“The best way for the United States to demonstrate deterrence is to convince potential adversaries beyond any doubt that the U.S. has both the overwhelming capacity and the ironclad will to destroy them if they even think about attacking,” retired Gen. John Michael Loh said.
Before he retired as a four-star general, Loh’s assignments included being the vice chief of staff of the Air Force, and he also served as the first commander of Air Combat Command with headquarters at Langley Air Force Base. His command included more than 3,400 aircraft and 174,000 active military and civilian personnel.
Loch was a combat pilot with more than 4,300 flying hours. He flew 204 combat missions in Vietnam.
There is hardly a more competent military expert to evaluate the current posture of the United States vis-à-vis its adversaries.
“We enforce deterrence against major powers with our nuclear weapons and the triad of delivery systems, ground, sea-launched nuclear ballistic missiles and intercontinental bombers,” he said. “We seek to deter warfare against our friends and allies either by treaty agreements in the case of NATO, and with bilateral agreements with other allies such as Japan and South Korea. But deterrence fails when we threaten with ultimatums such as ‘red lines’ in Syria and Ukraine but fail to follow through when the ‘red lines’ are ignored.”
Loh noted that in the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, deterrence worked in reverse.
“Because our commander-in-chief fears further escalation by Putin beyond Ukraine with the use of nuclear weapons, Putin is deterring us,” Loh said. “Our administration has already played its hand by signaling Putin that we will not enforce deterrence in the traditional sense. His represents a breakdown in U.S. deterrent policy.”
To illustrate the effectiveness of deterrence, Loh cited the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
“The strategy of the Israel armed forces, like the U.S., is to fight in joint operations combining air, land and naval forces in integrated warfare,” he said. “To be effective, all reactions to an attack should lead with airpower. The Gulf War we fought against Iraq in 1991 is a classic example. Airpower, applied properly, can destroy both key facilities on which the enemy depends such as military infrastructure, operations centers, underground tunnels, air defenses, communications, munitions storage, etc.”
Loh pointed out that air attacks can also annihilate ground forces assembled to attack. This strategy allows the army to take the offensive with confidence and a far better chance of success.
“The Israeli air force has played this role effectively. The attacks from the air in both northern and southern Gaza allowed the Israeli Army to achieve success in destroying Hamas forces and invade tunnel networks throughout Gaza with few losses.”
Talking about the value of demonstrating deterrence, Loh said: “While the Israelis failed to deter the initial Hamas attack on Oct. 7, the Israeli response was immediately overwhelming and prevented Hamas from continuing its offense in western Israel. Also, Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, has not attacked from the north, other than a few skirmishes, an indication that deterrence is working to prevent the expansion of the war.”
Reflecting on the current situation in Ukraine, Loh said he believes the U.S. administration is advising President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to adopt a less offensive posture and for the rest of the year concentrate on “active defense” to maintain the status quo. This would allow time for the Ukraine Air Force to field several squadrons of F-16s sufficient to mount serious offensive operations.
“In my opinion,” Loh said, “equipping Ukraine with significant number of F-16s, combined with focused air-land strategy to take back the Crimea, would be the game-changer.”
Frank Shatz is a Williamsburg resident. He is the author of “Reports from a Distant Place,” the compilation of his selected columns. The book is available at the Bruton Parish Shop and Amazon.com.