GRADUALISM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
The greatest frustration of Operation Allied Force was its slow start and equally slow escalation. A close second entailed the uniquely stringent rules of engagement that limited the effectiveness of many combat sorties. Indeed, the dominance of political inhibitions was a signal feature of the air war from start to finish. Because it was an operation performed essentially for humanitarian purposes, neither the United States nor any of the European members of NATO saw their security interests threatened by ongoing events in Yugoslavia. Because the perceived stakes were not high, at least at the outset, any early commitment by NATO to a ground offensive was all but out of the question. Moreover, both the anticipated length of the bombing effort and the menu of targets attacked were bound to be matters of often heated contention.
On top of that, the avoidance of noncombatant fatalities among Yugoslavia’s civilian population was rightly of paramount concern to NATO’s leaders, further aggravating the complications caused by poor target-area weather throughout much of the air war. As USEUCOM’s director of operations, USAF Major General Ronald Keys, later noted, while there was no single target whose elimination might have won the war, there was a profusion of targets that could potentially have lost the war had they been struck, either intentionally or inadvertently. In the presence of factors like these that could have split the alliance at any time, NATO’s unity was a sine qua non for the success of Allied Force. Not surprisingly, the Serbs were aware of that fact and were frequently able to exploit it.[37]
Acceptance of these realities, however, hardly eased the discomfiture among air warfare professionals over the fact that NATO’s self-imposed restraints were forcing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. One analyst, reporting the results of interviews conducted in late April with some two dozen senior active and retired Air Force generals, reported a collective sense of “disappointment that air power is being so poorly employed [and] frustration over the false promise of a perfect war and zero casualties.” His interviews revealed a deep-seated concern that “with far too much political micromanagement but without a clear strategy and the aid of ground forces, the air war… is destined to fail.” Worst of all, the generals complained, the United States and NATO did not take advantage of the shock effect of air power. Said retired General Charles Horner: “We are training [the Serbs] to live with air attacks.” Said another Air Force generaclass="underline" “Air planners are not planning the air operation. They are being issued targets each day for the next day’s operations, too late to do rational planning.”[38]
There was no less disaffection among air warfare professionals at the working level. As one U.S. pilot flying combat sorties complained in an email message that made its way to public light: “This has been a farce from the start. We have violated every principle of campaign air power I can think of.” The pilot hastened to add that “over-zealous air power advocates have, since Desert Storm, sold us as something we are not. Air power can do a lot of things, [but] it cannot change the mind of a dictator who has his people’s tacit support.” Nevertheless, he concluded, “it is not the USAF’s fault that the air campaign is not going as well as Desert Storm. Hitting 5–8 targets a night, with sequential [as opposed to] parallel operations, is not the way to prosecute a campaign.”[39]
The UK Ministry of Defense’s director of operations in Allied Force denied that there was ever a hard-and-fast rule that NATO must not lose an aircraft under any circumstances.[40] Yet NATO’s leaders had powerful incentives to avoid any circumstances that might result in friendly aircrews being killed in action or taken prisoner of war, since the continued cohesion of the alliance was the latter’s center of gravity and since any such losses would have been precisely the sorts of untoward events most likely to undermine it. Indeed, if there was any unwritten “prime directive” that guided NATO’s strategy throughout the course of Allied Force, it was the preservation of its own solidity, especially during the air war’s critical early weeks. In light of that concern, General Short admitted toward the end of May that zero losses was a primary goal in fact if not in name.[41] Not only would a split in the alliance have undermined the air war’s effort against Belgrade, it would have raised fundamental questions about the future viability of NATO as a military alliance. It naturally followed that an incremental bombing effort and least-common-denominator targeting had to be accepted until it became clearer throughout the alliance that NATO was committed for the long haul.[42]
Although the manner in which Allied Force was conducted fell short of the ideal use of air power, it suggests that gradualism may be here to stay if U.S. leaders ever again intend to fight wars for marginal or amorphous interests with as disparate a set of allies as NATO. As the vice chairman of the JCS at the time, USAF General Joseph Ralston, noted after the air effort ended, air warfare professionals will continue to insist, and rightly so, that a massive application of air power will be more effective than gradualism. Yet, Ralston added, “when the political and tactical constraints imposed on air use are extensive and pervasive—and that trend seems more rather than less likely—then gradualism may be perceived as the only option.”[43] General Jumper likewise intimated that the United States may have little choice but to accept the burdens of an incremental approach as an unavoidable cost of working with shaky allies and domestic support in the future: “It is the politics of the moment that will dictate what we can do…. If the limits of that consensus mean gradualism, then we’re going to have to find a way to deal with a phased air campaign. Efficiency may be second.”[44]
Insofar as gradualism promises to be the wave of the future, it suggests that airmen will need to discipline their natural urge to bridle whenever politicians hamper the application of a doctrinally pure campaign strategy and to recognize and accept instead that political considerations, after all, determine—or should determine—the way in which campaigns and wars are fought. This does not mean that military leaders should surrender to political pressures without first making their best case for using force in the most effective and cost-minimizing way. It does, however, stand as an important reminder that war is ultimately about politics and that civilian control of the military is an inherent part of the democratic tradition. It follows that although airmen and other warfighters are duty-bound to try to persuade their civilian superiors of the merits of their recommendations, they also have a duty to live with the hands they are dealt and to bend every effort to make the most of them in an imperfect world.[45] It also follows that civilian leaders at the highest levels have an equal obligation to try to stack the deck in such a manner that the military has the best possible hand to play and the fullest possible freedom to play it to the best of its ability. This means expending the energy and political capital needed to develop and enforce a strategy that maximizes the probability of military success. In Allied Force, that was not done by the vast majority of the top civilian leaders on either side of the Atlantic.[46]
37
Cited in Colonel Steve Pitotti, USAF, “Global Environments, Threats, and Military Strategy (GETM) Update,” Air Armament Summit 2000 briefing, 2000.
38
William M. Arkin, “Inside the Air Force, Officers Are Frustrated About the Air War,”
39
Rowan Scarborough, “Officers Criticize Air War Strategy,”
40
Interview with Air Marshal Sir John Day, RAF, UK Ministry of Defense director of operations in Allied Force, RAF Innsworth, United Kingdom, July 25, 2000.
41
William Drozdiak, “Air War Commander Says Kosovo Victory Near,”
42
It bears noting that the zero-loss issue, however seriously it may have been regarded at the highest leadership levels, had little day-to-day impact on actual combat operations. As an F-15E instructor electronic warfare officer (EWO) who flew multiple combat missions with the 494th Fighter Squadron recalled from first-hand experience: “The issue of the ‘no-losses rule’ did not filter down to the aircrew level, since we always plan with that goal in mind. We were briefed that there were no ‘high-priority’ targets prior to the opening of hostilities, but that ended up having little effect on the risk level that we were willing to accept. The concrete effects of the ‘no-loss rule’ were the 15,000-ft floor and a number of unreasonable ROE restrictions. However, outside the immediate tactical constraints imposed by the ROE, the prevailing high-level attitude had no effect on tactical operations. We were aware of the priority placed on minimizing losses, but the effect on the mission was overrated. There were no cases that I am aware of where the aircrew said, ‘Well, this looks a little hairy, and the priority is not to lose an airplane, so I won’t do it.’ We were more likely to abort an attack for collateral damage concerns than we were to abort for survivability issues. As would be expected, aircrews pressed to the target in the face of serious opposition.” Major Michael Pietrucha, USAF, personal communication to the author, July 9, 2001.
43
“Ralston Sees Potential for More Wars of Gradual Escalation,”
44
“Washington Outlook,”
45
On this point, Air Vice Marshal Mason remarked that he had not “spent the past 25 years trying to persuade unbelievers of the efficacy of air power only to finish up whining because political circumstances made operations difficult.” Personal communication to the author, October 22, 1999. In a similar spirit, the leader of USAFE’s post–Allied Force munitions effectiveness investigation in Kosovo later suggested that airmen should “consider a politically restricted target list like the weather: complain about it, but deal with it.” Colonel Brian McDonald, USAF, briefing at RAND, Santa Monica, California, December 14, 1999.
46
It further follows that airmen, for their part, need to learn not only how to conduct gradual campaigns more effectively, but also how better to explain convincingly to politicians the value of using mass and shock early and the greater strategic effectiveness of effects-based targeting.