity. Dr. Beckenbaugh’s current research is on the 1st MASH (Mobile Army Surgical Hospital), later redesignated 8209th MASH, during the Korean War.

Major DJ Benzing is an Air University Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Maj Benzing graduated from the ACSC In-Residence program in June 2019. Prior to ACSC, Maj Benzing was a T-1 Evaluator Pilot and Chief Instructor Pilot at Randolph AFB, TX. He has also served as a C-17 Evaluator Pilot at McGuire Air Force Base, NJ and prior to that a T-1 Instructor Pilot at Laughlin AFB, TX. His experience has been at the Squadron, Group and Wing levels. During his time at McGuire AFB, he evaluated, instructed and commanded missions in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn, as well as Operations in and around the Horn of Africa to include numerous presidential support missions. Maj Benzing graduated with a BS in Biology from the Air Force Academy and also received a MS in Sports Management from American Military University. He is a senior pilot with more than 3,500 flying hours in the T-1 and C-17.

Major Danny H. Bolin is the Director of Operations, 21st Student Squadron and Instructor in the

38 Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Maj Bolin graduated from the ACSC In-Residence program in June 2019. Prior to ACSC, Maj Bolin was a UH-1N Instructor Pilot and Director of Staff at Andrews AFB, MD. He also served as a HH-60 instructor and evaluator at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ in addition to a Data-Masked location. His experience has been at the Squadron, Group, and Wing Level. He has deployed to Afghanistan and Kuwait as a Combat Search and Rescue Pilot and served as Flight Commander, Chief of Group Standardization and Evaluation, and Wing Executive Officer. He graduated with a BS in Behavioral Sciences from the Air Force Academy and he also received a MS in Emergency and Disaster Management from Trident University as well as a MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University.

Maj Carolyn Cruz is an instructor and current Air University Fellow in the Department of Leadership at Air University’s Air Command and Staff College. Carolyn is a developmental engineer within the acquisition career field. Her experiences include research and development of directed energy technologies, test and evaluation of various platforms/weapons systems, and engineering management of radar systems and technologies within various MAJCOMs and National Agencies. Carolyn deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn. She received a Bachelor’s of Science in Industrial Engineering from the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR; and a Master’s of Science in Industrial and Systems Engineering from the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Carolyn is a recent graduate from Air Command and Staff College.

Maj Brett J. Cullen serves as an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at Air University’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC), Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Major Cullen is senior pilot with over 4,200 hours in T-6, T-1, KC-10A, MQ-1B, and MQ-9A aircraft. He is a graduate of Air Force ROTC from the University of Arkansas with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration. After commissioning in 2005 and graduating from Undergraduate Pilot Training, Major Cullen joined the 9th Air Refueling Squadron, Travis AFB, CA. Major Cullen flew 129 combat sorties in the KC-10A, culminating as Group Executive Officer and Instructor Pilot. While assigned to Travis AFB, Maj Cullen completed a Masters in Military History from Norwich University in Vermont, completing a capstone project on the 1st Marine Division’s fighting retreat at the Chosin Reservoir in 1950. As an RPA Evaluator Pilot at Creech AFB, Maj Cullen conducted multiple high-value target airstrikes and received numerous Wing Airmanship awards for safety, ISR, and kinetic employment. Most recently he served as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Branch Chief of Twelfth Air Force Stan/Eval at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. At ACSC, he was selected to participate in CSAF-sponsored Cyber Research Task Force, receiving U.S. and international recognition by both the Atlantic Council and Geneva Center for Security and Policy for cyberspace defense policy recommendations. He is a graduate of ACSC, class of 2019.

Maj Michael R. Dumas currently serves as an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). He graduated as a student of ACSC in June of 2019 and joined the faculty thereafter. Maj Dumas received his commission from the Reserve Officer Training Program at Purdue University in 2006. He is a senior pilot with more than 2,400 flying hours in the T-6, T-38, and A-10. Maj Dumas’ prior service includes three operational assignments in Germany, the Republic of Korea, and in the US. In his first assignment, Major Dumas deployed in support of Operations ODYSSEY DAWN and ENDURING FREEDOM. Following that assignment, he moved to Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea for a three and a half year tour, departing as an evaluator pilot, rescue mission commander (SANDY 1), and the Operations Group Chief of Standardization & Evaluation. Major Dumas then joined the World

39 Famous Flying Tigers at Moody Air Force Base and continued his service as an A-10 pilot. He again deployed, this time in support of Operation INHERENT RESOLVE flying combat missions over Iraq and Syria. Maj Dumas is married to his college crush Megan and has two children 3 year old son Ford and 1 year old daughter Leyton.

LTC Paul B. Eberhardt is an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United Sates Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College. He was commissioned in 1998 as an Aviation Officer in the Army from West Virginia University, where he studied Forestry. He has served in a multitude of leadership positions from Platoon Leader to Battalion Commander. He deployed four times to Kosovo, Iraq (OIF), Afghanistan (OEF) and Europe (OAR). He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College. He joined the faculty in 2018.

Lt Col Bryan R. Foley is a first-year resident SDE student and the Director of Staff for the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College. A Mobility and Trainer pilot, he has worked at the squadron, group, wing, NAF and Air Staff levels with extensive time in strategic airlift as a C-5A/B/C Instructor Pilot and in Undergraduate Pilot Training as a T-6A Instructor and Evaluator Pilot. Additionally, he has served as Senior Duty Officer for both Wing and Air Force-level Command Posts, been an Air Force Chief of Staff Operations briefer, and a HAF Operations Division Chief. He has deployed to HQ USAFCENT as a Global Force Management planner, and Al Udeid AB, Qatar as a Wing plans officers. Prior to his tenure at Air Command and Staff College, he was the Commander of the 85th Flying Training Squadron, Laughlin AFB, TX. He was a Distinguished Graduate of the Air Command and Staff College in 2014. Additionally, he received a Masters in Business Administration in 2010.

Major Brianna M. Frey is an Air University Fellow and Instructor under the Schriever Space Scholars Concentration at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). She was hand-selected for the inaugural Schriever Space Scholars ACSC Concentration and graduated from the In-Residence program in June of 2019. Maj Frey is an Air Force Intelligence Officer with experience in operational squadrons, groups, wings and air and space operation centers. In these units Major Frey served in multiple positions ranging from Flight Commander to Director of Operations. She graduated with a BS in Public Administration from The University of Arizona and also received an MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University.

Dr. Michael L. Grumelli, Colonel, USAF (Retired), is an Associate Professor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College. He is the son of a thirty-year Army non-commissioned officer, earning his PhD in military history from Rutgers University in 1991. Since earning his doctorate, he has been assigned to the faculty of the United States Air Force Academy, as the Deputy Director of Military History, and as an instructor with the Air War College’s Department of Strategy, Doctrine, and Airpower in addition to teaching with the School of Advance Air and Space Studies.

Lt Col Frédéric Guénette, Royal Canadian Air Force, currently serves as an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College. He teaches the Airpower I and Airpower II courses and is a Deputy Course Director for Airpower I. Lt Col Guénette is a career aviation pilot, operating the CH146, CH47D, and CH147F while occupying various leadership and staff positions within Canada’s tactical aviation enterprise. He deployed to Kandahar in 2008 as part of NATO’s ISAF mission, leading a multitude of joint, multinational, full-spectrum aviation operations supporting both conventional and special forces. 40 He graduated from the Royal Military College of Canada, earning a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science. In 2018, he completed Air Command and Staff College as a Distinguished Graduate.

Maj Frank Hartnett is an instructor and an Air University Fellow in the Department of Leadership at the Air University’s Air Command and Staff College. Frank is a Public Affairs Officer with experience of providing Public Affairs leadership at a variety of levels including the wing, major-command, air & space operation center and coalition headquarters. He has deployed to the Combined Air and Space Operations Center in Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar and twice to Afghanistan. Before arriving at ACSC, Frank served as the assignments officer for the Public Affairs and Band career fields serving over 325 officers. He earned a Master’s degree in military operational art and science from Air Command and Staff College and a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh.

Lt Col Kirk W. Hoffman currently serves as an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). He teaches the Airpower I and Airpower II courses, and is a Deputy Course Director for the Airpower I course. Prior to this assignment, he served as an Instructor Weapon Systems Officer with the F-15E Formal Training Unit and as the Wing’s Chief of Ranges and Airspace for the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC. Lt Col Hoffman held a number of operational and training positions during three consecutive tours in the F-15E, and is rated as a senior Weapon System Officer with over 1,700 flight hours in the Strike Eagle. During his operational assignments, he deployed in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Inherent Resolve, and with a Theater Security Package to the Korean Peninsula. Lt Col Hoffman received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Mississippi State University. He also holds a Master of Science in Management degree from Troy University and a Master of Military Operational Art and Science degree from ACSC. Lt Col Hoffman was a Distinguished Graduate from the ACSC class of 2018, and he completed the Air University Fellowship program in 2019.

Lt Col Damion Holtzclaw is Commander, 38th Student Squadron, Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. In this position, Lt Col Holtzclaw leads a multiservice squadron of 250 Air Force, Sister-Service, International Field Grade Officers and civilian students selected to attend Air Command and Staff College. He also conducts personal, professional, and academic mentoring for officers destined for future senior leadership positions world-wide.

Lt Col Angela Jacobson is an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). She teaches the Airpower I and Airpower II courses, and serves as school’s coordinator for the Commandant’s Speaker Series. Prior to this assignment, she served as the Geographically Separated Unit (GSU) Lead for the Air Operations Center Weapon System (AOC WS) Program Management Office, Operations Command and Control Division, Battle Management Program Executive Office, Air Force Lifecycle and Management Center, located at Langley AFB, VA, where she was in charge of all sustainment and maintenance for 22 global sites. After receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Virginia Tech in 2000, Lt Col Jacobson entered active duty as an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Combat Crew Commander in the 90th Space Wing at F.E. Warren AFB, WY. Lt Col Jacobson has a breadth of knowledge gained across a number of positions in operations, intelligence, acquisitions, education and command and control over the past 19 years of service. During her previous assignments, she deployed in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM as an Executive Officer to the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Assessments, Multinational Forces-Iraq. Lt Col

41 Jacobson is a graduate from ACSC in 2014 and has a Master’s Degree in Business Administration.

Major Justin D. Lugo is an Air University Fellow and Instructor in the Schriever Space Scholars Concentration at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). He was hand-selected for the inaugural Schriever Space Scholars ACSC Concentration and graduated from the In-Residence program in June 2019. Maj Lugo is a space officer with Operational Test and Evaluation, Spacelift and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile experience. His experience is with operational squadrons, groups, wings and MAJCOM Headquarters staffs in the United States and United Arab Emirates. He graduated with a BS in Zoology Biomedical Sciences from The University of Oklahoma and also received a MA in Management and Leadership from Webster University as well as a MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University.

Dr. S. Mike Pavelec is a Professor of Airpower History in the Department of Airpower at the Air Command and Staff College. He has extensive teaching experience within JPME, including the Naval War College, the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS), and the Joint Advanced Warfighting School (NDU). He earned his PhD at The Ohio State University in 2004, and teaches the Airpower I and II, War Theory, and International Security Studies I and II core courses. He also offers electives on World War I in the Air and The Evolution of Airpower Technology and Theory. A prolific researcher and writer, he has four books in print and two under contract. His most recent book is War and Warfare Since 1945, (Routledge UK, 2017), in addition to journal articles and book chapters on airpower, history, space, and cyber. He can be seen on National Geographic’s TV show Nazi Megastructures.

Allen G. Peck, Lt Gen, USAF (Retired) is Assistant Professor of Military and Security Studies at the Air Command & Staff College’s Department of Airpower. Prior to joining the ACSC faculty, Peck served as director of the Air Force Research Institute. During his 36 years on active duty, Peck commanded an air operations group in Germany, an air expeditionary wing in Saudi Arabia, the Air and Space Expeditionary Force Center at Langley AFB, the LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, and the Air University at Maxwell AFB. He was a key planner for NATO’s Kosovo operation and later served as Deputy Combined Force Air Component Commander at Al Udeid Airbase, Qatar. As an aviator Peck was qualified as aircraft commander and instructor in the air-to-air and air-to-ground variants of the F-15. He holds a BS in Mathematics from the US Air Force Academy, an MS in Operations Research from the Air Force Institute of Technology, an MA in International Relations from Salve Regina College, and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Maj Patrick “POGS” Picard is currently an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) as a member of the Air University Fellows program. Maj Picard received his commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 2007. He is a senior pilot with more than 2,300 flying hours in the TC-135W, RC- 135S, RC-135U, and RC-135V/W. He has flown sensitive reconnaissance and combat missions around the globe. Prior to ACSC, Maj Picard served as the Assistant Director of Operations and RC-135 Instructor Pilot of the 21st Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron at NSA Souda Bay, Crete, Greece. He has also served as the 55th Maintenance Group Executive Officer, Offutt AFB, NE. Prior to that duty, Maj Picard was an RC-135 Evaluator and Instructor Pilot in the 338th Combat Training Squadron, also at Offutt AFB. He has a masters from Air University in Military Operational Art and Science, a bachelors in Business Administration and Management from the US Air Force Academy and is a graduate of the ACSC AY19 class. In his spare time, POGS enjoys

42 sipping a fine Courvoisier while contemplating the ideas of renowned airpower theorist Giulio Douhet.

Dr. Brian R. Price is an Associate Professor in the Department of Warfighting at the Air Command and Staff College. He is a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in political science, and holds a doctorate from the University of North Texas in military history. He has conducted research for the POW-MIA Accounting Agency, served as a Social Science SME serving special operations in Afghanistan, and has served a double tour as Senior Social Scientist in RC East, Afghanistan, 2011-12. He worked for ten years in Silicon Valley, rising to the level of Vice President, and ran his own publishing company before taking his doctorate. His research interests focus on the nexus between culture, technology and war, and his current research focuses on the development of post-Vietnam TACAIR, a project for which he has conducted extensive archival research along with oral histories on a number of senior officers. He is published in a number of journals, and has several books in his second field, medieval and early modern warfare. In his spare time he teaches historical swordsmanship and has been inducted into the Martial Arts Hall of Fame.

Lt Col Richard J. Rachal is an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). He enlisted in 1985 as an Air Intelligence Specialist, flying on the AC-130H gunship (Hurlburt Field, Florida). Selected for the Airman Scholarship and Commissioning Program, he received his commission as an AFROTC DG and attended navigator training (Mather AFB, CA). Selected to fly the C-130 Hercules, he served operational tours(Dyess AFB, TX, Yokota AB, Japan and Little Rock AFB, AR) as an instructor and evaluator. He also served on the headquarters staffs of AMC (Scott AFB, IL) as the Command Evaluator Navigator and at 16th/3rd AF (Ramstein AB, Germany) as the Deputy Director for Plans and Programs. A Master Navigator/Combat Systems Officer, he has more than 3,000 flying hours in the T-37, T-43, C-130 (E,H,H1,H2, and H3 variants), LC-130, and AC-130H including 150 combat/combat support, 800 instructor and 200 evaluator hours. A 3 time squadron commander, he has commanded the 789th AES (Zaragosa, Spain), the 421st ABS (RAF Menwith Hill, United Kingdom) and 409th AEG, Det 1 (Arba Minch, Ethiopia). He is a graduate of the ACSC AY06 class.

Major Michael J. Rallo is an Air University Fellow and Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Maj Rallo graduated from the ACSC In-Residence program in June 2019. Prior to ACSC, Maj Rallo was a C-5M Evaluator Pilot and Chief of the Squadron Standardization and Evaluation office, 22nd Airlift Squadron, Travis AFB, CA. He has also served as a MC-12W Mission Commander and Pilot for the 4th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. His experience has been at the Squadron, Group, and Wing level. During his time at Travis Air Force Base, he instructed and commanded missions in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn, as well as Operations in and around the Horn of Africa. Maj Rallo has been recognized as Squadron Field Grade Officer (FGO) of the Year, Operations Group FGO of the quarter and Squadron Team of the Year lead. He was a Distinguished Graduate from C-5M Pilot Initial Qualification course and Squadron Officer School. He graduated with a BA in Criminal Law from the University of Delaware and has also received a MS in National Security Studies with distinction from American Military University as well as a MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University.

Dr. Edwin H. Redman, Colonel, USAF (Retired), is an Assistant Professor of Military and 43 Security Studies in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Dr. Redman is a Command Pilot with tours in each of the Air Force’s bomber aircraft. He served as an instructor pilot in the T-38, B-1 and B-2, and flew combat missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 in the B-2. He is a graduate of the US Air Force Academy, ACSC, and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Following SAASS, Dr. Redman attended Duke University, where he received his PhD in History. His last operational assignment was Deputy Commander, 509th Operations Group, Whiteman Air Force Base. He completed his active-duty service at Air University, holding several positions, including Director of Warfighting Education at the LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, and Director of the Grand Strategy Seminar, Air War College. He retired from the active-duty Air Force in 2014, and joined Air University as a civilian professor in 2015.

Major Andrew M. Scherff is an Air University Fellow and Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Prior to ACSC, Maj Scherff was an E/RQ-4 Evaluator Pilot and Wing Executive Officer at Grand Forks AFB, ND. Maj Scherff entered active duty in 2007 after receiving a BS in Business Administration from The Ohio State University. After graduating from Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot training he flew KC-135R/T tankers at McConnell AFB, KS. He deployed five times in support of Operations New Dawn and Enduring Freedom, flying over 160 combat missions and 1,100 combat hours. Maj Scherff transitioned to the RQ-4 program at Grand Forks AFB in 2013 and was a Distinguished Graduate from RQ-4 Pilot Initial Qualification Training. During his time at Grand Forks AFB, he served in a variety of positions including Chief of Weapons and Tactics and the Formal Training Unit Flight Commander. He was a member of the initial cadre for the RQ-4 Block 40 program where he was globally certified and flew in five different combatant commands. He also deployed twice to air operations centers in Europe and in the Middle East as an RQ-4 liaison officer. Maj Scherff holds a MA in Administrative Leadership from the University of Oklahoma as well as a MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University.

Major Jason E. Steinlicht is an Instructor at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). He teaches the Airpower I and Airpower II courses for the Department of Airpower. Maj Steinlicht graduated from the ACSC In-Residence program in June 2019. Prior to ACSC, Maj Steinlicht was a C-130J Instructor Pilot and Assistant Director of Operations at Dyess Air Force Base, in Abilene TX. Prior to Dyess, Major Steinlicht was an Evaluator Navigator on the KC-135 Stratotanker. During his time at Dyess and McConnell, he instructed and commanded missions in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, Odyssey Dawn, and Freedom Sentinel logging over 650 combat hours. His most recent deployment in 2018, he served as the Director of Operations for the 75th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron at Camp Lemmonier, Djibouti. Maj Steinlicht received Magnum Cum Laude honors and was a 2nd Team ESPN National Academic Award Winner from the University of Dubuque in Iowa. Maj Steinlicht is a Distinguished Graduate from Joint Undergraduate Pilot Training, C-130J Initial Pilot Qualification and Squadron Officer School. He graduated with a BS in Flight Operations from the University of Dubuque and he also received a MS in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University as well as a MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University.

Major Jonathan P. Sward is an Air University Fellow, currently assigned to the eSchool of Graduate Professional Military Education (eGPME), Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He also teaches Airpower I at the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). Prior to this assignment, Major Sward

44 served as a staff officer in the Directorate of Operations, United States Northern Command. Furthermore, he is an Electronic Warfare Officer, and was previously qualified as an Instructor and Evaluator onboard the RC-135V/W RIVET JOINT. In this capacity, he served in operational squadrons, at the RC-135 Formal Training Unit, and at the wing. He has deployed seven times in support of combat and global Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations and has flown operational missions in virtually every U.S. Geographic Combatant Command. Major Sward earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Secondary Education from the University of Saint Francis and his Master’s Degree in Information Technology Management from Trident University. He is also a graduate of ACSC, class of 2019.

Dr. Heather P. Venable is an Assistant Professor of Military and Security Studies in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College. She currently teaches Airpower One and Airpower Two and an elective on the historical experience of combat. She also has co-taught an elective on Close Air Support and has served as the Airpower Two course director. She previously was an Instructor for the Air Command and Staff College’s eSchool of Graduate Professional Military Education where she oversaw the writing of proposals and master’s theses and taught Applied Warfare Studies courses at the Joint Professional Military Education I level. As a visiting professor at the US Naval Academy, she taught naval and Marine Corps history. She graduated with a B.A. in History from Texas A&M University and a M.A. in American History from the University of Hawai’i. She received her PhD in military history from Duke University. She also has attended the Space Operations Course as well as the Joint Firepower Course. Her forthcoming book from Naval Institute Press is entitled How the Few Became the Proud: The Making of the Marine Corps’ Mythos, 1974-1918. Previous work to be published includes “‘There’s Nothing that a Marine Can’t Do’: Publicity and the Marine Corps, 1905-1917” in New Interpretations in Naval History: Selected Papers from the Sixteenth Naval History Symposium and “The China Marines and the Crucible of the Warrior Mythos, 1900-1941” in Crucibles: Selected Readings in U.S. Marine Corps History. She has also contributed articles about airpower and the current Air Force to several online publications, including War on the Rocks.

Dr. Ryan Wadle is an Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the eSchool of Graduate PME and has been on faculty since 2012. For the eSchool, he has developed and taught courses on research methodologies, critical thinking, and Airpower. For the ACSC resident program, he has previously lectured to and taught the AP1 course as well as offer elective courses on naval history. Prior to joining Air University, he served on the Afghanistan Study Team at the U.S. Army’s Combat Studies Institute, writing tactical- and operational-level histories of surge-era operations in OEF. He earned his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University in 2011. He is the author of the recently released Selling Sea Power: Public Relations and the U.S. Navy, 1917-1941 from University of Oklahoma Press. He is currently working on an article on the development of “jointness” prior to World War II and a biography of Admiral Harry Yarnell, an influential U.S. Navy strategist, carrier commander, and fleet commander.

Lt Col Daniel A. Walton is currently an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) following the completion of the two year Air University Fellows program. Lt Col Walton received his commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 2004. He is a senior pilot with more than 3,500 flying hours in the T-6, T-44, C- 130J, and KC-135. He has flown over 100 combat mission in operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, Odyssey Dawn, Unified Protector, Inherent Resolve, and Horn of Africa. Prior to ACSC, Lt Col Walton served as the Inspector General Chief of Inspections for Kadena Air Base, the largest composite wing in the Air Force. While there he also served as Assistant Director of 45 Operations and KC-135 Instructor in the 909th Air Refueling Squadron. He was selected for the MAF’s Phoenix Reach program while a C-130J Evaluator Pilot and Wing Executive Officer for the 86th Air Base Wing at Ramstein Germany. He also served as a C-130J Instructor Pilot at Little Rock AFB after completing Undergraduate Pilot Training. He has a masters from the University of Arkansas in Operations Management, is a Distinguished Graduate of Squadron Officer School, and a graduate of the ACSC AY18 class where he earned a second MS in Military Operational Art and Science from Air University. In his spare time he enjoys being outdoors with his wife Marci and two boys Brecken and Kai.

Lt Col Marci J. Walton currently serves as an Instructor in the Department of Airpower at the United States Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). She graduated as a student of ACSC in June of 2018 and joined the faculty as an Air University Fellow. Lt Col Walton received her commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 2004. She is a senior pilot with more than 2,000 flying hours in the T-6, C-12, C-130E/H3/J and KC-135. Lt Col Walton’s prior service includes three operational assignments, flying three different major weapon systems, in three major commands as a mobility pilot. First she flew the C-130E/H3 for the 50th Airlift Squadron at Little Rock AFB, where she quickly acquired over 300 combat hours in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. Following that assignment, she qualified in the C-130J and shipped off to the 37th Airlift Squadron at Ramstein AB, Germany, where she led missions in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn as an instructor pilot and Flight Commander. She was selected for the Phoenix Reach program and switched airframes becoming an instructor pilot in her third major weapon system, the KC-135, and served in the 909th Air Refueling Squadron at Kadena AB, Japan. There, she flew re- fueling missions across the entire Pacific Theater in support of US partners and allies. Lt Col Walton serves side-by-side with her husband, Lt Col Daniel Walton, and their two boys, Brecken and Kai.

46