Airpower and the Cult of the Offensive

Dogmatic belief in the dominance of the land offensive influenced decisions that resulted in years of futile blood-letting on the Western Front in World War I. Termed the cult of the offensive by scholars of the Great War, faith in the offense became so unshakable in pre-1914 Europe that military organizations dismissed as irrelevant numerous indications of its waning power in the face of technological developments favoring the defense. As we know, the belief that airpower is inherently offensive is a recurrent theme in airpower history and doctrine. Given the predilections of airmen for offensive operations, could a cult of the offensive perniciously trap airpower doctrine and lead to similarly disastrous consequences? By drawing on selected historical experiences of the air forces of Great Britain, Israel, and the United States, Maj John R. Carter Jr. employs a comparative perspective and rigorous case study methodology to offer a detailed examination of that question. He begins by establishing the theoretical background necessary for case study analysis. Airpower defense is defined as those operations conducted to deny another force's air operations in a designated airspace. Airpower offense consists of those operations in the airspace defended by another, or operations conducted outside of one's own actively defended airspace. Major Carter dissects the relationship between offense and defense to discover that airpower defense enjoys neither an advantage of position nor of time. He thus concludes that traditional Clausewitzian views relative to the power of the defense do not apply to airpower. The author next describes those factors that may inject or reinforce a preferential bias for offense into airpower strategy and doctrine. Major Carter defines a cult of the offensive as an organizational belief in the power of the offense so compelling that a military organization no longer evaluates its offensive doctrine objectively.