The effervescence of the US led coalition air forces' contribution to an apparent victory over Iraq was one spouse, and the post cold war, post strategic bombardment of the Soviet Union, what are we to do paranoia within the Air Force was the other. This union begot the five rings offspring within the Air Force. Or so Ware tells it. Something more than criticism of a nonmodel may be here. The dilemma that critics are left with, of course, is a hard one.
Bees do fly and did fly.
The air campaign against Iraq was a successful air operation by most measures of merit. Thus, critics need to contemplate the possibility that the assertion made by five rings advocates is fairly straightforward and undeniably, irrefutably true. Perhaps they are simply asserting that the sudden, cumulative effects of simultaneous, parallel attacks against many things contribute to the cascading collapse of the enemy's combat power production system . That advocates offer the five rings as a possible explanation is not overreaching, but to duplicate success, these people need to advance some kind of explanation or model for consideration. In practice, following a template like the five rings for purposes of targeting does no real harm and clearly seemed to do much good.