In a recent op-ed in The Bulletin Charles Pena suggests that the American military’s use of airpower is not helping us win the war. Here’s the piece:
Operation Iraqi Freedom has rung in the new year with a bang — literally. On Jan. 10, U.S. warplanes dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, one of the largest air strikes of the Iraq war. This attack reflects the increased use of air power as a component of Gen. David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy (Gen. Petraeus is the commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq and the primary author of FM 3–24, the Army’s counterinsurgency manual). In 2007, the U.S. conducted more than 1,100 air strikes, a more than fivefold increase over the previous year.
The U.S. military’s fascination with bombing is rooted in our competitive advantage in advanced technology.
The 1991 Gulf War saw the first widespread use of precision-guided munitions to destroy high-value targets (often deeply buried and hardened). Now ubiquitous in everyone’s cars, the global positioning system was mated to dumb bombs to make them “smart” in Afghanistan, resulting in the venerable B-52 bomber (which has been in service in the U.S. Air Force since 1955) flying close air support missions at tens of thousands of feet altitude (usually directed by soldiers on the ground or the pre-set target coordinates). In Iraq, as guidance technology makes bombs more accurate, they are getting smaller — instead of 1,000-pound or 2,000-pound bombs, 500-pound (or even smaller) bombs can be used to destroy targets with less likelihood of collateral damage. According to Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Mueller, director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Iraq, the benefit of being able to use smaller bombs is that they can “take one building and not the whole block.”
But the FM 3–24 counterinsurgency manual recognizes that “bombing, even with the most precise weapons, can cause unintended civilian casualties.” Consequently, “an air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory.” In other words, bombing is a proverbial Catch-22. Insurgents or terrorists may be killed, but no matter how much care is taken to avoid non-combatant casualties, innocent civilians may also be killed.
According to Wing Commander Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, “Even a 400-pound bomb has a wide area of blast and you are quite likely to kill some civilians. Kill a wife, children, mother or uncle and people become so angry the terrorist cycle starts all over again.”
Such phenomenon was evident in Iraq very early on. In November 2003, after U.S. F-16 fighter jets dropped several 500-pound bombs in Fallujah, one resident remarked, “We used to have hopes of the Americans after they removed Saddam. We had liked them until this weekend. Why did they drop bombs near us and hurt and terrify my children like this?”
Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Yet this may be the case of increasing the use of air power in Iraq.
Even if civilians are not killed (the military claims that 35 al-Qaida militants were killed in the attack that dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs and that there were no civilian casualties), bombing results in destruction and devastation (the attack destroyed 25 homes and 13 vehicles). And the reality is that a bombed-out house is a bombed-out house — while the returning occupants may be happy to have al-Qaida out of the neighborhood, they may not be too happy about their house. The wake of such wreckage runs contrary to FM 3–24 and another important tenant of counterinsurgency: “Successful counterinsurgents support or develop local institutions with legitimacy and the ability to provide basic services, economic opportunity, public order, and security.” So while bombing may be one solution to achieving security, it may also create setbacks to providing basic services and economic opportunity — and ultimately counterproductive to counterinsurgency.
Does airpower fly in the face of proper COIN doctrine, and is it actually causing setbacks as we work to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan?
(Gouge: WW)
– Ward
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
Hmmm, a rather difficult choice. Do you use airpower and risk creating more terrorists, or do you risk using less safe measures like house-clearings and not create more terrorists. I would pick the latter, given it helps save US lives.
Very difficult choice.
But given that the Iraq Culture respects the warrior, and will vow revenge on the death of innocent women and children, I think our guys are better of kicking down doors.
In the end there will be less deaths (US and Iraqi) if this route is taken….
@ Dennis & Pantera: Tell that to the guys doing the door kicking.
The US military does not drop 500/1000/2000 lb. bombs on houses and buildings because they want to clear it. Air support is called in when they can’t safely clear the structure.
The better solution is to teach the Iraqis that fighting the insurgents themselves does two things:
1. Sends a clear message that they (insurgents) are not welcome and don’t represent the Iraqi people.
2. Saves their own lives from the threat of an air strike.
If the US military were into city leveling, we wouldn’t have to worry about creating insurgents, but we’re not that kind of people.
Chris, that assumes that we can “teach” the Iraqi public what we believe to be a better solution. as i see it, the biggest mistake the west ever made when beginning operations and occupation in the middle east was not taking into very heavy consideration the cultural differences. Above all, Iraqis respect POWER.
I think we as western society need to understand that democracy is never going to happen there as we would envision it, and our version of freedom isn’t a priority.
Shock and Awe Capaign didn’t really have the overall desired effect did it? Respect for power has more to do with who controls he day to day activity. Who is going to be there for the long haul telling them what to do. Raiding in dropping bombs and getting out is scary but running the place with an Iron Fist /Ala Saddam is I think what they mean by respect of power.
I suppose it would lead to more stability. Instead of having moments of intense force having a large police force would level it out.
Would they think differently of us taking out buildings if we did it from the ground?
How reassured are they of our capabilities and operations to rebuild their homes?
@ C: I can’t disagree with you there. Some societies aren’t ready for democracy (i.e. Iraq, Pakistan). IMO.
I’m not sure how one does not respect air-power. You’ll never know it’s coming and when it hits, you just pray it kills you immediately.
If world history has taught us one thing, it’s that tribalism is never as powerful as nationalism.
I find this to be a specious argument. Our troops do NOT use air power casually and in most cases uses the smallest ordinance required to do the job. This might have been a valid argument 2-3 years ago, not now. That being said, shit happens in war and this is not a neighborhood watch picnic. My respect goes to these young troops who deal with each situation so well.
Those of you who don’t wish to use ALL tools available, I now volunteer you as the “door kicker”. Better yet you can volunteer to be the combat engineer that would have to clear the IED’s for those “door kickers”.
All this goes back to Rumsfeld and his smaller lighter forces doctrine.
We didnt have enough troops so air power fills in the gaps. and we still don’t have enough troops. air power leads to more civi casualties which in turn creates more insurgents.
the circle of life is complete.
Hey look, that wedding we just bombed killing dozens- its been reclasified as a ‘terrorist gathering’. well add those bodies to the body count, cuz it’s all good!
Why are we always shooting with the biggest guns the US has?
I always thought of a drone with some sort of sniper rifle/gun system under its belly. Floating over the city, and standing by to shoot whenever the need arises. Maybe it’s still a bit too futuristic for today, but this might be just what we need. Reduced loss of soldiers, terrorists can’t run away after beeing found, close air support always ready and with reduced collateral damage and a system that is hard to shoot down, because its small and flies high in the air.
I’m not thinking of a predator style drone, ’cause its got to be able to hover around. Maybe just for a few seconds before it speeds up again.
By that you would always have CAS but without the explosive disadvantage.
Just my 2cents.
“Does Airpower Create Insurgents?”
No.
I read the original article Jan 28, and while I agree with the theory, the tone of pacifist humanitarian, anti-military is everywhere, and the comments from so called Americans on the original piece are hate filled and disgusting, and of course ignorant.
Even if an article has some truth, I always question the writers intent. One is either for the Iraq war or against it. You see what you want to. For the record, I was and am in favor of a successful Iraqi outcome, even if it takes 20 years. But I am searching for 5GW strategy to dominant and defeat 4GW (which the US sucks at) terrorists/insurgents. But I digress.
It is a complex situation to say the least. Air power is used because we are damn good at it, and to make up for the lack of ground troops. Need to separate the tactics for AQI and the tactics for Insurgents, though.
I guarantee US air power is used too much in Iraq, and it kills civilians and bad guys most of the time, and it is counterproductive. I don’t blame the troops because it is the rationale choice. However, the whole idea COIN is to isolate the hardcore insurgents from the population as a whole. This is done by building trust with locals, by living amongst them and protecting them and providing with them basic needs. That may be a pipe dream, and that is another debate. There are many on this board whom think with enough destruction of Iraq, the Iraqi Insurgents will capitulate. That will not happen.
Statistics indicate that the vast majority of causalities from both sides are caused by stand off weapons, US air power or IEDs/VBIEDs/HBIEDs. Both sides are using their advantage to great effect and minimizing the risks to each side’s forces. However the goals are different.
It is a catch 22 because keeping US casualties low will dampen the rhetoric to bring the US troops home now, which would be a disaster. And the insurgents and terrorists know that. But using air power, regardless of care, is detrimental to the Iraqis, and then there is no point in being in Iraq.
I’d prefer the US only use Apaches, AC130, Predators, and not fighter/bombers. Perhaps that could be an acceptable trade off. However the best strategy for Iraq would be 500,000 US MP/CA/IRT troops, but that is impossible.
Let’s also make a distinction here…there’s a HUGE difference between “airpower” and rotary wing CAS just as there is a HUGE difference between a 500 lb bomb and a hellfire. How many videos have we seen of insurgents hanging out and getting lit up by a gun or hellfire? lots less collateral damage with those weapons. Food for thought…
Does airpower create insurgents? What an idiotic question. How about this instead: does shooting at the enemy make them shoot back? Of course it does. Did anybody bother asking the question, in 1942, whether bombing the Germans in turn caused more young Germans to join the German military? Of course not, because they recognized then the absurdity of the logic of such a question. When you reach the point of war, you are far past the point where you are consider how the enemy will perceive your actions.
The war in Iraq is just by any objective measure. It is one theater of battle in a war that we entered on 9/11/2001. We had ample reason to go over there when we did, and ample reasons to stay show up daily. We are justified to do whatever we feel is necessary to end the threat there. People who would join a terrorist organization in response to our justified war are already our enemies.
We are not fighting some small isolated terrorist organization. We are fighting an evil ideology that operates with the support of most middle eastern governments and enjoys popular support at all levels of Islamic society. Many “innocent civilians” would sooner see us disappear than Al Qaeda, and that makes them, at least for now, the enemy. The fact is that anti-American sentiment is so strongly entrenched in many places that our actual actions and intentions are of little or no consequence. The good we do is simply ignored and every action is seen through the distorted prism of radical Islam as further justification for violence.
Ultimately the bottom line is that we are not creating the problems in the middle east, militant Islam is. Yes we make people mad at us when we wage war, but the alternative is to let the plague that is Jihadism spread on it’s own to a point where we are utterly powerless to stop it. And make no mistake, it is spreading.
The short answer to whether the use of air power creates terrorists is both yes and no.
Yes -because for some people seeing their home or family hurt will be the impetus that leads to them taking action. Usually these people might already have an opinion unfavorable to whatever country is bombing them.
No -for others they will see this as an unfortunate accident or as a sign to get out of dodge.
However, the whole point of COIN ops is to engage the population. Launching massive air-strikes to kill 35 suspected al Qaeda members at the loss of 25 homes and wounded civilians really hurts that mission.
Petreaus appears to have thrown his much vaunted COIN manual out of the window.
In any case, we just landed a big one again. Iskandariya, Iraq was just the site of nine civilian casualties.
But we investigate.
And we improve.
Yet no matter what we do – whether it be massive deployment or precision strikes – there will be pros and cons.
I personally would be the doorman into a building rush if I was there. As a soldier it would be my job to save lives and eliminate the enemy in the best way possible. Sometimes, I suppose, that can only be accomplished through air-strikes. But our men over there know their job and are committed to its completion.
We just need to decide what’s best to do…
In conclusion: It still boils down to whether or not saving civilians directly affects insurgent recruitment. Where else do the “Child Soldiers” come from? There must be some amount of correlation. I think if we had more troops and less bombs – it MIGHT be better IMO. But where do the men come from?
>> Did anybody bother asking the question, in 1942, whether bombing the Germans in turn caused more young Germans to join the German military?
Come on, WWII and Iraq are completely different. Total war vs. Counter-insurgency. Also in WWII Germany was a brutal aggressive nation. America had the moral sanction to bomb cities. In Iraq, America is technically the aggressor and has to tread lightly or see her international reputation destroyed. In any case, at least with precision weapons there’s no need to WWII style carpet bombing.
“At no point during the thirty-odd years of struggles did the British army in Northern Ireland resort to the use of heavy weapons.”
Yeah, worked gangbusters in Southern Iraq, too, if you ignore the catastrophic damage NOT killing the bad people has done to the British Area of Operations.
Btw, Iraq isn’t Ireland. The IRA didn’t have SAMs, didn’t do half the stuff that gets done in Iraq on a day to day basis. Maybe, just maybe, that’s the reason why the British never JDAMed Glasgow. And funny, hmmmm, it also seems that the British, you know, never had JDAMs with which to bomb. So they would have used dumb iron bombs if anything, and that would have been counterproductive if anything.
“Come on, WWII and Iraq are completely different. Total war vs. Counter-insurgency.”
Uh huh. But it seems the proposition is that “bombing creates terrorism”. In which case, it is quite appropriate to put it to the test.
Now, we have the general principle that “all bombing creates terrorism” which is explicitly refuted by WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, and most, if not all, other wars. Bombing on a large scale or even a moderate scale does not create terrorism.
So we have to look at “bombing creates terrorism” in the special case of insurgencies.
The mechanism they describe is a Kung Fu “you killed my teacher” revenge thing, and a proletarian-on-the-march “you firebombed my grandpa’s house” revenge thing.
If it was a “you killed so and so, so I kill you” mechanism, then stabbing them with a bayonet, shooting them with a rifle, a grenade, or a mortar would trigger vengeance just as easily. So you are making the case against killing terrorists, and that won’t fly on this site, much less than in the field.
So you are left with charbroiled rose gardens as the key recruitment tool for terrorists/insurgents, which has some effect, to be sure, but I would seriously doubt that is the numero uno reason people join terrorists, just as it isn’t the reason people join gangs. Totally different mechanisms.
And besides, killing 20 people with a bomb through your front door, even if 19 other folks picked up rifles, is still a net decrease in the number of terrorists in the world.
“@ C: I can’t disagree with you there. Some societies aren’t ready for democracy (i.e. Iraq, Pakistan). IMO.
I’m not sure how one does not respect air-power. You’ll never know it’s coming and when it hits, you just pray it kills you immediately.
If world history has taught us one thing, it’s that tribalism is never as powerful as nationalism”
if you looked into our own history youd find the romans who no one can doubt built one of the greatest most influencal and gifted cultures to ever have been were at the same time blood thirsty imperial brutal basterds yet most often in the middle and early emire the conquerd tribes and nations where the most fanatical about the pax romana after a few generations
“tribalism is never as powerful as nationalism”
those tribes have existed before modern writing and some of the most influencal ppl in some areas are the tribal sheiks or whatever
not saying your ideas are wrong just my 2cents
@ Vercingetorix -
while I was touched by your attempt to set up a straw man, only to then knock it down -I did notice that you assiduously managed to skirt the point of this entire thread. no one disputes the fact that ideology plays a part in the Israeli-Arab conflict (where on earth did that come from?), or among the foreign and domestic recruits to the Iraq insurgency.
you seem to have confused the insurgents being targeted by airpower with the innocent civilians that often end up as ‘collateral damage’ – lumping their ‘ideologies’ and motivations together into the same basket. It is the ‘unintended civilian casualties’ in the aforementioned article that are the subject of debate. spuriously equating them and their beliefs with Hezbollah does nothing to further the conversation.
- searching for ideological or theological justifications for revenge is needless when ones family has been accidently obliterated by an airstrike – little further justification is needed to avenge such a loss.
- by the same token, painting all who oppose the US in Iraq with the same ideological brush is as blunt an instrument as our beloved airpower – over-reliance on either approach creates needless hostility and violence.
“- searching for ideological or theological justifications for revenge is needless when ones family has been accidently obliterated by an airstrike – little further justification is needed to avenge such a loss.”
Sure. But beside the point.
Ideology recruits millions, like in a Hezbollah rally.
Civilian casualties recruit thousands.
Do the math. Which is the bigger threat?
And civilian casualties happen even on the ground, with rifles in hand. Anyone remember Haditha?
Nobody explicitly denies that casualties have some effect, not even me. But they are a very small part of the overall motivation of terrorist/insurgent recruits. And air power is very far from a net negative.
Vercingetorix, I’ve done the math and you are indeed correct: one million is larger than one thousand. Quite a bit, in fact (1000x). I doubt anyone here will argue against that – it seems people are discussing which actions (bombing vs door-busting) these millions and thousands associated with, if you could provide some actual stats – or at least explain how you came up with these numbers – then you’d be making (or not) a decent point.
JE, since I misplaced the time machine where I can do a Master’s thesis on the origin of terrorism in the time to spike the ball in front of all the rest of the blog commenters, I’ll have to settle with this:
http://www.tkb.org/IncidentClassModule.jsp?start
Date=06%2F18%2F2003&endDate=02%2F05%2F2008&dom
Int=0&suiInt=0&filter=0&detail=0&info=&info1=&
pagemode=class&imageField.x=50&imageField.y=5
That is broken up a bit to keep the page alignment, just paste it into your browser without spaces.
Again, it’s a shotgun approach but it clearly shows that religious (and communist) groups (and ideologies) commit a vastly disproportionate amount of terrorism, if not simply in incidents, then certainly in results. In other words, ideological groups exert as much of a force as (nominally) secular nationalist groups where ideology might be assumed to be minor (usually wrongly; white nationalists have a very developed ideology, for instance).
And that’s kind of the point. Whatever motivates someone to join a group, when you join that group, it no longer matters. They indoctrinate you into that particular creed. The vast majority of recruits to any group are basically sold first.
For instance, al Qaeda has approximately 50,000 members (http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=6).
It is extremely unlikely that even a significant fraction, say 10%, joined because they lost a family member to a US bomb. The proof? Because al Qaeda was a growing force BEFORE we started bombing them.
So again, Again, AGAIN: bombing, even killing civilians does not lead directly to terrorism, so this navel gazing about whether we should bomb or fix bayonets is pointless. If the strikes are effective in killing their targets, they are effective. If they are not – and they are – then we shouldn’t be doing them. Simple as a pimple.
Does airpower create insurgents?
Even the title subtly implies a larger more general accusation: The US has caused the problem by being there. Several of the blogs have implied, yes. It is a tragedy that so many have come to think that way. It is a sign that the terrorist propaganda is working.
Islam was killing and enslaving hundreds of thousands across several continents for 1,200 years before the US existed. Was this the US
oops
that is “Door-kickers?” and bombs cause dead insurgents.”
Air power saves lives. Time to think how many more ground casualties we would have if we didn’t do the CAS that we did. War sucks. Get over it.
Guys, guys — air power’s a urinal deodorant, AND a breath mint!
Which is to say, there’s no dichotomy here.
People see “collateral damage” on Al Jazeera, etc., etc., they might hate America. People get proselytized by ideology, madrasahs, mullahs, etc., they might hate America.
It isn’t that complicated. Draw yourself a Venn diagram.
You’ll figure it out.
Here are some that may disagree with CAS having a negative affect:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48840
I am a pilot in the USAF. The entire doctrine of precision guided weapons is useless and wrong. We should use precision guided weapons against hard to hit military targets and use carpet bombing against the civilian population. The doctrine should take some lessons from history (Romans, Bomber Harris, 8th AF). The goal should be publicly stated to turn their civilization into a footnote in history. We need to completely traumatize the population to take the fight out of them; not send lawyers to help them fill out claim forms. This will be accomplished if we kill the insurgents, their families, cities. The Romans had it right when they destroyed Carthage. They tore down the buildings, put the stones back into the fields and sowed the fields with salt so nothing would ever grow there. They killed every man, woman and child, even the livestock. Carthage served as a reminder of the brutality of the Romans; their enemies learned not to F*** with the Romans. Our nuclear weapons are no longer a deterent because we have stated and proven we are not willing to use them. If we go after the insurgents, their families and the entire cities where they are from there will be no resistance. We should quit trying to convert and placate them, if they dont get with the program, kill them.
In short, we should quit talking publicly about precision weapons ability and start talking about carpet bombing. The French and the Germans will whine, but when the the violence stops they will quit whining. The oil will be perfectly safe underground and they can drive at 180mph on the autobahn cheaply.
The current doctrine will not solve anything. The radical Islamists will still be killing eachother 100 years from now, killing us and ranting and raving about Israel. Your children will still be fighting this stupid conflict with precision weapons. Next will come weapons from space that kill with lasers. We will have to reimburse the family for the burn marks on his clothing.
If you kill all of your enemies you will have peace.
Marty
Of course aerial bombing will create some terrorists. If my house was bombed by an invading army and my family killed, I’d go fight them, too. That’s pretty simple, really.
The question is, does aerial bombing provide a greater benefit than it costs? And that’s something we can’t answer because we don’t have any hard numbers. It will certainly depend upon how accurate our bombs are–are they mostly killing insurgents or mostly killing civilians? How are our actions perceived by the Iraqi people–if Joe Blow Iraqi loses a daughter to a piece of shrapnel, does he blame us for dropping the bomb or does he blame Al Quaeda for being next door? What progress are we making in other areas–do the people feel safe or are they living in fear?
We don’t have answers to any of these questions. Yes, its true that civilian casualties will cause an increase in insurgents. But civilian casualties will happen in every armed conflict. Even when armies in Europe lined up in two rows on an open field and shot muskets at each other, occasionally a musketball would leave the battlefield and hit some farmer’s wife. The only thing we can do is work to minimize those casualties. That means being careful with when and where we bomb, being certain of our targets, etc. Air power is an integral part of modern warfare–going to war without air power is like going to war without rifles. We just need to make sure we use it responsibly.
DM,
I noted that you did not blame the Crusades on the Christians. So there may yet be hope for you.
Calling myself an airplane does not make me one. Anyone can label themselves any way they want, but that does not make the label true. I have given up being astonished by the number of people who call themselves Christian, but when pressed, do not know what it actually means to be a Christian. (No, I will not break into the Hallelujah Chorus and present a Gospel.)
As I previously observed, the Koran commands that muslims kill non-muslims 106 times. No where in the New Testament (NT) will you find a single sentence, clause, or word that commands Christians kill non-Christians. That is your difference.
As for your points:
Quick points: The Nazis were pagan, not Christian. Quick proof? The symbol of the Nazi party was taken from paganism, not Christianity and find a speech where Hitler quotes Jesus: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/
(Other proof is possible, but that’s where you go out to the library, or Borders, and find it yourself)
And seriously, guys, carpet bombing? Give me a break.
Of course airpower creates insurgents. Experience in WWI and II showed conclusively how airstrikes increase the will to fight of the population. If the short-term benefits are large enough, then there may be some justification for airstrikes in populated areas…but so many years down the line, does anyone still believe it’s a good idea?
I’d like to see some proper research on this involving civilians and insurgents. Mt guess is that the extremists are loving it.
Marty: I am a pilot in the USAF.
Cole: I am very concerned that Marty is a pilot in the USAF….unless he is flying C-17s.
As David Galula argued in his canonical CI: Theory and Practice, the completely dominant high technology air power of the counter-insurgent is largely useless in a COIN fight. The most effective use of airpower is with relatively slow moving, survivable aircraft which can accurately strafe or bomb insurgent targets when they mass outside of population centers.
A modern twist on this would be the accurate, long duration CAS provided by missile-armed UAV’s and Spectre Gunships, which have a range of weapons, all less powerful then a 250lb bomb.
The doctrinal answer is that bombing targets inside any population center will be almost universally counter-productive in that it will alienate the population out of all proportion to the military damage it inflicts on insurgent forces.
The problem with letting world opinion define our doctrine is that the other nations of the world will not fight, sacrifice and spill blood on our behalf. We cannot be concerned with the opinion of any nation or group of nations that are not willing to pony up men to fight and die with us. I am not a great fan of Israel, but they dont give a damn what anyone else thinks and they are much stronger for it. The numerical losses you mention in the bombing campaigns are the result of two factors AA fire and fighter acft, neither or which would be a factor in bombing the Middle East. Using your own quote about Harris, the reason I advocate the destruction vs conversion of our enemies is the entire population of the Middle East is not worth the bones of one more American serviceman. If you dont believe me, about taking the fight out of your enemies ask the older generation of Japanese what they thought of Douglas MacArthur. They wept, when he left Japan. As for history painting the US with an unfavorable brush, our tormentors attacked us first. We are merely ending the conflict. We owe to our children and future generations of Americans, a full on effort to bring them peace. The problem is appeasement does not bring peace, our adversaries look upon any agreement as the beginning of the next round of negotiations and bloodletting. C.I.P North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah, they never keep their word and use fractionalization as an excuse to continue killing. Appeasement has never worked and it never will. If MacArthur would have been allowed to conquer North Korea, they would be living under freedom instead of eating bark and grass.
Marty, the Japanese wept because MacArthur was the Japan head honcho responsible for rebuilding under the Marshall Plan. What if instead, he had ruled with an iron fist, bombing any city that gave him problems. Germany is our friend today because we showed similar compassion there. Heck, my wife is half German and I spent 3 years there and thoroughly enjoyed it…because we did not hold grudges, so neither did they.
It isn’t about tailoring doctrine to world opinion, It’s about:
* Doing the right thing
* Winning over as many former foes as possible
* Precluding a propaganda victory for continued resistors, who will exploit collateral damage and blow it out of proportion to gain recruits
Much of the current military success on the ground since the surge began, is due to interraction of Marines and Soldiers with the Iraqi population…creating the Anbar Awakening. Were it not for that…if a heavy-handed approach had been employed instead…we would dying in larger numbers and an Iraqi civil war would have been eminent.
As for bombing aircrew casualties, I was thinking more of future bombing against someplace like China. Certainly can’t imagine nuking them!!! Do you have faith in missile defense against 400 of their nukes? Can’t imagine needing to conduct prolonged bombing of other than military and logistics targets, certainly not risking aircrew or innocent civilian lives by area bombing of cities.
Early losses in Viet Nam Linebacker II were caused by predicatability of massed B-52 attack over the same routes. I don’t know how the USAF operates now, but seemingly smaller night B-2/F-22 escorted sorties would be less susceptible to air defenses (ala Linebacker F-111 success), using standoff jamming aircraft, JSTARS/AWACS cueing, and ingressing/egressing along unpredictable routes, but retaining maximum lethality with 80 500 lb JDAMs!!
The additional reason for precision-munitions is logistical and monetary. You can drop far fewer bombs, which means a B-2 force operating out of Guam or Diego Garcia can turn around much faster, knocking out critical targets more rapidly because we can get the bombs to those temporary basing locations. No more wasted sorties and lives, and no lost expensive aircraft dropping dumb bombs that often miss.
This is a moot and intellectually bankrupt line of discussion.
Of course airpower creates insurgents. You want to know why? Because without airpower, those people fighting wouldn’t be insurgents.
They would be a traditional or a guerrilla army.
Airpower is the most effective against fixed fortifications, and massed troops. It can be used to plink targets of opportunity or to eliminate obstacles for ground forces, but the main concept of airpower is to damage an enemy’s will (and ability) to fight.
If there were no overhead threat, you can bet that there would be more incidents of massed attacks against US bases/patrols.
It is precisely because the enemy is aware of a presence in the sky (we’re not talking Allah here) that they choose to melt into the populace/countryside. The angle that is being taken with this article is a secondary effect: that is that civilian casualties makes it easier for these insurgents to operate amongst the populace.
I’d go further than Takeo.
I’d say that the point is moot because Iraq isn’t about insurgency or counter-insurgency, its about keeping the place at a dull roar just short of civil war while some sort of political solution is hammered out. Thinking the place is a COIN scenario is going a little too far: its MOUT and the US job is to kill the players in the Iraqi power struggle that are outside the lines.
The US is going to be hated in Iraq for our actions there regardless of who wins: we’re running out of puppets to prop up and all that are left are a bunch of factional leaders who can only agree that they don’t like the US and use us only to take care of their enemies.
The US isn’t killing insurgents and aiding a rightful government in a march towards victory against a shadowy opponent, we’re killing the villain-du-jour while the various factions figure out if they can win a civil war or not. “Creating insurgents” really means “creating factionally-aligned irregulars and guerrillas”.
The real question is whether such actions are aiding or hindering the political solution, and I don’t think its doing either. To be honest, I think the US presence is only postponing the inevitable: there needs to be blood in the streets so that the Arab-backed Sunni and Iranian-backed Shiites can decide once in for all who gets to kill the Kurds and take all their stuff.
Save US lives and bombs away. Eventually some OPEC-funded strongman is going to come out on top and the US can finally leave. Until then, the US is a sideshow to the real struggle in Iraq and I see no reason why US soldiers shouldn’t be as safe as possible.
Takeo, yours is typical of the mentality that the USAF is omnipotent at 20,000′, and induces overwhelming fear and paranoia. It couldn’t possibly be that insurgents fear being detected and shot by ground forces who actually know and patrol the ground. No, you believe insurgents only blend in because they fear 500 lb bombs.
When surge combat outposts sprung up in neighborhoods, only then did Iraqis finally begin to trust us. Without nearby ground security, troops in distant firebases were just like airmen patrolling the skies…out of sight/ out of mind…and certainly not going to protect locals from being shot by al-Qaeda or rival religious groups.
Add local ground troops and Iraqi police-in-training and locals began turning in foreign fighters, forcing them to flee urban areas. Urban guerillas no longer able to hide amongst the population due to fear of capture, move outside the cities…and then the USAF can once more drop bombs like you did on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
So prudent ROE policies against most bombing in cities (BTW, this includes most artillery too), prevent collateral damage against innocents, preclude propaganda opportunities, enhance trust in local security forces, and increase reporting of insurgent activity.
History is replete with proof that airpower does nothing to destroy the enemy’s will to fight…and may actually increase resolve. It is equally laughable to assume that airpower is all that prevents guerillas from massing against U.S. firebases or combat outposts…or that Air Force security forces can fend off those hordes on their own. The ground and air component depend on one another for mutual security and support.
“History is replete with proof that airpower does nothing to destroy the enemy’s will to fight…and may actually increase resolve. ”
Bro, that’s true to a point. Air force guys take the air power stuff way, WAY too far…
But air power and artillery can destroy men. WWI, WWII, and of course, the Gulf War I are strong points.
There are limits to what air power can do, but it is silly – there is no other word for it – to say that air power is impotent, even in a COIN scenario. It is and remains quite potent.
Your blithe insouciance in regards to the power of precision weapons and CAS is really quite extraordinary. Wrong, but extraordinary.
Vercingetorex,
“but the main concept of airpower is to damage an enemy’s will (and ability) to fight.”
Of course airpower is essential, but my “replete” comment was reacting to the above….probably would change it to just capability to fight.”
Plus, there is a vast difference between omnipotent and impotent.;) Never heard the word “insouciance” in my life and I’m pretty nonchalant about ever using it again…especially when I gotta cut and paste it to spell it right.
You’re a Marine aviator, I was an Army aviator many moons ago. You don’t really think I doubt the value of airpower do you! Recall that I was in awe when B-1s dropped the 40,000 lbs of bombs a few weeks ago on the outskirts of Baghdad.
But come on, you can’t win an insurgency from the air because you aren’t interacting with the populous…you can only support forces “fighting” it…or screw it up by trying to engage targets you can’t see too well at altitude.
The small diameter bomb certainly enhances air-to-ground in insurgencies and in close proximity to friendlies. I’m a believer and know several Air Force GS guys who work on the program.
Manned-unmanned teaming between Army aircraft and Army UAVs has also been very effective at deterring/preventing IED emplacement. Aerial quick reaction forces are also a great help, and during Operation Arrowhead Ripper, multiple air assaults surprised the insurgents on numerous occasions. There are other ways to use airpower in insurgencies that limit civilian deaths.
Doubt, though, that we will find too many uses for F-22s in insurgencies. ;)
“But come on, you can’t win an insurgency from the air because you aren’t interacting with the populous.”
No, absolutely not. You can’t even win a conventional war from the air, much less an insurgency-type operation. Hell, I’m not even sure you could win a strategic operation from the air.
Still, air power has its definite place in COIN, and I think that’s an understanding that goes both ways. After all, what difference does it make if you destroy a building with a SDB, an M1A2, or a SMAW-NE? And Zarqawi’s full body hematoma is proof positive of the splendidly good things that airpower brings to the battlefield. It is not everything, but it is significant.
“Doubt, though, that we will find too many uses for F-22s in insurgencies. ;) ”
And I agree to that, too. Hell, I’d spring for a few Skyraiders right about now, myself.
Cole,
So if there is no fear of airpower, why do the multitude of “show of force” missions achieve their desired effect? Why does Osama bin laden communicate via passed paper notes and equine-borne floppy disks?
I’m not suggesting the equally bankrupt idea that wars can be won by airpower alone, but many many people have learned the hard way to walk around outside as a wanted man with a predator overhead is a quick way to die.
I also find that I am equal parts surprised and disgusted that you managed to throw in a jab at the F-22 in a discussion that had otherwise nothing to do with that particular topic. Time to get another soap box sir, your current one is losing structural integrity.
Takeo: “So if there is no fear of airpower, why do the multitude of “show of force” missions achieve their desired effect? Why does Osama bin laden communicate via passed paper notes and equine-borne floppy disks?”
————————————-
Reply: Takeo, thanks for your comment. The JTAC doesn’t ask the insurgents if the show of force was a success.;) Agree completely that they can be effective, but also submit it’s a public relations mission to justify the cost of flying when there are no targets. But when aircraft are stacked in some manner as a contingency, a show of force prior to returning to base with bombs on board probably makes sense in some cases.
Osama and company don’t use cell phones because of National capabilities to detect them exclusive of the USAF. The Predators that pull the Hellfire trigger are operated by the CIA.
——————————————
“I’m not suggesting the equally bankrupt idea that wars can be won by airpower alone, but many many people have learned the hard way to walk around outside as a wanted man with a predator overhead is a quick way to die.”
——————————-
Reply: …because CIA Predators will pull the trigger
——————————
“I also find that I am equal parts surprised and disgusted that you managed to throw in a jab at the F-22 in a discussion that had otherwise nothing to do with that particular topic. Time to get another soap box sir, your current one is losing structural integrity.”
——————————-
But that’s part of the whole point. If the U.S. MUST spend too many millions on an aircraft, you hope they prove valuable across the full spectrum of conflicts. The F-35 comes through because it can help with air-to-air, SEAD, and air-to-ground more effectively with its built in optics, ala Sniper XR.
The F-22 program will eventually need to spend still more money to modify its radar for air-to-ground work, and must otherwise be fed GPS coordinates for JDAM since it has no laser bomb capability. In effect, the F-22 is relegated to stationary targets, and an insurgent target is generally not stationary unless he is in a house.
True, the F-16s that killed al-Zarqawi (sp?) had a stationary target, but they were also “heh-you’d” because there were available aircraft flying around to do that. When you spend half as much per aircraft, and have better air-to-ground capability, you have more flexibility to put multiple F-35s in different parts of a large country to respond to time-sensitive targets that you frequently find in insurgencies.
I think that it is a very narrowly focused comment to think airpower causes insurgents. How about occupying a country inherently causes insurgents unless they want you there.
I don’t think a bomb missing it’s target would cause any more insurgents than a convoy of soldiers firing randomly when they come under fire.
DC2
How is bombing a counter-insurgent tactic? It actually clears out objects that probably,shouldn’t be taken out?