Warfare: Land Power (Pro) vs. Air Power (Con)

Good Round, Pro!I know you said no rebuttals this first round (and I'll keep to that!), but I can't help but make an ever so witty remark about those Iraqi SCUD kills that went unconfirmed... those SAS and Delta guys on the ground must have been some pretty poor target finders! Concepts where Airpower is DecisiveFor my opening round, I've decided to skip the laundry list of historical events and start things off by pointing directly to air doctrine examples and theories of where Air Power has proved to be decisive in battle. Military Doctrine is often defined in military colleges and think tank circles as: "what we believe to be the best way to conduct military affairs." (http://www.au.af.mil...) Strategic BombingOne of the earliest and most decisive applications of air power is in the role of strategic bombing. First proposed by Italian air theorist Giulio Douhet during World War I, strategic bombing theory stated that airforces should be used offensively; and given Air Power's unique range, speed, armament, and freedom of mobility over terrain when compared to ground forces, airplanes should one day be able to bomb entire cities and industrial complexes into extinction and win wars completely either through morale or industrial attrition. Hence, the popular post world war saying, "the bomber will always get through!" During World War II, the effectiveness of Strategic Bombing was put to the ultimate test where it achieved mixed to decisive results against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (the latter campaign being the most successful but most often overlooked). Though still in its technological infancy, Air Power (through strategic bombing) over Germany was able to achieve the destruction of the German Lufftwaffe and German oil supplies [1] [2]. The destruction of Germany's oil industry, in particular, as any good WWII historian will tell you, was a decisive factor for the outcome of World War II. Though I soon anticipate "a shaping rebuttal" from Pro, I expect the Battle of the Bludge for instance, might have been very different had it not have been for allied bombing that completely ruined Hitler's ability to refuel his Panzers. And if the goal of strategic bombing was all along "to win wars decisively through industrial attrition," then the destruction of Germany's oil output certainly fulfills this objective. 1) Allied Bombing vs. German Oil Production http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com...2)http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com...Over the Pacific, strategic bombing was also used to deny Japan access to oil as well as to decisively destroy Japanese naval forces (more on that last point later). However, with the advent of newer technology, including the high flying B-29, better bomb sites, and firebombing, strategic bombing was able to help decisively bomb Japan into submission. Though I must also give credit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki where credit is due, the combine effects of conventional B-29 bombing on Japan was still a drop in 54% of Japanese war manufacturing form 1944-45, along with the destruction of its rail & road networks and agricultural food centers needed to sustain the war effort [1]. It was later concluded by a post war DoD survey that strategic bombing had in fact contributed to the erosion of Japanese morale and that conitued bombing on Japanese infrastructure (even without nukes) would have still "had a direct impact on the Japanese people and on their determination to continue the war."[1] Control of the air was also found to have been "essential to the success of every major military operation." in the Pacific theatre [1].1)http://www.dtic.mil...Air-Land Battle and the Fall of Decisive Ground Power. Though I did not have the time nessary to adaquently prepare this point or explain my thoughts on Air-Land Battle, beginning in 1970s was when the US Army first began to realize that it could no longer operate or complete its ground role on its own, stating plainly, that when matched against another large high-tech opponent (aka the USSR), "both the Army and Air Force deliver firepower against the enemy. Both can kill a tank. Both can collect intelligence, conduct reconnaissance, provide air defense, move troops and supplies, and jam radios and radar. But neither the Army nor the Air Force can fulfill any one of those functions completely or by itself. Thus, the Army cannot win the land battle without the Air Force." (http://archive.org...). The end result of the Army's new found realization was the creation of the Air-Land Battle Doctrine.John Warden and the 5 Rings Concept (1988).Though decisive, yet still unrefined in many ways since the early days of World War II, John Warden of the USAF (1943-present) and his 5 rings concept for strategic bombing have since transformed Air Power's technological advantages away from Air-Land Battle and ascended them into full-dimension operations; achieving for the very first time in the history of war a tactical step by step blueprint for winning wars directly through air power alone. Where as in wars prior it might have been said that the Army and Air Force played joint decisive roles, and that strategic bombing was sometimes ineffective for it lacked the precision nessary to produce strategic results, Warden's 5 rings concept changes all that and dismisses the need for decisive ground operations in conjunction with Air Power all together. By using strategic bombing to specifically target a nation's five centers of gravity (five rings), which include; the destruction of an enemy's Leadership, Organic Essentials, Infrastructure, Population, and Field Forces [1], Warden had effectively introduced a way of achieving total paralysis over a country. The result of Warden's air theories of course, has been the successful and overwhelming application of Air Power in every major conventional military operation since Desert Storm, including Operation Allied Force (1999), the very first armed conflict of its kind won by the United States without the need of any ground combat. 1) 5 Rings :http://en.wikipedia.org...Air-Sea Battle (2014-) and Naval Ops.A brief paragraph must also be mentioned for Air Power's naval capabilities along with the rise of the modern Air-Sea Battle. Though Pro has excluded Naval Forces from Ground or Air Power, he has not excluded Naval Campaigns. Control of the seas of course, is a vital and fundamental part to winning contemporary wars. In World War II, for instance, the Army Air Force along with Naval aviators, were more directly responsible for sinking the Japanese merchant fleet and its naval vessels than US destroyers or battleships. Carrier planes, along with land based aircraft, have -since Billy Mitchell's famed sinking of the Ostfriesland- been the most crucial battlefield weapons for control of the global commons. For obvious capability reasons, I believe Pro will be very hard press to find specific examples of where Ground Power was more influential in Naval theatres of war than Air Power. The "lack of inherent naval capability" is also one of the principle reasons why ground power is largely being left out as the DoD now makes its 21st century pivot to Asia, the threat of a Pacific War with China, and Air-Sea Battle. For these above reasons and more, we can believe Air Power is more critical than Ground Power.