Karl P. Mueller

Caitlin Lee

Adam Grissom

Air Force senior leaders have asked whether the service is sufficiently innovative today and what can be done to make it more innovative for the future. This report assesses historical cases of Air Force innovation or apparent failure to innovate.

Evidence from Six Cases

Innovation in the United States Air Force

Jennifer Kavanagh

Sean M. Zeigler

Stephen Watts

Astrid Stuth Cevallos

Bryan Frederick

Nathan Chandler

Patrick B. Johnston

Trevor Johnston

Julia A. Thompson

Meagan L. Smith

Alexander Stephenson

The report analyzes the strategic effects of low-cost and small-footprint military options across a range of irregular warfare operations and in a range of operational environments.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Limited Stabilization, Limited Strike, and Containment Operations

Limited Intervention

Forrest E. Morgan

Brian Rosen

Jasen J. Castillo

Negeen Pegahi

RAND Project AIR FORCE studied the post-9/11 shift in U.S. defense policy emphasis toward preemptive and preventive attack, asking under what conditions preemptive or preventive attack is worth considering as a response to perceived threats. It considered the role such first-strike strategies are likely to play in future U.S. national security policy. Finally, it identified implications these conclusions have for military planners and policymakers as they prepare to deal with national security threats in the next decade.

Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy

Striking First

Jeffrey Martini

Alexandra T. Evans

Becca Wasser

Stacie L. Pettyjohn

Nathaniel Edenfield

Gabrielle Tarini

Ryan Haberman

Jalen Zeman

Airpower played a pivotal role in the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State from 2014 to 2019 and contributed to the success of Operation Inherent Resolve, but airpower alone would not have been likely to defeat the militant organization.

The Role of Airpower in Operation Inherent Resolve

The Air War Against the Islamic State

A team of U.S. and international experts assesses the impact of various nations’ airpower efforts during the 2011 conflict in Libya, including NATO allies and non-NATO partners, and how their experiences offer guidance for future conflicts. In addition to the roles played by the United States, Britain and France, it examines the efforts of Italy, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Qatar, the UAE, and the Libyan rebels.

Airpower in the Libyan Civil War

Precision and Purpose

Between March and October 2011, a coalition of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and several partner nations waged a war against Muammar Qaddafi's Libyan regime that stemmed and then reversed the tide of Libya's civil war, preventing Qaddafi from crushing the nascent rebel movement seeking to overthrow his dictatorship and going on to enable opposition forces to prevail. The central element of this intervention was a relatively small multinational force's air campaign operating from NATO bases in several countries, as well as from a handful of aircraft carriers and amphibious ships in the Mediterranean Sea. The study details each country's contribution to that air campaign, examining such issues as the limits of airpower and coordination among nations. It also explores whether the Libyan experience offers a potential model for the future.

Karl P. Mueller

Books

Your next favorite book is out there