The rise of the fighter generals: The Vietnam era and the problem of Air Force leadership (1945-1982)

The United States Air Force was built by bomber pilots and is now dominated by fighter pilots. This study describes how this change came about. It analyzes rival groups as they struggle for power within institutions and cope with change. The methodology and message should not only enhance better understanding of today's Air Force but also have implications for understanding leadership and change in other institutions.;The author addressed internal institutional dynamics and external influences on the selection of senior Air Force leaders. Assuming careers, attitudes, and actions of generals illuminate institutional perspectives and policies, he constructed a spreadsheet tracing the career paths and experiences of all four-star generals in Air Force history. It revealed a leadership shift between 1965 and 1982, and uncovered trends in the grooming, promoting, and assigning of leaders.;To understand attitude formation of generals, the author canvassed literature on military sociology and ideology, conducted interviews, and reviewed oral histories. Differences in World War II and Korean War formative experiences of the future Vietnam era generals led to different perspectives as senior leaders. More bomber generals retained an absolutist's confidence in the efficacy of airpower, while the more broadly-experienced and educated fighter generals were, on the whole, more pragmatic. Each group cultivated a different ethos and confidence in its air arm, but after World War II, slim budgets, doctrinal traditions, and national security policy favored the bomber group. Bomber generals monopolized leadership positions through the 1960s, but their insistence on clear military superiority and total victory proved increasingly irrelevant in the new era.;Meanwhile, the fighter community gained political exposure and combat experience in Vietnam. Members were more comfortable in allied and joint operations and the complexities of limited war, and more willing beneficiaries, as well, of diverse and affordable technologies.;The victors of the struggle for power were those generals better able to grasp new demands on the military induced by rapid technological, economic, and political change. Pragmatic generals (mostly fighter) had a greater flexibility of mind stemming from broader education and experience. They prevailed ultimately because of favorable defense policy, beneficial technologies, a more dynamic ethos, and the relative decline of absolutism.