Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
I think that this is an invalid comparison. How about rogue military members in the skies? The way this is phrased seems to imply that there aren't any. Given the friendly fire casualties caused by certain US air units on Canadian troops, I would beg to differ - if not "rogue" in intent, then rogue in activity. I would also like to point out that that particular action had an immense propaganda effect in Canada.

There is also the interesting point, that seems to be left out, that it is easier for host nationals to comprehend ground fire collateral damage (since it comes from all sides), that air strike damage, since it only comes from one side.
Good points, Marc. In terms of propaganda, dead is dead. It doesn't matter if it was "friendly fire" or one of the good general's "rogue ground force members." In fact, I'd say amicide is possibly worse, since it conveys a very bad image to your allies.

I think there's also the question of scale in terms of collateral damage. Tom touched on it to a degree earlier, but a miss with a bomb does MUCH more damage than a miss with small arms. At the risk of making this sound trivial, you're much more likely to upset the locals when you "destroy their house in order to save it" than you will if your SAW gunner sends a burst wide and kills a goat or two.

The point of ground collateral damage coming from more than one source is also well taken. Mike touched on that as well with his Vietnam comments. Perhaps Gen Dunlap should read up on the history of air power in Vietnam...it was a standard tactic at that time for VC/NVA elements to fire from villages, fall back, and let allied air power and artillery do their dirty work for them. Air power is a very valuable tool, but it simply can't be used in all situations...just like ground power can't be used in all situations. There are limits to what offensive air power can accomplish, and it's about time that the zealots recognized that fact.

I read over the "new" AF Irregular Warfare doctrine this weekend and was disappointed to find nothing really new there. I've seen better products coming out of RAND and the Air University's student papers.