Supporting the People
Both CENTCOM and CENTAF were without assigned chaplains at the beginning the Gulf crisis and the responsibility for organizing the deployment fell on the Tactical Air Command. Religious and cultural restrictions varied in the theater depending on which Southwest Asia country personnel were assigned. The term “church services” and “chaplain” had to be substituted with “morale services” and “morale officer” resulting in dissatisfaction among both the chaplains and other military personnel. However, the CENTCOM chaplain was able to get this restriction removed in January 1991.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) activities varied depending on which country personnel were stationed, but the overall program was very good. The Air Force was designated the lead Service for MWR activities in the theater because of its substantial capabilities. Due to public support of the war effort, the theater was overwhelmed with private donations and the Air Force managed the distribution of these items to the other Services. However, recreational activities at home bases suffered a loss of revenues of between $1.5 and $2.5 million in the first quarter of FY91 and DOD had to request relief from those losses through the House Armed Services Committee MWR panel.
Disbursing agents did not have the experience nor the training needed to support operations in Southwest Asia. They were trained as disbursing agents and did not have the full range of financial accounting knowledge needed. Complicating the problem was the fact that guidance and direction was received from nineteen separate finance offices in seven different commands, thus complicating operations at the disbursement agent level.
The Air Force, as the single Service manager for postal operations for CENTCOM experienced difficulties in managing postal operations in the theater. This was primarily due to the Army's inability to handle the large volumes of incoming mail and reluctance to follow procedures established by the Air Force. Furthermore, insufficient in-country transportation assets bogged down the mail, as well as mail volumes stretching the limits of even the United States Postal Service. The many complaints from both Service members and their families resulted in numerous Congressional hearings on mail issues. At the outset of hostilities, the Federal Aviation Agency established further mail security procedures, thereby creating additional mail handling precautions and backlogs. However, these precautions proved to be necessary when C-4 explosives were found in a parcel mailed from Saudi Arabia.
Medical
Besides making many adjustments during the deployment, the Air Force Medical Service engaged in an extensive postwar analysis of its readiness posture. On direction from the Surgeon General, the major medical staffs of the Air Force Medical Service surveyed the after‑action reports of all Medical Service units to learn what the experience meant for medical readiness. Within a year of the Gulf War ceasefire, the Surgeon General concluded that none of areas identified for improvement were significant enough to tarnish the success of the Desert Shield/Desert Storm medical deployment.
The aeromedical evacuation system, moreover, which served as a safety valve for all the EUCOM and CENTCOM component medical systems, had only mixed success in preparing for a major ground war. On the positive side, the Air Force was able to compensate in part for some problems in Army forward evacuation, and the Air Force created its own effective intratheater evacuation system. But the limited capacity and incompatibilities of the joint patient regulating systems meant that probably not all seriously wounded and injured patients in a mass casualty ground war would have been transported speedily to the most appropriate medical facilities. Command and control of airevac missions demanded greater centralization than allowed by prewar doctrine, and the Air Force could take only minor remedial action before the ground war. Furthermore, casualty rates at the highest levels estimated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have demanded a major reinforcement of dedicated airevac planes and equipment from CONUS, at time when the dedicated airevac fleet of CRAF III was still not operationally ready.
Despite several areas for improvement, the Total Force policy for Air Force Medical Service worked well. Reserves provided almost half of the medical manpower committed to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Their skills, flexibility, and hard work were essential to mission accomplishment. The Gulf War, however, emphasized the need for a continuing and substantial investment in contingency training for reserve and active duty medics.
29
Joyous Americans welcome home troops from
the Persian Gulf War.
Appendix A
Deployment of
Engineering and Services Forces
|
|
Base
|
1 Sep
|
1 Dec
|
19 Jan
|
23 Feb
|
Al Ayn
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
417
0
10
0
|
1300
99
33
43
|
1600
99
33
49
|
1650
99
34
49
|
Al Dhafra
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
1977
153
24
79
|
2100
130
35
71
|
2850
135
40
73
|
3150
135
42
73
|
Al Jawf
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
|
|
|
650
12
12
15
|
Al Kharj
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
|
150
107
36
2
|
4400
155
60
97
|
4900
155
59
99
|
Al Minhad
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
|
1650
99
28
32
|
2500
130
35
50
|
2650
130
35
50
|
Bateen
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
765
100
14
25
|
1050
91
14
32
|
1100
109
14
29
|
1200
109
18
29
|
Cairo
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
|
400
52
48
37
|
850
57
48
36
|
900
57
48
36
|
Dhahran
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
2354
50
12
72
|
3150
108
35
73
|
3500
108
44
73
|
3750
108
44
73
|
Diego Garcia
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
1107
51
10
45
|
1450
47
35
44
|
1450
47
35
44
|
1865
47
35
44
|
Doha
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
62
0
6
0
|
850
47
12
36
|
950
47
12
36
|
1000
47
16
36
|
Jeddah
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
1230
52
24
9
|
1650
38
36
9
|
3200
66
49
41
|
4100
66
49
41
|
Khamis Mushait
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
842
95
30
41
|
850
56
24
16
|
1300
55
24
18
|
1450
55
24
18
|
King Fahd
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
1846
150
46
43
|
3400
245
58
83
|
5200
267
72
132
|
7000
267
90
132
|
King Khalid
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
720
0
0
0
|
1300
13
0
10
|
1550
34
1
15
|
1750
34
1
29
|
KKMC
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
|
100
0
0
0
|
1000
61
25
47
|
1800
102
44
50
|
Masirah
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
606
50
0
25
|
750
17
22
24
|
950
52
23
31
|
1000
52
24
31
|
Riyadh
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
2840
76
14
48
|
5000
114
37
60
|
5550
141
49
78
|
7900
141
46
91
|
Seeb
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
517
50
24
18
|
600
51
23
59
|
800
51
24
59
|
1300
51
36
59
|
Shaikh Isa
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
1200
100
24
27
|
1550
96
24
27
|
2400
118
24
45
|
2700
118
24
45
|
Sharjah
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
203
0
0
9
|
650
12
12
37
|
750
32
16
37
|
800
34
16
37
|
Tabuk
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
70
35
0
0
|
800
30
24
5
|
850
31
22
5
|
1000
31
24
5
|
Taif
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
1192
100
48
36
|
1800
102
28
61
|
2600
105
48
101
|
2850
105
40
99
|
Thumrait
Base Population
Engineers
Fire Fighters
Services
|
2040
200
26
59
|
1850
192
35
111
|
1300
195
35
57
|
1350
195
24
57
|
Appendix B
Gulf War Air Base Characteristics
Base
|
Location
|
Primary
Use
|
Runways (Feet)
|
Taxiways
|
Ramp Space
(Sq
Feet)
|
Host Nation Crash/Rescue Fire Protection
|
Lighting
|
Facilities
|
Al Ayn, United Arab Emirates
|
15 miles E of Dubai
|
Civilian--Under Construction
|
13,124 x 148
|
Parallel (1)
Link (13)
|
1,574,448
|
No
|
None
|
Tower
|
Al Dhafra, United Arab Emirates
|
75 miles SW of Dubai
|
Abu Dhabi Air Force
|
12, 057 x 150
|
Parallel (1) (taxiway to main runway),
Link (11) (short taxiway that links two runways or taxiway,
Dispersal (34) (leads to shelter or site away from major runway)
Loop (20)
|
2,214,029
|
Yes
|
Runway,
Taxiway,
Approach,
Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI)
|
Hangar (25)
Maintenance, Fuel Storage, Warehouse, Dining, Billeting, Administrative
|
Gulf War Air Base Characteristics (Continued)
|
Base
|
Location
|
Primary
Use
|
Runways
(Feet)
|
Taxiways
|
Ramp
Space
(Sq
Feet)
|
Host Nation
Crash/Rescue
Fire
Protection
|
Lighting
|
Facilities
|
Al Jawf, Saudi Arabia
|
10 miles E of Al Jawf
|
Joint Use--RSAF/Saudi Airlines
|
12,000 x 148
|
Parallel (1)
Link (3)
Dispersal (4)
|
265,200
|
Yes
|
Runway,
Approach, Threshold, VASI
|
Hangars (3), Maintenance, Dining, Billeting, Administrative
|
Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia
|
52 miles SE of Riyadh
|
Military--Under Construction
|
12,000 x 148
|
Parallel (1)
Link (5)
|
5,000,000
|
No
|
Taxiway
|
None (Some facilities available at nearby King Faisal Air Academy)
|
Al Minhad, United Arab Emirates
|
14 miles S of Dubai
|
UAE Air Force
|
9,843 x 148
|
Parallel (1)
Link (17)
|
494,788
|
Yes
|
Runway, Taxiway, Threshold, Approach, VASI
|
Hangars (4), Maintenance, Ordnance Storage, Fuel Storage, Warehouse, Dining, Administrative
|
Share with your friends: |