"It requires the commander on the ground to determine the target and provide the positive identification of the target, the positive location of the target, and then to also do the assessment on the collateral damage — in other words, what unintended consequences would have by striking that particular target," said Maj. Gen. John F. Sattler, chief of operations for the United States Central Command.
Initially, this struck me as being much to cumbersome for a squad or platoon under fire. After a second reading, I realize the wording is the problem not what is being required. This is how it works...
Determining the target and fixing a positive ID on the target is easy. Stick up your head and see where the bad guys are shooting from. Tell the FAQ or aircraft commander the details so he can get the fast movers with the right armament headed your way.. Then continue to look around and determine if there is a school, hospital, crowded market place, etc., in the area. If so report that info too including the precise location of these buildings.
The target building can still be hit, but the angle of attack may be adjusted to keep a long or short round from hitting an important location. This is all nice and clean and plays out well in a classroom.
The problem comes when friendlys are dropping from enemy fire. Then the guys on the ground want the bombs on the way right now. Who gives a shit about collateral damage when you are being shot at and your buddy is bleeding to death?
The first level of our military fighting units that have staff officers to evaluate such things as collateral damage possibilities is Battalion. But the fighting is done by squads, platoons and companies. Those on the line know this is not a classroom exercise nor sparring in a dojo. For them, every firefight is a fight to the death. The best platoon and company commanders know what support is available every minute and they know how to get it on target immediately.
War is ugly. Collateral damage is not a good thing...Neither is the death of a GI. On a battlefield, we have to be willing to accept the first to prevent the second.
A high majority of Iraq citizens want to live peacefully with their families (Most now do that.). The extremists are at best 1% of the population. We owe it to the other 99% and to our own troops to kill any extremist shooting at us everytime one shoots regardless of his location.
We have a firm national policy of not negotiating with terrorists...so why the heck are we now negotiating?
When the terrorists believe that attacking us means sure death for them and when the population believes the only way to a peaceful existence is to cooperate and not support the terrorists, we can negotiate with the terrorists if any are left alive. We ain't there yet.
uw |
