Bromides about Bombing
A fact that every politician and news talking-head in the world seems to be certain of is that you can’t win a war by air power alone. Even the media-hired retired generals throw it out as an absolute truth of warfare, as if it had fallen from the lips of Sun Tzu himself. Ask anyone, civilian, military, whatever, and he will quickly inform you of the truth of that unassailable rule of modern warfare.
But when has any nation ever in history attempted to prevail in war by the singular use of airpower? “It has never happened because it just won’t work.” And how do you know that with such certainty if you acknowledge it has never been tried?
The first use of massive airpower and strategic bombing took place in WWII, in Europe and in the Pacific war. The allied air forces were bombing Nazi Germany into rubble when we launched our invasion of Europe. What if we had just continued the strategic bombing campaign and hadn’t invaded? We were in the very deliberate process of destroying the German homeland with massive bombing raids, which, if continued, would have eventually eliminated Nazi Germany’s ability to wage war and demoralized the population. German troops deployed about Europe required huge logistical support from the homeland, and the allied bombing campaigns were destroying both the sources of those essential supplies and the supply lines needed to get those materials to the troops. And the cruel reality the Germans had to swallow was that America could build bombers and bombs undeterred while German infrastructure had no hope of being rebuilt under the bombing onslaught.
Who can say that the allied bombing campaign, pursued with the same intensity and ferocity, couldn’t have brought Nazi Germany to the surrender table? Want to know the real reason why it was necessary to invade Europe? Because if we hadn’t, the massed and marching Russian Bear would have erected its Iron Curtain on Omaha Beach, extending north to Denmark and south to Gibraltar, to effect its Sovietized Europe.
It was a bit different with the Japanese, whose major population centers we were burning into oblivion with our firebombing campaigns, designed specifically to take advantage of the Japanese tradition of building their homes cheek by jowl in metropolitan areas with highly flammable materials. Yes, we nuked two cities, to bring them more quickly to the surrender table, but how much more of the non-nuclear incendiary destruction of their cities could they have withstood before acknowledging that we had bombed them into submission? Their capability to wage war had been reduced to the point that such civilian casualties no longer justified continuing.
I was an infantry NCO in Vietnam in an area where the B-52 Arc Light Operations took place. A part of our mission was to patrol into the targeted areas post-bombing to assess the effectiveness of the aerial raids. The assessment was easy because it was a slam-dunk; nothing lived in those long, wide, and unfortunate carpet bombing patterns except perhaps recently arrived insects in the water pooled in the huge craters. Human and animal life simply was no longer to be seen. Did it work? Well, by the end of the 1972 bombing campaign, our battle assessment experts were finding it difficult to locate additional targets worthy of a B-52 sortie.
The North Vietnamese came to the peace table in Paris because they had come to the realization that we were quite capable of bombing their ancient civilization, of which they are so proud, all the way back into the very pre-civilized Stone Age. Or rather, we would have rendered them so militarily defenseless that the always feared invasion from the ancient enemy to the north would be a cakewalk, and they would once again be enslaved by the hated Chinese for a few additional centuries.
So, again, just whose conventional wisdom is it that you can’t win wars by bombing alone? Agreed, you cannot seize and hold terrain. But if your strategic objective is not to occupy your enemy’s homeland, but rather just to render that enemy incapable of further and future aggression against you and your allies, then where does an all-out bombing campaign come up short? Lastly, how do we know the truth of this so-called wisdom if we’ve not tried it?
With today’s technology, America may still not have the ability to prevent the formation and depredations of terrorist organizations, but it damned well has the capability of denying such organizations the ability to form the maneuverable forces needed to seize geography from other nations. There is no way in hell ISIS can form into a boundaried, functioning caliphate if we choose not to let it do so. Let them declare their caliphate, but then let them live with the reality their religious fervor has brought them: a bleak and barren no-man’s land, where every human movement is suspect and carries the peril of sudden death from the skies.
Before we risk any more American lives on the ground in this conflict, let’s test this hypothesis that we can’t win with just airpower.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Terror War
To those who say that airpower can’t win a war, I think Genghis Khan would have begged to differ if he’d had access to a wing of B-52s. Sometimes he wanted to hold territory, and sometimes he wanted to exterminate a nation whose ruler had really pissed him off. Ever read about the salted fields, and how he said, “If you were not so sinful, then God would not have sent a punishment like me against you!”
He would carpet-bomb the shit out them, then send the B-52s back with a load of salt to finish the job.
You done lost you mind, Poe.
P-footing rules of engagement these days basically end the argument of that ever being correct. Even then the Japs still that to be dragged out of their holes.
Poetrooper…I agree. We have spent so many lives in Iraq already. I am completely in favor of the first choice being to bomb just as you wrote. WWII style with no mercy whatsoever. It will do one of two things. Bring them to their knees in their will to fight or embolden them to recruit harder and fight longer. If the latter is the case, then the bombing continues twice fold. Afterwards, then send in troops to kill whoever remains. Leave no trace of them. The problem as always, is the will of the Administration and the “too self-consumed to be bothered” American public who are swayed by the Administration. Obama has no will or guts to fight a war of any scale, much less an all out campaign of death from above bombings. Obama cares naught for America, its future and its citizens. He cares only for himself. He wants to skate through his two terms doing as little as possible and then live the good life forever. He is a coward and so are all in his court. He will NEVER order bombings of anything except small convoys and artillery pieces until he thinks NATO, the Muslim world and everyone else including Michelle tell him it is okay, which will never happen. Europe is hamstrung by fear of their large Muslim populations and the Muslim nation “sympathizers” will only go so far. He is waiting for the “broad coalition” to gel before he does anything of significance. Which will probably be never. If Americans think there is indecision in the Administration now, wait till they get a taste of the multi-national indecision with UN input and their usual criticism of anything American. I believe in WWII even if Europe had not been involved and the Axis Powers were only at declared war with America, we would have done the same. For our own survival. Time has come to look at our survival now and in the future as it is affected by the Muslims around the world. I believe in the ultimate strength of America and at the… Read more »
This is an ideal mission for the A-10 Warthog, deploy them. Remember what they did during the first Gulf War to those tanks. What is that you say, the Warthogs were scrapped because the military brass didn’t think they were needed anymore. Tell me it ain’t so Leroy.
The Warthog, while a lovely machine for killing tanks and armored vehicles, is too specialized for this mission. The job at hand is to kill cubic yards of muzzies. BUFF is well qualified to perform with distinction in this task. Having also done BDA in 1969 following Arc Light strikes the devastation was total and complete. Jungle, with all flora and fauna, was removed and replaced with piles of earth and craters. I saw nothing alive at all in this lunar landscape. The occasional find of a fractured manufactured item was the only sign that humans had once used the area.
America understood the need for an enemy to feel defeated once upon a time. The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, WW1 and WW2, all stressed the need to quit when the enemy begged us to stop. The Korean War was the first when we quit because we were tired. We have seen how well that worked. My war, Viet Nam, was lost in the public opinion polls in the states. We no longer have the will to win, as libs have poisoned the well of patriotism and love of country. We will not sacrifice to prevail. I pity currently serving military members whose lives will be sacrificed for no coherent military goal so the cockholster-in-chief can return to his putting game. Damn us for this betrayal of America.
The effectiveness of strategic bombing against ISIS is arguable because you have to kill every last one of the SOBs. These are the guys that are still pissed about the Crusades, which they more or less won. Imagine what they’ll be like if they get their collective ass handed to them and are left to nurse a grudge.
Agreed.
Air power worked so well for Israel dealing with the same types of scum of civilization, until it didn’t, and they realize having to put people in danger to shoot evil in the face is a necessity.
“The effectiveness of strategic bombing against ISIS is arguable because you have to kill every last one of the SOBs.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing … 🙂
The way to keep that from happening, of course, is to make it so obviously painful to even aspire to be ISIS again that nobody with two functioning brain cells would want to try it, Qu’ran or no Qu’ran.
So very true. The only possible way to end this is to make sure no one who ever puts on one of those black masks ever goes home alive.
Mike
As a fellow grunt alumni of Arc Lights I say bomb the living shit out of them! Then do it again. They will not submit. They need to be killed.”Some people just need killin'”, Cpl. Dan Todd 3/4 USMC
Poetrooper: Allied strategic bombing in Europe in World War II was, bluntly, not at all decisive. German armaments production actually peaked in either late 1943 or 1944, – I’m pretty sure it was the latter, but I’m not going to take the time to verify that. What destroyed Germany’s ability to wage war was three things, all unrelated to strategic bombing. These were (1) loss of territory/materiel/manpower on the Russian front in 1943-1945; (2) loss of access to oil and food due to lost territory (the German coal-to-petroleum efforts never really supplied more than a smallish part of their petroleum needs), and (3) diversion of nitrates to produce fertilizer vice munitions late in the war by Albert Speer, who realized in late 1944/early 1945 that the war was a lost cause and unilaterally decided he did not want Germany to starve in 1946-1947. The case for Japan is similar, but for different reasons. Absent an order from the Emperor, Japanese society was going to quit when it no longer had the power to resist – and the war in the Pacific had shown the Japanese willing to commit suicide if need be. Strategic bombing was not going to do the trick; the Japanese government and society was still functioning after the destruction of most of its urban areas, which had been accomplished prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki. What was actually having the greatest impact on Japan’s industry and society was the destruction of Japan’s merchant fleet – to which strategic bombing contributed little or nothing. Japan was not self-sufficient in oil, raw materials, or food. We could IMO have indeed avoided invading Japan – if we were willing to blockade them for 2 to 5 years and starve the nation to death. Politically, that was a non-starter. The US/British public were not willing (and in Britain’s case, not capable) of supporting an additional 2-5 years of war. And we also weren’t willing to starve literally 50 million or more enemy civilians to death. If you want to damage a place and/or temporarily deny that place to the enemy, air power works. But… Read more »
The strategic bombing campaigns of WWII and Vietnam are a lot different from our modern bombing campaigns. We could target German an Japanese factories because they existed.
ISIS has no permanent headquarters, no permanent training camps, no factories that enable their war fighting. They are an asymmetric threat and unless we turn the area they control into a massive field of craters you can’t guarantee anything.
Very different lesson from our total wars in Europe and Asia.
And after ISIS/ISIL/ISlittlefuzzybunnyslippers, or whatever, fades into the population centers, what exactly is the plan? Pound Iraqi and Syrian cities to dust? That dog won’t hunt.
I don’t think it will work for the following reasons: 1. They don’t generate capital like Vietnam, Japan, and Germany did during those wars. There is no means of capital to destroy. 2. They buy food and arms from other people and we probably cannot interrupt those deliveries. If I recall correctly we never attacked the Russian ships delivering supplies in Haiphong. 3. If we start carpet bombing, a lot of people who don’t like them now will still take their side 4. We have no friends in the region 5. There is no practical place to position the aircraft 6. Most of their money comes indirectly from the US – we are paying for those assholes. “What are you going to bomb?” They don’t live in cities. They don’t have farmlands where they grow food – they have goats and camels and they grow some grains and fruit. They import a lot of stuff. They don’t have factories. They do not create capital, they pump it out of the ground or beg from their neighbors. They generate money in two ways – they sell oil to people who we cannot legitimately attack (mostly the European nations) and they get huge donations of cash and arms from people who we call our allies (Saudi Arabia and Qatar). Those cash sources allow them to buy all the weapons and ammo and food that they need. We could do something useful – we could destroy their water sources. Are you prepared to see endless pictures of people dying of thirst and earn the undying enmity of most people in the world? Because you would. We could also interfere with their food deliveries. Same story — there be war crimes. We could attack those oil pipelines. That would cut off some cash. If we try to interfere with the cash they receive from Saudi Arabia and Qatar I think that they (SA and Q) would cut off the oil they export to us and we would lose the American base in Qatar. Arc Light was staged out of the Philippines — about 1,000… Read more »
Are we willing to carpet bomb Faluja? How about Mosul? The hooah hooah line of bomb them all into dust only works on the internet. The American people are not willing to pay that price. Provide CAS and strategic strikes for the Iraqi army, but otherwise, stay out. We are not the answer to the problem in the Middle East. I actually believe they want us to attack them. They want the legitimacy that it will bring, they want the support from other Muslims to rally to fighting the infidel. They want us drawn into a drawn out conflict again because they know it will hurt the US. We have President Obama because of Iraq, look what is happening.
Damn all if I’m not hearing all kinds of reasons why a concerted bombing campaign CAN’T be effective. Reminds me of a brigade commander on whose staff I served who would tell his staff officers, “Don’t give me all this bullshit about why we can’t do it! I want you to come in here with an oplan that tells me HOW you’re going to get it done.” First of all Hondo, while you are correct that many factors contributed to the defeat of Germany and Japan, our strategic bombing campaign was in fact wearing them down and our capability to put more and more bombs more precisely on target was growing while their ability to retaliate in any meaningful way was diminishing by the day, to the point where we owned the skies over both countries. With that total air dominance, we could have amassed ever greater air armadas which would lead to even more massive destruction and eventually total degradation of their capabilities to field any meaningful formations of ground armies. And even if they had, once we controlled the airspace over the battlefields we could use strategic bombing against any massed forces. Armored and Infantry assaults are not too effective when thousands of iron bombs are raining from the skies. What the Russians did to the German formations with massed artillery, we would eventually have been doing from the air. And while the Germans and the Japanese were struggling to MAINTAIN their fighting capabilities, ours were EXPANDING geometrically. Had either war continued into the late forties, our enemies would have found themselves contending with faster, higher flying, longer range, strategic bombers such as the B-36 and the B-47 which themselves would be protected by swarming fleets of faster and longer range, jet-powered, fighter cover. And Richard, you are neglecting to factor in the exponentially expanded technologies since those long ago bombing campaigns. Hell, the B-52’s can fly from Shreveport and North Dakota if they have to. Our refueling technology is the most advanced in the world. Our B-2’s already fly from Whiteman AFB in western Missouri against Middle… Read more »
Poetrooper: 1. Axis Casualties, Western and Mediterranean Fronts (combined), World War II: 0.83 million 2. Axis Casualties, Eastern Front, World War II: 5.48 million – or 6.6 times as many as were lost on the Western and Mediterranean fronts combined Equipment losses were roughly proportional to casualties. US/UK/French/other Allied forces in Mediterranean fronts in World War II faced only 20-25% of Axis forces. The rest of Axis forces were deployed in the East. Even during 1944 and 1945, casualties on the Eastern front were 4x or more greater than those on the Western and Mediterranean fronts. During those years, virtually all of those casualties were German. And German forces continued to fight until May 1945 – at which time most German conquests had been recaptured, and much of Germany itself had been occupied by Allied forces. Roughly 2x as many Axis soldiers (the vast majority German) died on the Eastern front than were killed as the result of all strategic bombing efforts in all theaters on both sides during all of World War II. Bottom line: it wasn’t either the US strategic bombing campaign or the US/UK/French armies that were primarily responsible for the defeat of Germany in World War II. Rather, it was that inexorable steamroller called the Red Army – supported by massive amounts of supplies and thousands of trucks/other equipment provided by the US – that kept rolling slowly eastward, regardless of the number of losses it took (Red Army losses were over 2x those of Axis forces in the Eastern theater). The US Army Air Forces did a great job of selling everyone on how much they were contributing to the downfall of Germany. But the reality was, as is often the case, far less than the salesmen led everyone to believe. As I recall, even the postwar Strategic Bombing Study conducted by the USAAF/USAF (can’t remember if it was published before or after the USAF became a separate service) said as much. Moreover, by 1945 the US was nearly fully mobilized. Civilian labor was getting very tight. Of the 90 divisions created for the Army,… Read more »
In order to get the ROE you need for the mission you want, we have to pay a big price — without a high death toll over here, the American people simply won’t go for it.
FWIW, I don’t mind if you want to start. I think you will run out of targets without degrading the ISIS capability.
And I do care if you are flying a B-2 from Whiteman to the Middle east to drop a JDAM on a Toyota. That is my money you are spending and they can buy a hundred more Toyotas for the price of that mission and kill a lot more people that we do. I understand that, except in the case of a dire emergency, B2s never land anywhere except Whiteman. Again, assuming I have that right, for every one of those B2 missions to Iraq and Afghanistan the airplane flew from Whiteman to the target and back — more or less, around the world. How much did that cost in gas? Think about the refueling aircraft and crew. Those are big missions.
I know the Air Force can fly B52s across the ocean. But running bombing missions from the US has risks too. Think of all those airplanes flying over US soil with full bomb loads. And think about the amount of jet-a that they drink. And think about the fact that during Vietnam we lost a lot of B52s to SAMs — SAMs are a lot better now and it is tricky to get from the US to western Iraq without flying over Turkey, Syria. or Jordan.
I say go for it! But when the targets dry up, stop spending my money to fly aircraft across the ocean for sightseeing runs. Either do something that works or do nothing.
Richard, I’m not advocating stupidity. Of course you don’t send B-52’s to take out a Toyota. However, you do send B-52’s to obliterate a massed force of Toyota’s that are preparing an offensive/invasive action. It takes some time to marshal forces for an offensive, enough time to send a BUF sortie.
For that wayward, singular Toyota we have RPV alternatives and even there I don’t advocate the overkill of a Hellfire. But what’s the problem with arming RPV’s with 50 cals or 20mm to 40mm cannons? Fifty years ago I qualified on the 50 cal and I know from that and myr use of them in Vietnam what short work computer directed 50 cal fire from an RPV could make of a Toyota.
As for the fuel costs, how much did the 9/11 attack cost this country in blood and treasure? How much of your taxes are you willing to devote to destroying those who would love nothing more than a repeat performance of that, times ten? Perhaps as much as we’re paying Muslim welfare deadbeats in Dearborn, Michigan or Islamic Somali deadbeats in Minnesota?
And the argument about fuel costs is lame. The fuel required to fly missions from safe bases would be nothing more than a flea on the ass of this country’s fuel production.
Again I ask, why the hell are so many of you so damned all-certain sure it won’t work when it’s never been tried?
Your negativism is why I wrote the piece in the first place. You adamant naysayers simply support my original premise.
Hondo, as I wrote in a piece here on this topic last week, the real reason we had to invade Europe was to prevent the Iron Curtain from being erected on the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach. I’m fully aware of the roll of the Soviet Union but that cuts both ways for it was the Russians who were pleading for an allied invasion to take the heat off them. Had it not been for the allies tying down and degrading the fighting ability of a substantial portion of the Wehrmacht in North Africa, Italy and later France, the Germans might well have prevailed in Western Russia. As for your percentages regarding manpower and casualties, again you are right but without taking into account the geographic differences which were the true downfall of the German Armies in the East. They didn’t just go a bridge too far, they went a whole damn half a country, extending their supply train to an unsustainable length. Also, the fact that Hitler foolishly split his main invasion force enabled the Russians to fall back, retrench and then amass a huge offensive force to encircle the German Army resulting in the largest surrender of the war. As for mobilization, most of those 90 divisions were created solely for the purpose of an invasion of Europe which was being pushed by the leftist, pro-Soviet contingent in this country. Had we held up on that strategy, America would have had plenty of manpower to build and crew those air armadas I spoke of. Again you are correct that air power can be used to DENY the enemy use of geography. The key word is “temporarily.” I’m saying we possess the capability of denying access to the enemy over a large geographic area for an extended, perhaps even open-ended period of time, depending on our national and political will. Our UAV technology and our UAV armamentarium is growing rapidly and could do so even more rapidly were it to become our primary offensive/defensive force in such a scenario. And such a UAV campaign overcomes the biggest negative regarding war… Read more »
Again, Poetrooper: you’re not getting my main point. Aerial bombardment can deny an area to the enemy – very temporarily. However, short of using WMD its effect is transient. Air power alone cannot seize and hold a damn thing. Neither can it deny an area to the enemy permanently (as we found out along the Vietnamese DMZ and Ho Chi Minh trails in SEA). Only forces on the ground can do that. Further: we did not fight World War II to keep the Iron Curtain from being erected in Normandy. We fought it to defeat those nations that had declared war on the US – plain and simple. At the time, the Soviet Union was an ally vice an enemy. Most Americans didn’t believe that world Communism was a real threat until the Soviets occupied and forcibly “Socialized” the nations it occupied in Eastern Europe after World War II. I will also remind you that Germany invaded France well over a year before it invaded Russia – and very nearly did the same to England. Had they invaded England, well, there would have been ZERO US involvement at the time. Soon thereafter, there would have been no independent England – and thus no US involvement in the Western/Mediterranean theaters in World War II. If you want to play the projection/what if game, consider what would have happened had Hitler NOT cancelled Operation Sea Lion. Or if the Wehrmacht hadn’t called off the blitz against England when the RAF was teetering on the edge of exhaustion and the Luftwaffe was not. (If I recall correctly, I’ve read that the RAF itself predicted it would have collapsed in another 3-4 weeks had the German blitz continued, largely due to the fact that it was losing pilots far more rapidly than it could train replacements.) Or consider what would have happened if Germany had not – in a monumental fit of stupidity matched by only a few other occurrences in mankind’s entire history – declared war on the US on 11 December 1941. We’d stayed out of the European war that long, and… Read more »
Addendum: the largest encirclement in World War II of which I am aware occurred at Kiev in 1941. Over 600,000 Red Army troops were surrounded there and killed/captured. The German debacle at Stalingrad involved the encirclement of around 300,000 German troops. It also occurred not primarily because the German forces were overextended (they were) – but because Hitler refused them permission to attempt to break out of their encirclement.
It’s also an open question as to whether or not the Soviet Army would have been able to prevail at Stalingrad and later without US lend-lease aid – and without the invasion of France you appear to oppose. Nor is it clear they could have even survived without both of those.
And if the Soviet Union had collapsed, what do you think Germany would have done with the resources it was devoting to fighting the Red Army? My guess is that 75% or more of that would have gone towards countering the threat posed from England – and at that point, they’d have had the entire resources of Europe at their disposal. Not a pleasant prospect.
Hondo, now you have me confused. I thought your initial argument was that it was primarily the Russians who defeated the Third Reich. Now you’re saying that it was the the Allied invasion that saved the Russian bear’s balls?
And you are definitely mistaken that I oppose that invasion. It was most definitely needed for the very reasons I stated: we were keeping substantial numbers of German troops sidelined away from the Eastern Front with the threat of invasion. That factor combined with Russian victories due to Hitler’s Napoleonic stupidity and Russian winters, as well as our bombing the hell out of Germany’s war production, would have, sooner or later, seen the Reds sweeping through the Rhineland and on to the coast. That was one of Patton’s greatest fears.
Above, you indicated your opinion that the “90 division force” the US fielded in World War II was a mistake, was perpetrated by “leftists who wanted to save the Soviet Union” (or words to that effect), and that the resources could have been better used elsewhere.
That force was chosen because it was the minimum force structure consistent with an early cross-channel invasion while also conducting a Pacific War. A smaller force structure would have ruled out the possibility of invading Europe for a number of years if not permanently. Since that’s what you appeared to be advocating above, your opposition to a NW European invasion is a reasonable inference.
It was indeed primarily the Red Army that defeated Nazi Germany. However, they did so while receiving massive US assistance in terms of supplies and logistical support equipment, plus massive other technological assistance. Without that assistance, IMO they likely would have been unable to do so – with or without a land campaign in NW Europe. The Soviet Union would have collapsed, Germany would have owned Europe from the Channel to the Urals – and we (the USA) would have been “screwed, blued, and tattooed”.
It’s an open question of what would have happened had the US continued to provide logistical assistance to the Soviet Union but not undertaken a Normandy/other Channel invasion. My guess is that the war in the East would have stabilized, probably somewhere along the Soviet Union’s pre-war Polish/Czech/Romanian frontiers. At that point, my guess is that Stalin would have gotten fed up with his US/UK allies and come to terms with Hitler – at least temporarily. And that the US and England would have been left holding the bag. My view is that the Normandy invasion prevented that, and was thus essential.
No, Hondo, I did not say it was a mistake to stand up 90 divisions to invade Europe. I simply offered an alternative strategy which I do believe might have achieved the same effect with a much lesser loss of American lives.
I also think you are underestimating the global greed of Uncle Joe. It was not for nothing that the communist movement was self-proclaimed the “Internationale.
No dice, fella. Not buying that.
Offering an alternative that works better at a lower cost implies you think the selected option was indeed a mistake. That is precisely what you did here.
I do not underestimate Stalin’s desire to grab territory. But it appears you do erroneously perceive just how Americans in general viewed Communism prior to and during World War II.
Communism simply wasn’t thought to be a serious threat to US security by most Americans until Stalin grabbed Eastern Europe. Before that time, most Americans thought it was simply silly – and a significant minority were actually sympathetic. The blinders by and large didn’t come off until after the Iron Curtain fell.
Hondo, once again we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. As a child of WWII, I’ve devoted a lot of my reading time to that conflict and I’m afraid we have some very different historical views.
As to your assertion that air power can only deny geographic accessibility “temporarily,” it is precisely that oft-repeated truism that I’m challenging in the piece. How can you, and all the others who respond so, be so absolutely certain of impossibility if such an aerial warfare campaign has never been conducted? That is my main point which I think you aren’t getting.
I’m reminded of the admirals and generals who swore Billy Mitchell was nuts when he said airplanes could sink ships.
We all know how that turned out…
We tried precisely that – terrain denial through technological means vice ground forces – in SEA. Specifically, I’m speaking of Operation Igloo White (McNamara’s “electronic fence” along the DMZ) and Operation Barrel Roll (air interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail). Both were abject failures.
We’ve tried it again in Afghanistan and elsewhere using a combination of RPVs and manned aircraft. Success IMO has been illusory. We can from time-to-time take out an occasional high-value target. But we can’t deny movement or otherwise deny the use of territory for anything other than a point target (or perhaps a tiny area) – and only then for a relatively brief period of time.
Yes, you and I need to disagree here. You are IMO fixated on an idea and appear unwilling to consider facts demonstrating the likely infeasibility of the idea you support. While I wish you were correct, my assessment is that we’re not there yet technologically or operationally – and likely won’t be any point during my lifetime.
Or my children’s lifetimes, for that matter. And probably not during my grandchildren’s lifetimes, either.
Hondo, I have through my seventy-three years tended not to fixate as it generally leads those so fixated to bad endings. The SEA objections are way past their “USE DATE” due to technological advances especially in the area of UAV/RPV warfare. You are citing 60’s and 70’s technology to support your arguments. That’s like comparing a 70’s mobile phone with current mobile capabilities.
The one aspect of the Southeast Asia example that remains applicable is that of B-52 carpet bombing because those NVA units who once experienced it, even from a distance, tended to stay well away from those places where those Buf’s could be called back in by an FO for a repeat performance. So it was not a failure as you seem to think.
And I ask you once again regarding the extant argument, “How can you be so certain of failure if it has not yet been attempted utilizing current technology and capabilities?”
Afghanistan? Geographically that is a far cry from the much smaller area occupied by ISIS nor is it high mountain terrain so that is not a valid comparison. The No-Fly Zone we imposed on Saddam Hussein pretty much grounded and thus negated his air forces. All I’m saying is that with the improved capabilities we now have, is there a possibility we could effect a No-Drive, hell, even a No-Walk Zone?
What I can’t grasp here is why you are so adamantly opposed to even trying it. What’s to lose except a whole bunch of old, out-dated iron bombs and a few dozen RPV’s?
Poetrooper: I don’t say your idea is theoretically impossible. I’m against the idea because it is IMO absolutely, positively, not implementable with currently-available technology and assets. You talked about a “no move zone”. Disregarding the fact that declaring a blanket no-move order in a populated area is absurd, it’s also substantially more difficult to do than a no-fly zone. Setting up a no-fly zone like we did in Iraq previously is technologically fairly easy. Virtually all fixed-wing aircraft are quite easily detectable at a distance with radar under most conditions. There also typically aren’t that many aircraft in the sky at a given time. A well-sited ground based radar or several – or a quite small number of aerial radar platforms like AWACS (3 to 6 total) – plus a relatively small number of air-to-air interceptors can do the trick relatively well in an environment with friendly air supremacy. It’s costly, but it’s feasible. Setting up a “no move zone” in a populated area is a different proposition. To do that, you’ll need some aerial detection system over the general vicinity of the area (ground clutter makes using ground-based detection infeasible). And it has to be 24/7, otherwise it’s not going to be effective – if you don’t have 24/7 coverage the enemy will just wait until you’re not flying. Yes, we have JSTARS – a whopping total of (per published accounts) 17 or less in the inventory. Published accounts say JSTARS can track up to 600 moving targets at a max distance of 250km. So, if you wanted to ban movements in ISIS-controlled Iraq, that means you’d need a minimum of say, 3 to 6 JSTARS in the air over ISIS-controlled areas of Iraq at any given time (1 or 2 in the North, 1 or 2 Central, 1 or 2 West). Now triple that number (1 flying, 1 being readied, 1 in maintenance for each bird required) and you’ve used most or all of the JSTARS inventory. And that’s probably not going to do it – with 6 in the air, you can only track 3600 targets. I’m… Read more »
There is no way the American public will allow the same rules of engagement that was used during WWII. Hell why not just firebomb falluja, pull a Dresden on them. They are occupying towns and villages with civilians in them. Are we just going to keep a few B52s orbiting, waiting for them to mass up so we can bomb them? The solution is CAS and Strategic strikes in support of the Iraqi Army, Jordanian Army, and the Saudi Army. If they are not willing to pony up the ground troops to do this, we’re playing wack a mole with 500lb bombs. SF assisting any of the above Armies, yep, that’s what they are good at, but without their effort, the only other option is loading up the 1st CAV and 1st Armored and rolling deep. I cannot support regular troops in their anymore. Like most in here, I’ve been their , done that, and realized real quick that the only way things will ever change is if Islamic nations make that change. Otherwise, we bleed for nothing. Air power, ground power, makes no difference, the argument is invalid without a Muslim solution.
You restate my point Sarge, the American people and their leaders, political and, too sadly, also military, lack the will to protect themselves from the political movements that seek to destroy them.
They have failed to learn the lesson that
battlefields are not the Playing Fields of Eton.
Good grief Hondo, I’m not advocating bombing all their major population centers. I’m saying we restrict their ability to move outside those population centers to engage in offensive actions against areas they do not now hold. Imagine how difficult it will be for them to maintain power when they are strangled by their inability to conduct any activities, military or commercial, beyond the borders of those areas they now hold. The term aerial siege comes to mind. Imagine how vulnerable those all powerful raggedy ass tyrants will appear to those they hold in subjugation when they don’t dare venture away from those enclaves? All powerful warriors for jihad and they can’t clear city limits? Sort of puts the lie to their claim of being Allah’s divine warriors when they don’t dare leave town without extreme risk of being quickly rendered divine entities alright. When I was in the business world I grew very tired of those executives who would admonish us to think outside the box; I had always tended to think that way and therefore couldn’t see the need to be so directed. However, in regard to this matter of using our air power to knock these ISIS bastards on their asses I’m seeing a whole lot of people, very powerful people, civilian and military, who can’t seem to think outside the box. Again, the premise of my piece is “Who knows if it won’t work if we have never tried it?” Like the old brigade commander I quoted above, “Quit giving me all these excuses why it won’t work and bring me a plan to make it so.” THAT unwillingness to test the hypothesis is what drives me nuts. We have all this equipment and systems manned by the best trained warriors in the world and we won’t even give them a chance to show us whether or not they can do it. Hell, if it fails, I’ll be right here telling you, Hondo, that you were right and I was wrong. But I’ll be damned if I’ll concede to an argument of, “It’s just not possible.” That… Read more »
Poetrooper: the premise of your articles – “Who knows if it won’t work if we have never tried it?” – is what is in error. We have “tried it” before – multiple times. It failed to deliver each time. 1. It failed in Germany in World War II. It took the physical occupation of German territory to end that war. 2. It failed in Japan in World War II. It took the use of nuclear weapons to convince the Emperor to order Japan’s surrender. Otherwise, a ground invasion (or perhaps a naval blockade leading to mass starvation in the Japanese homeland) would have been necessary. 3. It failed in Korea. Although not terribly well known, LeMay was responsible for a strategic bombing campaign there, too. It destroyed most towns of any size in North Korea, and a few in the South. Didn’t affect the outcome of the war. 4. It failed in Vietnam. Air power alone was not even able to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, much less convince the North Vietnamese to surrender or quit fighting in the south. Their agreement to “end” the Vietnam War in 1973 was a calculated negotiating ploy designed to remove US forces from the war so that they could deal with the South Vietnamese one-on-one later. It worked. 5. It failed during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. This was probably air power’s high point – and it failed there, too. Although we had complete air supremacy and bombed the hell out of Iraq (and Iraqi forces in Kuwait/southern Iraq), we STILL had to invade to force them to relinquish Kuwait. 6. It didn’t work in OIF or OEF, either. We had to put copious quantities of boots on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Air power alone is an enabling force in the conduct of war – nothing more. It has never been able to win a war alone, and absent the use of nuclear or select other weapons of mass destruction, IMO it never will. Even then, IMO you’ll need someone afterwards to go physically occupy the smoking ruins and/or bury the… Read more »
http://cdn.meme.li/instances/500x/33825691.jpg
Air power is as tremendously effective as stepping on a bunch of cockroaches – squishes some of ’em flat but the remainder scatter, regroup, and return. Without going into the tactical historic failures like Saipan, an excellent point is made above that air power can be used to tear up ground but not hold it.
I think the most realistic view is that while air power can clear relatively small areas, it is ineffective over larger areas. Think of how many THOUSAND square miles we’re talking about interdicting, how many bombs and planes would be needed? I don’t think there is a military on the planet with that kind of available resources. It’s a lovely theory, but unless someone can enable one bomber to totally flatten square miles at a time by non-nuclear means, I don’t think the tactic is feasible. JMO.