Army + Air Force = Victory

 

(P-47 Thunderbolt, France, 1944 - the beginning of Air-Land Integration)

I think - and I'm sure that someone will correct me - that it was Gen. Omar Bradley who is credited with coining the phrase "Army plus Air Force* equals Victory" following the breakout from Normandy and the critical battle of Falaise Gap. This became the basis of western land doctrine at all points since then, with increasing success coming from a combination of improved communications and situational awareness, together with much more accurate air-to-ground weaponry. Thus doctrine evolved through the post-Vietnam US "Air Land Battle" doctrine - rolled out to general astonishment in Operation DESERT STORM - through to today's Air Land Integration (ALI) in Afghanistan.

But whilst this is working increasingly well in Afghanistan, it is a real challenge in Libya: fundamentally, can the anti-Gaddafi forces who are poorly equipped, and though unquestionably brave, poorly trained defeat the Libyan Army simply because of allied air power?

It's an open question. The key in ALI is integration - making sure that what you're targeting is not only the opposition, but that the targets you are hitting are being hit in the most efficient order to maximise the impact on the ground. This may mean therefore that you're hitting the tanks that you can see ahead of you on the battlefield - a tactical imperative - but that the most effective could be an attack on supply nodes, particularly on fuel, ammunition - what Colin Powell referred to in his "armchair generals worry about strategy, real generals worry about logistics" epithet in Gulf War I. It was also the basis for the 1944 "Transport Plan" in which the USAAF / RAF heavy bombers were diverted to resupply nodes in France, in order to support the ground troops by starving the German forces of supplies.

(The brilliant horseshoe. When effective, the UNSC remains our best hope for international peace and security.)

This demands a level of abstraction from the target that is harder to square with UNSCR 1973. Harder, but not impossible - OP 4 states that the mission is "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" - in other words, if you can expansively interpret "threat" then a broad scale targeting plan becomes possible.

Ultimately, this broader approach is probably what will be needed if we are to avoid either stalemate in Libya, or worse, a Gaddafi victory. My hunch - and it's no more than this - is that if we can demonstrate to the line Gaddafi army units that they can defect to the rebels and live, or get destroyed in detail by allied air power, then we're several steps forward.

*Yes, I know that in 1944, the US Air Force was still part of the US Army as the US Army Air Corps.

Random Steam Train Interlude, Part Deux

As I was reminded by Mr. Joe, I promised to put up some random steam train pictures. In this case, as I'm currently in the US, an American one. Here's Southern Pacific 4449, a 4-8-4 express passenger engine that toured the US in 1975-76 with the "American Freedom Train" project.

The American Freedom Train was a neat idea - it was essentially a museum on wheels that took American history across the country to the people through 1975-76. And it even came to Vermont that first spring - it left Albany NY on April 6th and was open for visitors in Burlington VT on April 11th 1975.

I believe it even came through my mother's home town, North Bennington on the way, though I haven't got a picture of it. But here's a picture of the picturesque North Bennington Station (or Depot, depending on your sensibilities). It's a gorgeously over the top piece of American Victoriana, which was rescued by the town from dilapidation thirty years ago. It now houses the Town Offices.

Better yet, though the platform has a statue awaiting a passenger train, the last of which ran sometime in the 1950s (when it was possible to go direct to New York and with a single change, overnight to Miami), last night marked the beginning of a major study into reinstating passenger service to New York via Albany, and Burlington via Middlebury. This would be of great economic and social benefit for western VT, which currently has no meaningful public transport beyond some local buses, after it lost Greyhound services a few years back. All the details are here.

So, with luck, this will be 4hrs 15 mins from Penn Station, New York in 2014-15. We can but hope - it'd sure beat driving!

SDSR and Reality

(£70,000 an hour. Before bombs. And tankers, radar planes and intelligence assets. Ouch.)

I have commented on the UK's 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) many times on this blog. And as early as last summer, I was concerned that it was going to be a shambles. Not only had SDSR been rushed to meet a Spending Review deadline, but the level of strategic thinking on the UK's place in the world and desired international role was mostly evidenced by its absence - the all too predictable fuzzy thinking combined salami slicing cuts - trimming capabilities without addressing the cost base - with other capabilities falling between the services and being lost entirely - Nimrod MRA4 martime patrol aircraft, most obviously. And these very painful cuts at the same time as the UK insists on ploughing on with the £100bn replacement for the Trident nuclear system that seems entirely irrelevant.

Worse, the MoD engaged in its usual game of heroic budgetary assumptions, resulting in a £1bn deficit shortly after the publication of what purported to be the strategic planning document for the next decade. Why? Well, planning the budget around £500m of proceeds from a sale of Typhoon fighters to Oman before the deal was agreed probably didn't help. Especially as it is hasn't happened, and the Omani unrest of the Arab Spring leading to massive domestic spending commitments won't exactly have made it more likely.

(HMS CUMBERLAND in Benghazi in Malta shortly after having been in Benghazi. Poor drills - they've forgotten the "For Sale - Final Clearance" pennant.)

So now the MoD finds itself in the frankly absurd position that HMS YORK and HMS CUMBERLAND are patrolling of Libya and doing naval "stuff" - having been diverted on their way home for decommissioning. The Nimrod R1 electronic intelligence gathering aircraft has been extended in service through the summer instead of being binned at the end of March. And two of the UK's three little aircraft carriers (and all of their aircraft) have also been scrapped (though, in fairness, they'd not be especially useful in Libya).

I could go on. I'm sure you're all relieved to hear that I won't.

The question for the UK's political leadership the day before the Budget, is simple. When are the military-political leadership going to accept that either there are very significant limits to Britain's ambition and geo-political influence in the current budget, or that to maintain the current level of ambition requires a significantly larger budget?

Until they do, it's all going to be a half-arsed and good women and men will be exposed to unnecessary risk. Some may die. 

And that's completely unacceptable.

Libyan Targeting

(On top of Norfolk's only hill, a Tornado GR4 armed with Storm Shadow stirs.)

I'm not involved in the targeting for the on-going operations in Libya. But all of the evidence is that those who are taking the care that I would expect, especially when it comes to so-called "collateral damage". Indeed, I was thrilled when I heard this morning that the RAF aborted a pair of Tornados when there were concerns that there were civilians in the area. It might be 1,500 miles from home, but if you're not certain, then you take the bombs 1,500 miles home again - and this is exactly what I would expect from the US forces, France and the other allies involved.

Bravo. Genuinely excellent - BZ to the crews.

But there are a three issues I wanted to deal with tonight. First, what is collateral damage? Second can we target Gaddafi personally? Third, what happens next? 

Is this legal?

Collateral Damage

It is said that the truth is the first casualty in war. This may be true, but personally, there are two other things that annoy me. Firstly, to all of the journalists out there any armoured vehicle with a gun is not necessarily "a tank". (See below). Second, lots of ill-informed nonsense about "collateral damage", ostensibly an Orwellian term for killing innocent civilians. 

So what is "collateral damage"? 

There are four kinds of damage that military action can occasion on a target. Primary Damage, Secondary Damage, Collateral Damage and War Crimes. 

Primary Damage occurs when a legitimate military target is attacked and damaged. Legitimate military targets are defined by Article 52(2) of the 1st Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, 1977. Art 52(2) states:

"2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

So the test is two-fold: not only must the target offer an "effective contribution to military action" but if the attack is successful, it must offer a " definite military advantage". I would argue that Art 52(2) is customary international law, and therefore binding on all States.  

"Secondary Damage" is the damage inflicted on a legitimate military target within the ambit of Art 52(2) caused by an attack on something else. So if you attack a weapons dump in a barracks, and the force of the blast destroys some military vehicles, it's "Secondary Damage" and legal.

  

"Collateral Damage" is damage inflicted on a civilian object (or civilian) - in the course of attacking a legitimate target under Art 52(2). So if you're attacking an ammunition dump, and as the bomb goes in, the proverbial "schoolbus full of nuns" drives by, then sadly this is "collateral damage".

The point of discrimination, though, is that if you were to aim at the "schoolbus full of nuns" then you'd be committing a war crime, the fourth type of damage.

 (Not a tank - a BMP-1 Armoured Personnel Carrier)

  

Can we target Gaddafi personally?

An interesting question. 

OP 4 of UNSCR 1973 is explicit in allowing States

"to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". 

This must include targeting that is in concert with international law, specifically Art 52(2) of AP 1, above. 

 ("My agent is holding out for Ali-G to play me in the biopic.... these negotiations are like way too stressful.")

So can we "get Gaddafi"? 

Because we don't like him? No. 

Because (to borrow a phrase) he's an "evil doer"? No, that's what the ICC referral was for.

Colonel Gaddafi and his immediate advisors (notably his sons Saif and Khamis) are exercising military command roles, and therefore if they were killed, it is likely to have a "definitive military advantage". As such, provided that they were targeted as part of the command and control apparatus, then I believe that it is legal to do so. 

(Also not a tank - an Italian Oto-Melara Palmaria 155mm self-propelled howitzer. Do keep up at the back.)

What happens next?

It's unclear. The appearance of - please note - French airpower appears to have saved Benghazi from a Gaddafi armoured column on Saturday afternoon, and the continuing attacks on the Gaddafi forces' equipment will be having an effect. But not only does UNSCR 1973 explicitly ban occupying troops, the free Libyan forces bravery is not matched by training and organisation. So expecting them to be able to take on the regular Libyan forces under Saif Gaddafi and Khamis Gaddafi is asking a lot, even with air superiority and close air support. 

(Tornado GR4 with dual-mode Brimstone)

But this picture released by the British RAF is interesting. It shows an RAF Tornado GR4 carrying dual-mode (laser and radar) guided Brimstone missiles - a UK development of the American Hellfire system, designed to kill Russian tanks near the Fulda Gap. Brimstone can be used in an autonomous mode, and is designed to kill ex-Soviet tanks. If - and this is a big if - the UK wanted to do so, it could, under UNSCR 1973, use this to attack Gaddafi armoured forces anywhere in Libya, and specifically in Tripoli. If the regime loses the ability to control Tripoli, then it will collapse much faster. 

(A tank! Finally! In this case, a former Soviet T-55.)

UK publishes Libya legal advice (sort of)

(Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG addressing the Iraq Enquiry. Thank-you for everything.)

Appearing at the Iraq Enquiry last year, former UK Foreign Office Deputy Legal Adviser Elizabeth Wilmshurst (now Head of the Chatham House International Law Programme) - and the only person to resign over the illegality of the 2003 Iraq invasion - described the 2003 legal and policy process as  ... lamentable. There should have been greater transparency within government about the evolving legal advice" .  

Quite right too. 

So it was with real interest that I saw a note from Nick Clegg to LibDem party members this morning on the Libyan situation which includes this:

"Colonel Gaddafi’s treatment of his own people has been brutal, savage and wholly unacceptable. We have worked with Libya’s regional neighbours, especially the Arab League, and countries across the globe, to secure a resolution in UN Security Council. This resolution will allow us to act lawfully  in deploying our forces to up-hold a ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya.

The Prime Minister gave a statement yesterday, which you can read here. And on Monday we will have a full debate in the House of Commons, followed by a vote. In addition we will be publishing a summary of the legal advice of the Attorney-General. 

That is the right approach. This is a coalition government that will act decisively to protect innocent lives and uphold universal human rights. But one which will do so working with, not against, international law and the international community."

Shortly, therefore, we should get to read a summary of Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC's thoughts. Great, I look forward to it. 

Even better, Nick, you could publish the whole thing, and not just the summary.

   
Update: Here's the UK legal advice. Very sensible.