UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

06 March 2003

Coalition To Make Painstaking Effort to Avoid Iraqi Civilian Damage

(Vastly improved precision weapons aid military effort) (1180)
By Jacquelyn S. Porth
Washington File Security Affairs Writer
Washington - If the use of force becomes necessary in Iraq, coalition
military forces will take considerable care to minimize civilian
deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure, educational
institutions, medical facilities, and religious and cultural
institutions.
Even today, as coalition aircraft patrol the northern and southern
No-Fly Zones in Iraq, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has
instructed pilots not to target civilian populations or
infrastructure. A March 5 CENTCOM release, for example, notes that
during routine air patrols to eliminate potentially threatening Iraqi
mobile surface-to-air missile batteries, coalition aircraft "go to
painstaking lengths to avoid injury to civilians and damage to
civilian facilities."
While there is always a margin for error by man or machine - and the
confusion and chaos of war can contribute to inadvertent damage - the
reality is that technology has improved exponentially since the 1991
Persian Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Iraq's grasp.
During the Gulf war, the U.S. military used new precision-guided
munitions (PGMs), but quantities were not unlimited. Twenty percent of
the total bombs dropped were PGMs, but if called upon to wage war in
2003, the U.S. military expects 70 percent of its weapons will be
precision-guided.
In the Gulf War, older technology required as many as 16 to 18
coalition aircraft strikes against a single target. Today, the same
target will require only one aircraft to fulfill its strike mission.
A senior CENTCOM official says "the ability to be that [much] more
precise, intuitively tells me that there should be fewer casualties."
The precision capability that now exists "allows us to keep civilian
casualties to a lower number than we've ever seen in the past," he
added.
In fact, the goal to mitigate the effects of civilian, or "collateral"
damage, as it is euphemistically referred to, is ingrained in the U.S.
military from the first officer whose task it is to identify
appropriate targets to the individual in theater who finally presses
the button to launch a strike. "We still have to look at the
surrounding area to determine if we'll cause collateral damage," the
official said.
Mitigating the effects of war can be accomplished by making
adjustments in a variety of ways:
-- selecting a size of a weapon tailored to the target -- the smaller
the better;
-- adjusting the angle of attack so that associated fragmentation has
diminished consequences;
-- choosing to detonate the weapons above, at, or below the target as
a way of shrinking its spill over effect;
-- timing the attack so that a target is least likely to be populated;
-- providing advance warning to local populations to avoid certain
targets; and
-- using non-lethal means or non-explosive weapons to shut down
targets.
As commander-in-chief, President Bush communicates the goal of
protecting civilians from the top of the leadership structure. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld amplifies his message through the media
saying, "the lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter ... greatly
to us." Further, Bush has said, "We will try in every way we can to
spare innocent life. The people of Iraq are not enemies."
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told NBC
Today recently that "we will go to extraordinary lengths to protect
non-combatants and civilians and facilities that should not be
struck." Doing so is always part of the plan, he said, as the military
and civilian leadership reviews the targeting process, including aim
points and types of weapons "over and over again" in an effort to
achieve the desired military outcome without causing an undue effect
on non-combatants or nearby civilian structures.
Protecting civilians remains "at the heart of international law of
armed conflict," according to a Pentagon public affairs officer
familiar with the subject. U.S. doctrine dictates that targets be
strictly military while exercising "extraordinary care to avoid
unnecessary civilian casualties and to minimize collateral damage,"
according to the official, who went on to point out that the Iraqi
regime does the opposite by flaunting the laws of war and co-locating
military and civilian facilities together to blur the distinction
between the two.
During a March 5 background briefing on the military targeting
process, a senior CENTCOM official said the coalition that might see
future action in Iraq has been sensitized to the need to preserve
Iraq's ability to grow and prosper in a post-conflict era. It is
important, he said, that Iraq's economy be recoverable when military
operations cease, and the way to ensure that is to keep collateral
damage "to a minimum."
The use of advanced target modeling allows targeteers "to be pretty
predictive" about the amount of damage that will occur around the
outside perimeter of a designated target, the official said. He noted
an example from Afghanistan when a meeting of al-Qaeda leaders was
struck with pinpoint precision while adjacent buildings on three
surrounding sides were undamaged.
"I don't want to say there will be no damage. I don't want to say
there will be no casualties," he said, "but there is a very good way
to try to keep the number of casualties and the damage to the
minimum."
Asked if dropping leaflets on civilian populations and broadcasting
warnings to stay clear of certain targets is viewed as effective, the
official said: "Absolutely." He related another anecdote from
Afghanistan, where some Afghanis said: "We saw you so precise with
your targeting that we weren't afraid. We felt comfortable that we
could stay in our house and you wouldn't hurt us."
"We stay clear of sites that are intended to be protected," the
official said, "like schools, mosques, civil buildings that have no
military value, certainly residence areas." A problem may arise if
Iraq decides to put missiles or anti-aircraft guns inside a protected
site.
The U.S. military is also carefully planning how to minimize any
threat to neighboring areas from Iraqi chemical or biological sites
which coalition forces hope to find and neutralize. There are a number
of ways to do this, the official said. It could include striking the
production plant that powers a chem-bio site to render it inoperative.
Or, access could be denied through the use of air-delivered
self-destructing mines that would keep anyone from entering and
removing property for 24 to 48 hours. Finally, such sites could be
secured with special operations forces. All these measures avoid the
problem of calling in air strikes against storage depots or production
plants that could produce dangerous plumes of toxic agents.
There has also been discussion about using non-lethal weapons to
mitigate collateral damage. The official said, for example, that it
isn't always necessary to use explosive weapons. In some places, he
said, a non-kinetic tool such as "a concrete-filled bomb as opposed to
an explosive bomb" might be the safest choice to obliterate a target.
(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list