Precision firepower: smart bombs, dumb strategy

Military Review,  July-August, 2003  by Timothy R. Reese

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Enemy considerations. Another point, which we often forget is that the enemy has a vote in determining the effectiveness of precision firepower theory. As Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz reminds us, "War is a contest against an animate force that resists our efforts at every turn." (17) The enemy can usually find the means to avoid, absorb, wait out, or defeat the attack of firepower. In a survey of post-World War II conflicts, military historian Robert H. Scales, Jr., concludes, "To be sure, firepower can be paralytic in its effect. But paralytic effects by fire are always fleeting. Armies have shown time and again that they can become inured to the paralytic effects of firepower and can even learn creative ways to lessen its destructive effects." (18)

Current experience in Afghanistan suggests that the effects of precision firepower are limited even against a primitive foe. U.S. air strikes did not become effective until late November 2001 when they were directed by U.S. Special Forces troops in direct support of Northern Alliance ground forces assaulting Taliban positions. (19) And, as the battles of Tora Bora and the Shah-i-khot Valley indicate, reliance on Afghan surrogates for ground forces comes with its own set of limitations and disappointing results, as intended targets were often allowed to escape. In his recently published study, Stephen Biddle convincingly relates how quickly and effectively Taliban and al-Qaeda forces were able to outsmart, avoid, and adapt to U.S. precision firepower. (20)

Precision firepower also assumes a number of things are knowable about the enemy when often they are not. EBO advocates offer policymakers a menu of desired effects to impose on an enemy. EBO advocates incorrectly assume the United States can accurately determine what assets an enemy values most and attack them. In this sense, precision firepower is a tool for believers in gradualism, escalation, and punishment game theory. Precision firepower advocates can fall prey to the fallacy of mirror-imaging--the belief that the enemy will respond to our actions in ways we ourselves would respond. Of course, the destructive physical effects airpower delivers might or might not affect the enemy the way we anticipate. Even if we could reduce the enemy to a system of systems and target the enemy with great precision, all but the most primitive, incompetent enemies will react and adapt. (21) Precision firepower alone cannot destroy the resilience of enemy willpower or the persistence of his strategic intentions.

Reduction of military advantage. The United States does not enjoy a permanent monopoly on the technology of precision firepower. The inexorable cycle of weapons and counterweapons development will sooner or later reduce our tremendous military advantages. To date, the theory of precision firepower has been tested only against relatively unsophisticated enemies. Were the United States to engage an enemy with the resources and military might of the old Soviet Union or tomorrow's China or Iran, we would likely find precision firepower wanting. Many of our enemies and some of our friends will sell sophisticated weapons to any rogue nation with money.