Terrorist Targeting vs Military Targeting

[Sarajevo071]

Fury at RAF Kamikaze plan
By JOHN KAY
APRIL 03, 2007

RAF Top Guns were stunned last night after being asked to think of being Kamikaze pilots in the war on terror.

Elite fliers were shocked into silence when a senior RAF chief said they should consider suicide missions as a last resort against terrorist targets.

Air Vice Marshal David Walker put forward the attacks — like those flown by desperate Japanese pilots in World War Two — as a “worst case scenario” should they run out of ammo or their weapons failed.

He asked aircrews at a conference: “Would you think it unreasonable if I ordered you to fly your aircraft into the ground in order to destroy a vehicle carrying a Taliban or al-Qaeda commander?”

Such an order would mean certain death for a pilot who cost £6million to train — and the loss of a £50million jet.

Last night pilots slammed the suggestion as “utter madness”. One — summing up a flabbergasted “After you, Sir” reaction — said: “I’m prepared to give it a go but only if the Air Vice Marshal shows me how to do it first.”
…

Full text here:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007150271,00.html

[Tom Odom]

I am reminded of a Cheech and Chong bit from the early 70s on this subject:

the Japanese Admiral had just pitched the "glorious Kamikaze, Die for the Emporer" plan when a voice called out...

"Honorable Admiral, Sir!?!"

"yes, what is it?"

"Honorable Admiral, Sir, you outta you F#$%ing Mind!"

[davidbfpo]

I am sure the RAF senior officer did not speak on April Fools day, perhaps he meant to speak that day! If a junior officer had made such a comment, it could be dismissed as a hypothetical, but such a senior officer bizarre. Nearly as good as the reported SAS landing on an Argentinian airbase in the Falklands conflict, rejected by the "troopies" as nothing short of suicidal.

davidbfpo

[Sarajevo071]

We as Americans value our lives and self-preservation is a common characterstic, so how do we defeat people who believe in an ideology that says it is acceptable and respected to strap on explosives or drive a vehicle laden with explosives into a crowd of people, or a convoy, or a public bus? I am not ready to blame the media for reporting it, the internet for allowing them to post the vidoes, nor am I going to blame foreign or military policy...this tactic is medieval and runs counter to our culture so what do you do?
PT

Many people find such bombing attacks morally reprehensible, yet have no qualms when much larger bombs are dropped from aircraft. Neither type of bombing attack is surgical and both types kill innocent bystanders. The only real difference is in the size of the bomb and the means of delivery. The Mujahideen lacked an air force but retained a limited bombing option. The Soviets had an air force and conducted large-scale bombing attacks throughout the war.

Lester W. Grau
"Afghan Guerrilla Warfare"
http://www.amazon.com/Afghan-Guerril...8064546&sr=1-1

[SWJED]

Many people find such bombing attacks morally reprehensible, yet have no qualms when much larger bombs are dropped from aircraft. Neither type of bombing attack is surgical and both types kill innocent bystanders. The only real difference is in the size of the bomb and the means of delivery. The Mujahideen lacked an air force but retained a limited bombing option. The Soviets had an air force and conducted large-scale bombing attacks throughout the war.

Lester W. Grau
"Afghan Guerrilla Warfare"
http://www.amazon.com/Afghan-Guerril...8064546&sr=1-1

We don't intentionally bomb non-combatants - suicide bombers do. End of story.

[kit]

We don't intentionally bomb non-combatants - suicide bombers do. End of story.

We may not be doing that now, but we have in the past. There wasn't much military justification for unleashing our fire-bomb raids on Japan (unlike Germany where we attempted "pin-point" bombing of military targets), but the case could be made that such deliberate targeting of civilians went a long way toward convincing the Japanese to surrender.

Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.

[Steve Blair]

We may not be doing that now, but we have in the past. There wasn't much military justification for unleashing our fire-bomb raids on Japan (unlike Germany where we attempted "pin-point" bombing of military targets), but the case could be made that such deliberate targeting of civilians went a long way toward convincing the Japanese to surrender.

Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.

Actually, under the logic of the times, the firebombing campaigns in Japan were justified as the only way to attack their cottage industry base. And the British made no bones about their approach to the Germans in World War II with their night bombing campaign.

The impact of both bombing campaigns (as well as the differences between the European and Pacific campaigns) have been debated for years and will continue to be the subject of debate. Air power advocates will always claim that bombing could have won both wars, while land power advocates will disagree.

[kit]

Actually, under the logic of the times, the firebombing campaigns in Japan were justified as the only way to attack their cottage industry base. And the British made no bones about their approach to the Germans in World War II with their night bombing campaign.

The impact of both bombing campaigns (as well as the differences between the European and Pacific campaigns) have been debated for years and will continue to be the subject of debate. Air power advocates will always claim that bombing could have won both wars, while land power advocates will disagree.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that air power alone can win any war, unless we're willing to drop enough nukes on a country to completely eliminate it as a functioning society (which may ulitimately be necessary and should never be taken completely off the table).

However, a relentless campaign, waged without mercy, CAN curtail a nations ability to fight back. I'm from the old school who believes the primary goal of any war is to force the other side to quit fighting first. After that, other such niceties as helping them develop a different form of government or increase economic activity, can be done in relative peace.

Naturally, this war is a little different in that the enemy is diverse and scattered around the globe. However, we do know which nations provide funding, training, safe-havens etc, and until we end that support, by whatever means, the hydra just keeps growing more heads.

[tequila]

We may not be doing that now, but we have in the past. There wasn't much military justification for unleashing our fire-bomb raids on Japan (unlike Germany where we attempted "pin-point" bombing of military targets), but the case could be made that such deliberate targeting of civilians went a long way toward convincing the Japanese to surrender.

Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.

If we're going to indulge in mass murder of civilians as a method to win the global war on terror, I would suggest we use ground forces instead. Much easier to seize the vital oil and natural gas fields that way. We could also engage in the mass rape of Iranian women as we move across the countryside, thus shaming insecure Persian males and showing the world the true resolve and virility of the American fighting man. These women and any loose children could then be driven before our forces as minesweepers and IED detectors, and to soak up enemy fire as we storm the cities.

Why not? It worked for the Mongols. No insurgency in Khurasan after they went through.

[kit]

If we're going to indulge in mass murder of civilians as a method to win the global war on terror, I would suggest we use ground forces instead. Much easier to seize the vital oil and natural gas fields that way. We could also engage in the mass rape of Iranian women as we move across the countryside, thus shaming insecure Persian males and showing the world the true resolve and virility of the American fighting man. These women and any loose children could then be driven before our forces as minesweepers and IED detectors, and to soak up enemy fire as we storm the cities.

Why not? It worked for the Mongols. No insurgency in Khurasan after they went through.

LOL Yes, I suppose we could regress to the 10th century, but I wouldn't recommend it. But, then again, that seems to be where our adversaries are!

Seriously, the cost of doing it that way would be prohibitive. In such a scenario, ground troops would only be a follow up to secure what's left.

[marct]

Hi Kit,

Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.

Hmm, well, I would have to totally oppose that for two reasons. First, under the prevailing moral systems in the US, this would be an atrocity. Second, it just wouldn't work.

Let me expand on this last point a little more. Targeting civilian populations during a war "works" if and only if the vast majority of the civilians (and their leaders) that you are trying to influence are physically present. Targeting irhabi supporting countries with this type of attack, even if you managed to pull a Curtis LeMay on them and "send them back to the stone age" would not eliminate their diasporic supporters in other countries (including the US), it would only generate more supporters worldwide, including all of the anti-US factions who are also anti-irhabi.

Furthermore, to achieve that level of destruction, you would have to use very high explosive quantities; either millions of tons of bombs or a fair number of nukes. I suspect that such a "strategy" would lead to massive civil unrest in the US, including the military. There certainly is a role for highly targeted air strikes, and we saw just that in the first Gulf War and its aftermath. Still and all, it comes down to exactly what is being targeted to achieve which specific effect.

[Steve Blair]

In addition to the moral objections, there's also the factor that a campaign like that has a tendency to serve as a focal/rallying point for future opposition. One good example (although perhaps at the extreme) would be the Nazi campaign against the Jews and other elements that they considered undesirable. The Albanians in Turkey would be another. I draw these comparisons with a purpose, since an unrestricted air campaign is really a form of standoff ethnic cleansing. I submit that such an exercise would create a firestorm of opposition in all corners, from within our own country to former allies.

[kit]

Hi Kit,



Hmm, well, I would have to totally oppose that for two reasons. First, under the prevailing moral systems in the US, this would be an atrocity. Second, it just wouldn't work.

Let me expand on this last point a little more. Targeting civilian populations during a war "works" if and only if the vast majority of the civilians (and their leaders) that you are trying to influence are physically present. Targeting irhabi supporting countries with this type of attack, even if you managed to pull a Curtis LeMay on them and "send them back to the stone age" would not eliminate their diasporic supporters in other countries (including the US), it would only generate more supporters worldwide, including all of the anti-US factions who are also anti-irhabi.

Furthermore, to achieve that level of destruction, you would have to use very high explosive quantities; either millions of tons of bombs or a fair number of nukes. I suspect that such a "strategy" would lead to massive civil unrest in the US, including the military. There certainly is a role for highly targeted air strikes, and we saw just that in the first Gulf War and its aftermath. Still and all, it comes down to exactly what is being targeted to achieve which specific effect.

Oh, I won't deny that adopting such a strategy now would generate some substantial opposition. Of course, it wouldn't have on Sept. 12, 2001, but why we've frittered that support away is meat for another thread.

However, I don't think our enemies will give us the option NOT to fight a total war. That's what they are engaged in, and so long as we deny that, we leave the initiative in their hands. They can pick the time, place and conditions of fighting while we busy ourselves fighting a "morally" correct war and trying to "help" them achieve our vision for their future. To them, that's a sign of weakness which they won't fail to exploit. Worse, it will embolden other nations, and groups, who don't wish us well to align with the jihadist's, or their supporters, for their own selfish interests. Ultimately, I think we'll be forced to fight an all-out, total war, but unless we prepare for it and start it ourselves, we may very well find our hands tied by our own foolishness and have no other option than nuclear weapons. If you think shifting strategies at this point would cause cries of protest around the world, just wait until we're forced to do that or acquiese. The blowback from that is mind-boggling in it's contemplation.

Let me expound a little so you'll understand that I'm not a blood-thirsty, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" person. I'm not, but I think I see catastrophe looming on the horizon if we DON'T change gears and go after those nations, and people, who support and harbor jihadism. If someone is die in this war, I'd rather it be them.

What we're involved in now is a series of small wars, different but connected. I can't think of a single small war in recent history which was a stand alone entity and neither are the ones we're fighting now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines and God knows where else. There is a linkage between them all and, though the individual groups we are fighting are seperate, losely affiliated (if at all) and distinct, the one common thread which unites them is islam.

No, I don't think all of islam is the enemy and, no, I don't think we should kill them all. That WOULD be genocide and only a fool favors that. However, jihadist's swim in a sea of support or acquiesence to their presence and we can't differentiate between the "good" muslims and the "bad" muslims. We have neither the resources or the understanding to make that differentiation. THEY must make it for us or we have no alternative than to consider them all as enemies. What other choice do we have? Right now, they're not doing that, so the question is how to compel them to do so.

Right now, our strategy is to offer them democracy and economic freedom as an alternative to, basically, islam because in the Arab world especially, islam is not a stand alone entity: it's part and parcel of the both the culture and the government and that's they way they like it. In other words, we're offering them the chance to moderate their religion in order to become acceptable to us, thereby eliminating the need to fight. I think that's foolishness of the first magnitude. How would WE feel if someone essentially demanded we Christian's "moderate" our views on Jesus Christ? Isn't that what the jihadist's are doing? Convert or die?

Given that I think that strategy is doomed to failure, my position is that we need to commit to the other alternative: The use of extreme force in order to effect a change in behavior. After all, that's all war really is. At it's base, it's the idea that if we kill enough of them, they'll beg us to quit out of self-preservation and turn out, or over to us, any jihadist's in their midst. Fear is a greater motivator than a rational explanation of the alternatives.

Now, let's get back to the small war scenario. All of the conflicts in which were engaged have external support. In fact, most (if not all) small wars do. During the Cold War, that support was practical and ideological and it came from the Soviet Union and/or China. No, that does not mean every revolutionary group or independence movement back then suscribed to Moscows' or Beijing's visions, but they did draw upon their resources in order to fight their respective wars.

Today, those small wars, and warriors, draw upon the resources of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. That does not mean, for instance, that Iran is a big fan of jihadism, but they're engaging in supporting terrorist groups as disparate as Hizbollah, Fatah, the Taliban and Al Queda in order to advance their goals. They may very well be riding the Tiger which ultimately consumes them, but for now, they're realizing the short-term goal of weakening the United States by their support and that's something we must deal with, not only to curtail Iranian ambitions, but to send a message to the rest of them that we know who's doing what and there is a horrible price to pay for it.

If we don't, what happens? For me, I'm not afraid of the imposition of the Caliphate any time soon. That would be generations away, if at all. However, I DO fear a move against Israel once we're weakened and extended to the point that we cannot respond conventionally, leaving only the nuclear option to defend the Jewish state. That would open Pandora's Box for sure and I doubt anyone would want to see that or it's worse scenario: Israel using nukes themselves in the absence of American power.

Having said all that, I think we need to engage Iran first, as an example of what's to come for other supporters of jihadism, and I think we need to do whatever is necessary to force the Mullah's from power. If that means killing millions of Iranians? I'm sorry, but that's better than risking the lives of billions by continuing down the path we're on now.

[Stan]

...Any war is the war

Hello kit and welcome to the forum !

You may not know this, but this thread was started from, shall we say misguided interpretations regarding US Military intentions. You will more than likely meet him/her herein. You two will get along fine - It's right up your alley

I suppose since we're right next door, we could just remove any and all ethics and morality in the decision-making process and just bomb the piss outa all of them

That would go over real well at home, and we would no longer have to worry about support from our buds in Europe - there will no longer be any.

I'd like to think the US Military has come a long way since WWII, and we have a strategy besides blanketing Iran in nukes.

Regards, Stan

We may not be doing that now, but we have in the past. There wasn't much military justification for unleashing our fire-bomb raids on Japan (unlike Germany where we attempted "pin-point" bombing of military targets), but the case could be made that such deliberate targeting of civilians went a long way toward convincing the Japanese to surrender.

Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.

[goesh]

One rationale aside from destroying the cottage industry aspect of Japanese civilians was the fear that a massive invasion would result in civilians using any and all means to attack US forces, thus forcing our troops to kill thousands of women and kids bearing sharpened sticks. Better to fry them from the air than to shoot them on the ground was the motto in some quarters - less PTSD for sevearl hundred pilots killing from 10,000 feet than say 400,000 front line troops having to shoot women with sharpenedsticks. It was believed the Japanese military could have exerted enough influence on the Divine Emperor that he would have issued an edict commanding civilians to fight the Americans to the death when they invaded.

It might interest Sarajevo to know that I'm researching the Tattler archives looking for the source and expose' of the American plan to carpet bomb all of Kosovo during that episode of our history. The rationale behind this secret plan that never came to fruition was this: if we carpet bombed all of Kosovo, the Serbs wouldn't have to fight there and we then in turn wouldn't have to fight them. I won't take up any posting space when I find that reference, I'll just PM it.

[SWJED]

BTW, I will try to find email of Mr. Lester W. Grau so you can send him your comments (with which generally I do not disagree with you)... I am just a messenger here.

Don't put yourself out. I've known Les for 15 years - and have his e-mail addy.

[RTK]

I am happy to hear that. I all ready know that you are well connected and very well known, and that there are pool of smart, well educated and well mannered people here. I only hope you will finally understand my frustrations with your comments to me (sometimes I really see them like an biased attacks for no reason). Recently, almost on every my post.

Just because we believe in deferent things or my lack of knowledge of English grammar (I never learn English in school, btw) that doesn't mean I wish you ill or that I am not smart or experienced... My hate for killers of innocent people or rapists, and for those who justify them or defend them, also coming from somewhere. I just hope you never went try that and that you never will.

That's all I have to say on this... Wish you well.

I'll say this. Collateral damages that have occured in the last 5 years are tragic. They are not intentional. Every effort is made to verify, coordinate, and cross check to ensure that innocent civilians are not made targets. Bad things happen in war. Mistakes are made so long as imperfect humans fight the fights. To infer they are intentional is slanderous at best.

[RTK]

Yes. Generally you are right and I can agree with you. But there are also some other examples on intentional targeting, or targeting with no regards of civilians around. Enough examples to put me on defense. Those are cases I am referring to. I never said that ALL U.S. military targeting civilians without prejudice nor did I ever said that is military or political aim. That's in someone else's mind that they are projecting on me since I am not one of "them".

You're right, there are some examples. And we're putting those people in jail for it.

[jastay3]

Many people find such bombing attacks morally reprehensible, yet have no qualms when much larger bombs are dropped from aircraft. Neither type of bombing attack is surgical and both types kill innocent bystanders. The only real difference is in the size of the bomb and the means of delivery. The Mujahideen lacked an air force but retained a limited bombing option. The Soviets had an air force and conducted large-scale bombing attacks throughout the war.

Lester W. Grau
"Afghan Guerrilla Warfare"
http://www.amazon.com/Afghan-Guerril...8064546&sr=1-1

There is also the difference about aiming at innocent bystanders. Which the Soviets also did. And which was also generally regarded as morally reprehensible.