The start of the battle of Baghdad has been delayed for at least a week, due to the early misuse of airpower by the U.S., say active and retired Air Force officials. Only after five days of war did air strikes begin to focus on attacking enemy ground forces, particularly the better armed and organized Republican Guard units. During the 1991 offensive against Iraq, ground forces were softened up by a month of bombing beforehand. This time, close air support intensified only after U.S. ground forces--after moving 220 of the 300 mi. to Baghdad--lost their momentum...
This article might be monday morning QBing and inter-service squabbling, but at least it's written by a real defense pub.
...Placement of the fire support coordination line (inside of which strike aircraft activity is severely limited) has been pointed to as a problem, possibly a blunder. It was set so far in front of the attacking U.S. troops that for a while fixed-wing aircraft weren't able to focus on methodically destroying the Iraqi ground troops, said the senior planner. Close air support tasks were left instead to attack helicopter units that operate at low speeds and altitudes, making them vulnerable to concentrated small arms and light antiaircraft artillery fire. "The helicopters were being shot to pieces because they're flying where everybody on the battlefield can hit them," he said. "For a long time Army aviators have believed that they can fly nape of the Earth and survive [that kind of fire]. What we should have done is taken the oil fields around Basra and then let everybody sit for a couple of weeks while Air Force and Navy tactical air pounded the Iraqi ground forces..."
Echoing some of Fred's criticisms of Westmoreland Franks. Still, not all bad news. |