The Command Post - Iraq - US Bombing Policy shaped by Aussies

April 23, 2003

US Bombing Policy shaped by Aussies

Australia had a key influence on the United States military strategy in Iraq in persuading it to take greater steps to minimise civilian casualties and damage during its bombing campaign, the Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, said yesterday.
Senator Hill and the chief of Defence Force, General Peter Cosgrove, on a tour of the Middle East, met the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in Qatar yesterday.
General Franks told them the targeting approach of the coalition was more conservative than it might have been largely because of the attitude of the Australian Defence Force, Senator Hill said.
"Our very conservatively drawn rules of engagement in that regard have been a lesson that have been taken up not only in this campaign but as a precedent for the future as well."
...
Australia's conservative approach to targeting has never been precisely defined due to "operational security", but it puts a great premium on the possibility of civilian deaths. The military advantage of an air strike had to significantly outweigh the prospect of "collateral damage".
As such, Australia's squadron of 14 F/A 18 Hornets rarely ventured into built-up areas to make strikes and, on occasion, pulled out of bombing raids at the last minute when it was realised civilians were in the target area.

Also in the same article was a brief explanation by General Cosgrove for Australia's luck in having no casualties:

General Cosgrove told the troops they could take great pride in their achievements, and that their contribution to deposing Saddam Hussein would be hailed for generations.
He also cautioned that Australian troops, who have yet to suffer any casualties or serious injuries, had to remain vigilant to ensure their continued safety.
"This is like a marathon runner running into the stadium," he told reporters.
"You don't turn around and wave to the crowd until you've crossed the finish line. I keep saying to our boys and girls: 'You stay with it. The harder you work, the luckier you get'."

Posted By Alan E Brain at April 23, 2003 11:28 AM | TrackBack

Comment Policy and Decency Standards
: The comments here serve as an open forum in which you are encouraged to debate, discuss and post relevant links. It is Command Post policy that we will not tolerate any racial or ethnic slurs or obvious attempts to bait other guests of this site into a battle. We provide you the space here to discuss the topic at hand and to engage in lively discourse. Please remember that your IP is logged every time you leave a comment and the editors of Command Post reserve the right to terminate you ability to comment here if you do not conform to our commenting policy. Thank you.

This is what you call alliance and teamwork.

Posted by: SondraK at April 23, 2003 12:47 PM

Yes, thankfully our allies we kept the "bomb everything" pentagon crowd at bay during the Balkan campaigns as well. Teamwork works

Posted by: Ginny at April 23, 2003 01:01 PM

Ginny,

Yup. That's us - carpet-bombing, cigar-chompin' cowboys. Thousands of little Curtis LeMay clones.
Bombs away. Die, children, die!

Posted by: yak at April 23, 2003 01:16 PM

Yak,
I don't think the question is US carpet bombing policy. We did use it in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Since then our allies have placed restraint on broader US targeting, as the article notes. Are you saying the Aussies are lying? Or that you didn't read the article and just spout off?

In case you never read a book on US military history (well it is obvious you haven't), Curtis LeMay had a enormous and lasting influence.

Posted by: Steiner at April 23, 2003 01:39 PM

Here's to our Aussie mates!

Posted by: Craig at April 23, 2003 02:02 PM

I love the Aussies. They have always been there with us. Great country and great folk.

I used to think the same about Canada.

Posted by: Patrick Grote at April 23, 2003 02:08 PM

Steiner

Just exactly how ignorant of history are you?

OF COURSE we carpet bombed in WWII, we had no other tools.

How many times have you heard during this war that 90% of the bombs were precision guided???

During WWII we dropped 100 bombs to hit a targett.

In Vientanam we reduced that to about 60.

Gulf War I was had it down to 10 to 1.

GWII they think it will be 1.2 to 1

That is stunning.

You (foolishly) imply that if only the Aussies had been around to control us during WWII we never would have carpet bombed.

That is down right foolish.

EVERYONE claims they were the reason there were limited civilian casualties. What is that quote?? "Victory has many fathers but failure is an orphan."

YES the Aussies are lying. (spinning) To say that we wanted to bomb everyone and they stopped us is Bullshit. Franks did EXACTLY wanted he wanted to do to win. PERIOD.

Next the French will take credit for it.

You need to wise up.

geeze!

Posted by: Paul at April 23, 2003 02:09 PM

Steiner,

1. I was being sarcastic. The "bomb everything crowd at the Pentagon crowd" comment ticked me off.
2. I'm a retired naval flight officer with over 2500 hours and hundreds of carrier landings.
3. I served as a staff officer (planning) in a major NATO headquarters during the final years of the Cold War.
4. I am a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College (a few credits short of a masters degree in international relations).
5. My BA was in history.
6. I've been an aviation/military history aficionado since the early 60s.
7. I've probably bought, read and discarded more military history books than you've ever read.
8. I suspect that the majority of the guidance regarding ROE came from national rather than international sources. I'm not downplaying the impact that coalition forces had on this, however.
9. Note that the article does not specifically state that they were referring to aerial ROE.
10. The article specifically mentioned the RAAF F/A-18s. Do they have the same precision weapons capabilities that our USN/USMC/USAF aircraft do? What were the weapons they were carrying? If you're loaded up with 2000 pound bombs in anticipation of attacking Target A and you get retasked to Target B which is in the middle of a residential area a 2000 pound bomb is probably not the appropriate weapon.
11. The Aussies are great allies, and I treasure my associations with them.
12. I agree, LeMay had an enormous effect on the US Air Force, some of it good, some of it bad.

Posted by: yak at April 23, 2003 03:45 PM

What Paul and yak said. (A similar story: a journalist in Britain wrote a column taking to task antiwar protesters and in the midst of her diatribe stated that the British military was obviously the best in the world... You get my point... We're the shoulders. They are the boots standing on our shoulders...)

Posted by: americanstreet at April 23, 2003 04:26 PM

The Aussies have been great allies, and its a honor to have them beside us. There is one thing though...

To suggest that the American Military is just a great big brainless horde that is content, or actually prefers, to kill indiscriminantly, and that their more cultured counterparts have held them at bay, is unacceptable.

Doing so is an attempt to discrace the professionals that have served us in a manner that has consistantly left me in awe. I will not accept that slander against them, just to satisfy the pride of anyone.

Posted by: CM at April 23, 2003 04:31 PM

While not carrying the credentials of Yak, I do have my experience in the Army and USAF, as well as being a history buff. From my background in CI, I would remind everyone to look as much as what is said as what is not being said, given the knowledge we have of events and the forces in the gulf region.

General Franks, while still trying to run his command, and probably to some extent annoyed at having to do a dog and pony show for the visiting senators, et. al., was simply highlighting contributions where he could. Yes, the Aussies provided a welcome amount of support in terms of naval and air forces, but the larger support (in my opinion), one he couldn't discuss openly was the job done by the Australian SAS in the western desert area of Iraq. We may not know the full extent of their operations, and that of the other special ops troops for years.

So let's not get crazy about some kind words for the sake of our allies that later get spun into something else. That is what government representatives do, and we shouldn't begrudge any of our allies feeling good about what they did. He gave praise where he could, rightfully deserved, end of story.

Why do we have to re-spin this again into some negative on the US military? Yak is (unfortunately) right in his characterization, sarcasm aside. This is an image we are branded with the world over, only it is totally wrong. Despite the LeMay influence, you would find it difficult to find an American in uniform who would willfully unleash the kind of devastation that our military is capable of today without thinking in terms of protecting innocent life. I remember briefings regarding use of force and the Geneva convention as far back as the early 80�s when I was just a two-stripe grunt. Our troops are aware of these things, especially senior officers, who will ultimately answer for the actions of the forces under them.

Compared to the rest of the world, we may be cowboy-ish, but you would be very hard-pressed to find a military force that is more professional, capable and willing to perform their jobs than ours. With professionalism comes restraint, common sense, and a knowledge of not just right and wrong, but the consequences of violating the rules of engagement, and ultimately the law.

This is why, when the bad guys come knocking, the world turns to the US for help.

Posted by: eyeofthestorm at April 23, 2003 05:04 PM

eyeofthestorm,

Nicely put.

Posted by: yak at April 23, 2003 05:18 PM

I have to come down on Steiner's side. First I am a 15 year Air Force veteran add I served in Brussels and know targeting issues. There is no question that our historical use of air power, as well as our current targeting, creates understandable legal problems for our allies. It is not a question of US intent, and I dind't see that implied, but rather of undeniable US military history. Bombing kills civilians. Estimates from this short war are pegged at a conservative 1,500. This is not all about errant ordinance. Many state's rules of engagement forbid targets we accept.

Posted by: KyleT at April 23, 2003 10:10 PM

"Many state's rules of engagement forbid targets we accept."

Many states have the luxury of knowing the USA will do all the heavy lifting in a war. It's easy to have hyper-sensitive rules of engagement when you are primarily in a support role. Such rules would probably cost more lives than they save, if a country using them actually tried fighting a war all by themselves.

In any case, the guided munitions developed by the USA are the reason why it was possible to keep casualties so low. No rules of engagement would have made that possible without the needed precision weapons.

Posted by: jb at April 24, 2003 04:04 AM

Yak :
Re

Do they have the same precision weapons capabilities that our USN/USMC/USAF aircraft do?

No, they are more like F/A-18Cs than F/A-18As, can carry AGM-84s and (I believe) ALARM as well as the normal USN/USMC load. A superset of the US load. They're not nuclear-capable under START definitions.

Re:

What were the weapons they were carrying? If you're loaded up with 2000 pound bombs in anticipation of attacking Target A and you get retasked to Target B which is in the middle of a residential area a 2000 pound bomb is probably not the appropriate weapon.

Usually a pair of PAVE TACK or similar 500lb low-drag laser guided bombs, same as the US load on similar aircraft.

Weapons load was not germane, it was the fine detail of ROE for air-to-ground work. The US ROEs before the war tended to alllow slightly more risk to civilians and/or civilian infrastructure under some circumstances, so I believe. It appears that the standard US ROE may have been amended to more closely conform to Australian practice. Probably something like "a 500 Lb may be dropped no closer than 200 metres to a structure possibly inhabited by civilians" replacing "a 500 lb may be dropped no closer than 250 metres to a structure definitely inhabited by civilians" and similar rules re Dams and other infrastructure.

KyleT:
Concur exactly - you know US ROEs better than I do.

jb:
Ummm. you're obviously not familiar with some European gear, which is often somewhat more accurate than much of the older US stuff, and has been for a decade. The US has caught up in many areas recently. The one thing that the US armed forces has is that while, say, the UK may have 100 weapons in stock, the US might have 15000 slightly less capable ones.
ROEs drive procurement, not the other way around. Go ask the USMC about where they get some of their gear from - and have a look at the highest-tech piece of kit on board many US ships, the Winnin/Nulka missile decoy system. Made in the USA, to an Australian design. Or have a look at the work we did on the F/A-18As and F-111Gs we got from the US to bring them up to our requirements. When you only have a few dozen of something, they have to be the best. When you have a thousand, it's better to buy an extra hundred rather than get the last 5% of performance, given a fixed budget.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at April 24, 2003 08:27 AM

KyleT I think you ahve been listening to Baghdad Bob too much...

"Bombing kills civilians. Estimates from this short war are pegged at a conservative 1,500."

That is about as accurate as everything else you have said.

Posted by: Paul at April 24, 2003 12:52 PM