ABSTRACT
The DoD Dictionary offers two definitions for the term maneuver. The most general and widely known is the “employment of forces in the operational area through movement in combination with fires to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission.” However, another DoDapproved definition explains that maneuver is “a movement to place ships, aircraft, or land forces in a position of advantage over the enemy” (DoD Dictionary). Of note, there is no mention of taking or holding ground in either definition, although these requirements are often levied on the concept of maneuver when the term is associated with surface forces. Curry alluded to this traditional perspective when he explained his view of maneuver as “an element that will gain positional advantage on the enemy … Some people say you can’t gain leverage without a ground force to leverage off of. You can’t take a crowbar and hold it in thin air and try to do something” (Curry 2006). Nonetheless, the joint definition directly specifies that aircraft can serve as a maneuver force and sets no requirements that an air-maneuver force (AMF) would be unable to achieve. In fact, the concept of air maneuver has begun to emerge in both Army and Air Force doctrine (See The United States Army Concept for Tactical Maneuver for the Future Modular Force: 2015-2024 2006, 21; The United States Army Operating Concept for Operational Maneuver: 2015-2024 2006, 25). Less prevalent, however, are novel ideas for how an AMF might be integrated with ground forces and how the new BCT construct mandates transformational ideas that enable interdependent air and ground forces to succeed in tomorrow’s complex, non-linear battlespace.
