thedrifter
06-13-09, 07:43 AM
Airstrike 101: 5 Questions to Ask About The Civilian Bombing
This week the Pentagon announced it will release a summary of the Pentagon’s investigation into a U.S. airstrike that killed at least 20 civilians in the Afghan town of Farah on May 4. The strike occurred after hours of fighting between the Taliban and Afghan military, who asked U.S. Marines for backup. The Marines called for close air support from a B-1 bomber after tracking the shooters to a building. The B-1 crew destroyed the building with a 2000-pound bomb—and killed scores of civilians inside, as well. Here are some questions to keep in mind as the report makes headlines.
By Joe Pappalardo
Published on: June 12, 2009
(1) How are planned and unplanned airstrikes different?
Not all airstrikes are equal when it comes to civilian casualties. A Human Rights Watch investigation showed that warplanes rarely kill civilians during planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. In a planned mission, commanders use detailed satellite images and intelligence to help determine the size of bomb to drop in order to limit unwanted damage. They also employ modeling software that uses many factors, including building materials and the size of the warhead, to tailor an airstrike. “When you have troops in contact, when bullets are flying, not surprisingly those are the incidents when people get killed," says Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst for HRW. The Farah airstrike fits this trend. Whatever airplane is overhead, with whatever ordnance is on board, will be used.
(2) How many civilians were killed in the Farah strike?
The military estimates Taliban deaths at 60 to 65, along with 20 to 30 civilians. This week Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that the civilian dead were “greatly outnumbered by the Taliban killed." The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan has said the number of civilian deaths may never be known.
(3) Was the right kind of airplane flying overhead?
F-18 Hornets were the first aircraft to provide cover for the Marines but they had to leave as fuel dwindled. They were replaced by the B-1 bomber. Critics and wonks could say the B-1 was never designed to provide close air support to ground forces—and they’re right. However, the advent of GPS-guided conversion kits for large, dumb bombs transformed this Cold War craft into a close-air-support platform.
True, the wider array of weapons on an F-18 provides pilots some extra flexibility when they attack. (For a chart of an F-18 Superhornet’s variety of weapon options, go here.) One major question posed is whether a smaller bomb would have spared the civilians, or if any strike would have killed them because the Taliban were using them as shields.
Aiming from high altitudes is not a problem. To help the B-1 adapt to combat conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the B-1 received targeting pods with long-range, high-resolution, forward-looking infrared and laser targeting beams. But the issue here is not the targeting—the B-1 crew hit what they aimed at in Farah. The question the report may answer is, should they have dropped a 2000-pound bomb on the target?
(4) Did pilot errors cause civilian casualties?
Morrell this week said the B-1 crew released the weapon without proper visual and ground confirmation of the target because the B-1 “had to break away from the target at least for a period." This may have broke the rules of engagement. However, Morrell also says that there was “no indication" that the B-1’s lack of positive ID “resulted in civilian casualties."
Pilots have the final say on whether or not they release a weapon, even though a Joint Tactical Air Controller on the ground directs them to a target. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and recently relieved U.S. ground commander Gen. David McKiernan put stricter airstrike procedures in place after a similar incident last fall. This included a new rule: no warplane can fire without direction from a joint tactical air controller (JTAC) on the scene. Since the beginning of the year, civilian casualties in Afghanistan are down 40 percent, Morrell says.
(5) What fallout will this report cause?
HRW’s Garlasco notes that this report “is the fifth review of Afghanistan airstrikes since Obama was elected ... I think this one will be more serious and in-depth, based on the strong things [recently appointed Afghan commander Gen. Stanley] McCrystal is saying." When fighting insurgents it is often considered wise in the long term to let enemies survive, if killing them means damaging civilians or their property. “If you buy into the counterinsurgency strategy, then the civilian population becomes the center of gravity, not the enemy," Garlasco says. U.S. and Afghan government officials frequently cite airstrike casualties as a source of discontent toward the coalition. One source of frustration is the high expectation of a modern army’s ability to tell friend from foe. No bomb, bullet or missile can guarantee it will kill only its intended target.
Ellie
This week the Pentagon announced it will release a summary of the Pentagon’s investigation into a U.S. airstrike that killed at least 20 civilians in the Afghan town of Farah on May 4. The strike occurred after hours of fighting between the Taliban and Afghan military, who asked U.S. Marines for backup. The Marines called for close air support from a B-1 bomber after tracking the shooters to a building. The B-1 crew destroyed the building with a 2000-pound bomb—and killed scores of civilians inside, as well. Here are some questions to keep in mind as the report makes headlines.
By Joe Pappalardo
Published on: June 12, 2009
(1) How are planned and unplanned airstrikes different?
Not all airstrikes are equal when it comes to civilian casualties. A Human Rights Watch investigation showed that warplanes rarely kill civilians during planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. In a planned mission, commanders use detailed satellite images and intelligence to help determine the size of bomb to drop in order to limit unwanted damage. They also employ modeling software that uses many factors, including building materials and the size of the warhead, to tailor an airstrike. “When you have troops in contact, when bullets are flying, not surprisingly those are the incidents when people get killed," says Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst for HRW. The Farah airstrike fits this trend. Whatever airplane is overhead, with whatever ordnance is on board, will be used.
(2) How many civilians were killed in the Farah strike?
The military estimates Taliban deaths at 60 to 65, along with 20 to 30 civilians. This week Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that the civilian dead were “greatly outnumbered by the Taliban killed." The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan has said the number of civilian deaths may never be known.
(3) Was the right kind of airplane flying overhead?
F-18 Hornets were the first aircraft to provide cover for the Marines but they had to leave as fuel dwindled. They were replaced by the B-1 bomber. Critics and wonks could say the B-1 was never designed to provide close air support to ground forces—and they’re right. However, the advent of GPS-guided conversion kits for large, dumb bombs transformed this Cold War craft into a close-air-support platform.
True, the wider array of weapons on an F-18 provides pilots some extra flexibility when they attack. (For a chart of an F-18 Superhornet’s variety of weapon options, go here.) One major question posed is whether a smaller bomb would have spared the civilians, or if any strike would have killed them because the Taliban were using them as shields.
Aiming from high altitudes is not a problem. To help the B-1 adapt to combat conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the B-1 received targeting pods with long-range, high-resolution, forward-looking infrared and laser targeting beams. But the issue here is not the targeting—the B-1 crew hit what they aimed at in Farah. The question the report may answer is, should they have dropped a 2000-pound bomb on the target?
(4) Did pilot errors cause civilian casualties?
Morrell this week said the B-1 crew released the weapon without proper visual and ground confirmation of the target because the B-1 “had to break away from the target at least for a period." This may have broke the rules of engagement. However, Morrell also says that there was “no indication" that the B-1’s lack of positive ID “resulted in civilian casualties."
Pilots have the final say on whether or not they release a weapon, even though a Joint Tactical Air Controller on the ground directs them to a target. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and recently relieved U.S. ground commander Gen. David McKiernan put stricter airstrike procedures in place after a similar incident last fall. This included a new rule: no warplane can fire without direction from a joint tactical air controller (JTAC) on the scene. Since the beginning of the year, civilian casualties in Afghanistan are down 40 percent, Morrell says.
(5) What fallout will this report cause?
HRW’s Garlasco notes that this report “is the fifth review of Afghanistan airstrikes since Obama was elected ... I think this one will be more serious and in-depth, based on the strong things [recently appointed Afghan commander Gen. Stanley] McCrystal is saying." When fighting insurgents it is often considered wise in the long term to let enemies survive, if killing them means damaging civilians or their property. “If you buy into the counterinsurgency strategy, then the civilian population becomes the center of gravity, not the enemy," Garlasco says. U.S. and Afghan government officials frequently cite airstrike casualties as a source of discontent toward the coalition. One source of frustration is the high expectation of a modern army’s ability to tell friend from foe. No bomb, bullet or missile can guarantee it will kill only its intended target.
Ellie