It may not be fair, but the news coming out of Southwest Asia on a regular basis via the Air Force's airpower summaries remind this reader of nothing so much as stories about hunting wolves with helicopters in Alaska. There's just no sense of proportionality.
Take a gander at some of the examples from the June 18, 2009 report below the fold.
In Afghanistan, an F-15E Strike Eagle executed strikes near Lashkar Gah releasing guided bomb unit-38s into a grove containing a line of anti-Afghan forces fighting positions. Enemy personnel were firing rocket-propelled grenades and peppering a friendly convoy with small-arms fire, using the trees for cover, when the airstrike took them out.
....
In the vicinity of Kandahar, Navy F/A-18F Super Hornets dived into a firefight, putting Vulcan cannon strafes onto anti-Afghan positions in a treeline. Enemy fire was reduced but not stopped, prompting the Joint terminal attack controller to call for follow-up strikes with GBU-38s and additional gun passes. The jets cleared the treeline then stopped a second enemy force along a ridgeline before they could launch a counterattack. Coalition ground troops confirmed the Taliban force's commander was killed during the engagement.
....
In Oruzgan, a B-1B flew a show of force, expending several flares over the area to provide emphasis, stopping enemy personnel from firing RPGs and machine guns at an approaching friendly unit. The large bomber's flyover led the hostile gunmen to stop shooting and flee the area.
Clearly, the writer, probably relying on after-action reports and video from the Joint terminal attack controllers, demonstrates a tenuous hold on cause and effect. There's no way to prove that a B-1B bomber coming over the horizon caused the gunmen/anti-Afghans/enemy/Taliban to flee. But, what the shifting verbiage does suggest is that it's still not clear who the friendlies are and who the enemy is. It hardly seems right to classify people by whether or not they resist people carrying guns by firing their own.
This does not bode well. It looks like the U.S. is getting involved in another civil war and relying on sophisticated airpower to scare the target populations into submission. The Pentagon may think it worked in Iraq, but the reality is that the mayhem subsided when the U.S. promised to go home and leave that benighted nation alone.
But, my purpose today isn't really to pick nits. Our Air Force, for which we pay top dollar, issues these reports and they ought to be read, especially since the Air Force seems to be operating under the impression that the air war in Iraq will go on and on.
Airpower to protect Iraq security gains as forces withdraw from cities
Posted 6/18/2009
by Tim Kilbride
Special to American Forces Press Service
6/18/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- As U.S. forces in Iraq prepare to pull back from most major cities by June 30, U.S. air support will continue to enable and protect security gains made over the past two years, a U.S. commander said in a "DoDLive" bloggers roundtable June 17.
Col. Michael Fantini, commander of the 332nd Expeditionary Operations Group, oversees a spectrum of air support missions that include non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, security operations support, high-end precision engagement, airlift of passengers and cargo and combat search and rescue. His team is in charge of MQ-1 Predator and MC-12 Liberty surveillance flights, among others.
I think it's useful to remember that "security" refers to things being either locked up or tied down. I think in the olden days of Vietnam the goal was expressed as "pacification." A riled up populace, for whatever reason, is a negative in the military play-book. That said, it's hard to imagine how the "spectrum" of
non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, security operations support, high-end precision engagement, airlift of passengers and cargo and combat search and rescue
relate to a people whose military assets were destroyed and its armed forces disbanded almost six years ago. The explanation that:
Part of the long-term U.S. air mission is training the Iraqi air force and lending intelligence support to Iraqi-led combat missions. Colonel Fantini works through the Coalition Air Force Transition Training Team as a liaison between coalition forces and the Iraqi military, bridging the gap between subject matter experts and training engagements.
is not convincing. Whom are the Iraqis going to combat after the Americans are gone? What ever happened to the democratic principle of restricting the military to protecting against aggression from outside?
Indeed, I'm getting the impression that these are the kinds of questions the Air Force is begging to be asked. How so? Well this particular report, featuring the opinions of Col. Michael Fantini, commander of the 332nd Expeditionary Operations Group, was produced by an entity that's referred to as the Defense Media Activity's emerging media directorate. Emerging media--that would seem to be us bloggers that the Air Force is wanting to interact with. Since it's our dime, why not give it a try. There are no comments on this report of the future of the Air Force in Iraq, yet.
To be fair, it's not like Alaska where they shoot predators from the air. In Iraq, they launch predators into the air to provide surveillance and dispatch the errant insurgent with a hellfire missile. Presumably, "a lower kinetic tempo" means there's less of the latter. Let's hope. The response still seems disproportional.