The answer, based on the Pentagon's performance so far, is yes, according to defense analysts. The current damage reports are considerably more modest and the weapons more accurate than they were seven years ago.
Improved technology for damage assessment and more experience with an arsenal of guided weapons is one reason. About 70 percent of the missiles and bombs unleashed against Iraq this week were precision-guided with either a global positioning system -- which uses satellites to locate targets -- or improved guidance systems.
The arsenal includes conventional air-launched cruise missiles dropped from B-52 bombers, laser-guided bombs, the ship-launched Tomahawk and some new munitions available in small quantities.
However, the arsenal also contains a lot of low-tech munitions. The billion-dollar B-1 bomber flew its first sortie in battle Thursday. It carries old-fashioned 500-pound iron bombs, but it carries 84 of them.
Another reason to expect better reporting is that the generals were burned by their exaggerations in 1991.
``There (were) a lot of complaints last time about bomb damage assessment,'' said Steven Zalonga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Washington, D.C., aerospace consulting company. ``I suspect this time they will be a bit on the careful side.''
Rear Adm. Thomas Wilson, the Joint Chiefs' director of intelligence, told reporters Friday that ``we haven't even looked at all of the targets.''
The claims made in the briefing were detailed and modest, said John Pike, military analyst with the Federation of American Scientists.
``I think they were very careful to say that there are a lot of targets and that the bulk of targets they claim to have hit are in the light-to-moderate-damage category,'' he said. ``Many of the targets they have attacked they say they are still assessing.''
None of this means the public will get a full, accurate report on the damage to intended -- and unintended -- targets, the analysts say. Instant battlefield damage assessment is subject to error and public reports to censorship.
`Truth plus something'
A photograph of damage to facilities of the elite Republican Guard released after the first wave of attacks showed four barracks destroyed and one standing.
``If you've got 80 percent of your munitions hitting your target, that means the other 20 percent are heading for the orphanages and hospitals,'' Pike said. ``The interesting thing is that the Iraqis aren't claiming a lot of collateral damage, and they have never been one to minimize the extent of collateral damage.''
This time, the targets are fewer and don't include massed troops and tanks. The objectives are mostly stationary -- buildings and installations that can be aimed at with precision.
The military also has had seven years to make improvements and learn how to use an arsenal of smart bombs and guided missiles that were new in 1991. A few didn't even exist then. ``Smart weapons are the weapons of choice,'' said a defense analyst.
There are improvements in several areas:
The current attack on Iraq has been marked by an even more extensive use of cruise missiles. So far, about 300 have been used in ``Operation Desert Fox,'' according to reports.
More cruise missiles
``Bosnia was a case where there was zero collateral damage,'' said Rene Lajoie, senior associate with DFI International, a Washington, D.C., consulting firm. She said 69 percent of the weapons used there were precision-guided missiles. ``I think we're going to see similar figures coming out of this strike.''
But others think some of the precision missiles will miss and hit civilian areas instead.
Claims of precision in war should be taken with a grain of salt, said Paul Walker, a defense-policy and weapons analyst who was policy director of the House Armed Services Committee in 1993-94.
``Precision (targeting) is overblown and overused by military authorities oftentimes to condone attacks which will no doubt have collateral damage and civilian casualties,'' Walker said.
``I would say the strike percentage will be higher than in 1991 on intended military targets, but the collateral damage will be in my mind unacceptable and quite large,'' said Walker, who wrote an analysis of bombing in the gulf war.
Targeting installations near civilian areas makes such damage inevitable, he said.
``When you actually look at the battlefield, and the gulf war was the best example, there turns out to be tremendous collateral damage. There are targeting errors. Weapons go off course. The propellant runs out. Generally, it's weapons failure,'' Walker said.
``The targets at times can be different than what you think they are and you may have military targets that are coincidentally located near civilian areas. Warfare is chaos.''
THE ATTACK ON IRAQ
This time, weapons are more accurate
Mercury News wire services contributed to this report.
©1997 - 1998 Mercury Center. The information you receive online from Mercury Center is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright-protected material.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
