Government Industry
Precision firepower: smart bombs, dumb strategy
Military Review, July-August, 2003 by Timothy R. Reese
By using tribal groups as proxies to do ground combat's dirty work, the United States has increased its military power and political stature to the point that some groups are no longer reliably pliant when it comes to implementing U.S. goals. Some groups have used U.S. air strikes to settle grievances against old neighbors, raising the question of exactly who is a proxy for whom. Most groups openly opposed the regime of Afghan President Mohammed Karzai, and in fall 2002, some began launching attacks on U.S. and allied forces. The limited military victories gained through this "new American way of war" simply did not give us the leverage to impose our will on post-Taliban Afghanistan. (36)
Not all strategists believe precision firepower is a substitute for military strategy, although most advocates tend to gloss over or ignore the idea. RDO advocates caution that the theory is not designed for "long-term commitments or to resolve long-standing disputes." (37) The rapid application of precision firepower is only a means to support strategy, not a way or an end in itself. Precision firepower advocates would do well to heed these distinctions. Fundamental Changes
One should not deny the importance of precision firepower and related Information-Age warfighting concepts. They are indeed fundamentally changing the tactical and operational levels of war. The relationship between fire and maneuver and airpower and landpower is constantly evolving because of changes in society and technology. The revolution in military affairs being driven by the Information Age is yet another episode in this long process. U.S. policymakers must grapple with these effects as they prepare to use military force in the 21st century. They must not underestimate its usefulness or its limitations. The debate over whether air forces, navies, or armies are most decisive in war is an argument that obscures the strategic question: "How do we achieve policy objectives with military means?"
Unlike technology, the nature of politics between states changes slowly. Overreliance on the effectiveness of precision firepower theory could lead the United States to conduct military operations that fail to achieve the strategic ends for which those operations were begun. This is the seductive, dangerous nature of precision firepower, and it encourages sloppy thinking on two levels: that military strategy consists primarily of targeting and destruction, often of civilian and military infrastructure instead of military forces, and that this destruction alone will yield results in military and grand strategy without the need to employ ground forces.
The enemy is not a lifeless mass of fixed buildings, information systems, or weapons platforms. Enemies do not surrender their strategic goals using a simple cost-benefit calculation. Mere destruction of the enemy's means of war is not the true aim of war. Victory is achieved when the enemy's will to resist is broken, and he is compelled to act according to his adversary's will. Like water, the will to resist finds a path that allows it to continue, and wars fought primarily with precision firepower tend to leave paths open after strikes cease.
