[iwar] [fc:Gunships.Most.Effective.Psychological.Weapons]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-16 19:36:37
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Israel.backs.Palestinian.state,.end.to.violence]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Credibility,.Diplomacy.and.Military.Reality]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110170236.TAA26352@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Gunships.Most.Effective.Psychological.Weapons]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gunships Most Effective Psychological Weapons
2350 GMT, 011016

Summary

The United States deployed two AC-130 gunships in combat over
Afghanistan for the first time since air attacks began Oct.  7.  Use of
the large, low-flying craft indicates the Pentagon is highly confident
the Taliban's surface-to-air missile threat has been neutralized.  It
also suggests intelligence on fixed and mobile Afghan targets has
significantly improved.  Use of the highly specialized AC-130 serves to
bolster a psychological warfare program aimed at splitting the Taliban
while maintaining a cohesive anti-Taliban coalition. 

Analysis

Two AC-130 gunships took part in U.S.  attacks on Kandahar during the
night of Oct.  15, according to sources in Afghanistan and Washington. 
The AC-130 is a heavily armed variant of the C-130 transport, and
versions of it have been used since the Vietnam War for supporting U.S. 
Special Forces operations and to interdict small, mobile targets such as
convoys and units of infantry. 

Although it may not yet be time to deploy special forces, the AC-130 is
a powerful psychological weapon, and its use indicates that an evolution
in U.S.  strategy may be under way.  The deployment of the gunship is no
doubt intended to both reassure U.S.  coalition allies and unnerve and
fracture Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. 

By putting the AC-130 into action, the Pentagon is signaling it has a
high level of confidence that the past week's cruise missile and bombing
raids neutralized the Taliban's surface-to-air missile capabilities.  It
also suggests Washington has re-evaluated and downgraded the threat
posed by any remaining man-portable Stinger surface-to-air missiles that
were left in the Taliban's hands following the Soviet withdrawal from
Afghanistan. 

Though it carries an array of defensive countermeasures, including
electronic jammers, radar-confusing chaff dispensers and infrared
flares, the AC-130 is a prime target for light-air defense weapons.  It
is large and slow, with a cruise speed of 368 miles per hour and a much
slower speed when engaging a target. 

For its weapons to be effective, the gunship must orbit targets at a
maximum range of 12,000 feet, which is also within range of the Stinger
and its Russian-made counterparts.  The earlier-made AC-130H variant
must circle its target along a predictable flight path to aim its
sideways-firing weapons, though the trainable gatling cannon on the
later AC-130U allows a more flexible flight path. 

The AC-130 is also a relatively rare and valuable aircraft in the U.S. 
arsenal, with only eight AC-130H variants and 13 AC-130Us in service. 
The United States would not deploy even one of these aircraft at this
stage in the conflict without some certainty that it wouldn't be lost to
enemy fire on the first night out. 

Deployment of the AC-130 also suggests U.S.  intelligence regarding
fixed and mobile targets in Afghanistan has improved.  Until now, the
United States relied on long-range strategic bombers, cruise missiles
and fast-moving multi-role jet fighters for attacks on Afghanistan. 

These weapons are not well-suited for striking small, mobile targets
like individual units of Taliban fighters, but they are appropriate to
the targets U.S.  intelligence could identify.  They have focused on
destroying airfields, ammunition dumps, surface-to-air missile
emplacements, power and communications stations, barracks and camps. 

Afghanistan is quickly running out of such large, fixed, high-value
targets, and further strategic bombing raids would only serve to make
the rubble bounce.  Any attacks on Taliban personnel in urban areas also
run the risk of racking up high numbers of civilian casualties. 

The Taliban fighters are already reporting such damage, and although
their claims cannot be independently verified, they could have a serious
impact on U.S.  coalition allies in the region.  Muslim states have
universally warned Washington to avoid civilian casualties or risk
losing their support. 

During the Oct.  15 raids, the AC-130s struck a Taliban headquarters and
troop complex in Kandahar, according to Agence France-Presse.  If the
United States is using tactical aircraft against small and mobile units
in urban areas, it must have increased its intelligence gathering from
refugees, satellites, aerial electronic and photographic reconnaissance,
and perhaps from forces on the ground. 

Finally, the deployment of the AC-130 signals an evolution in the U.S. 
battle plan.  Though it does not indicate that U.S.  ground troops have
been deployed in Afghanistan yet, it suggests such an action is
imminent. 

The aircraft's value as a psychological weapon thus precedes its
physical impact on the battlefield.  Part of that psychological
component is the expectation that expanding the range of U.S.  military
options will first of all unnerve and fracture the Taliban. 

AC-130 variants were used to support special operations from Vietnam to
Bosnia, and U.S.  defense sources have encouraged a great deal of
speculation that AC-130s will be used to support special forces on the
ground inside Afghanistan. 

The basic scenario being spun includes helicopters of the 160th Special
Operations Aviation Regiment ferrying special forces troops from
Pakistan to targets in Afghanistan, with gunfire support from AC-130s. 
Pakistanis have reported the arrival of U.S.  troops at Jacobabad,
apparently supporting this scenario. 

This foreshadowing appears to have been effective at raising alarms in
Afghanistan.  Taliban officials and residents of Kandahar reported
hearing helicopters during the Oct.  15 attacks, even though U.S. 
sources claimed none were used. 

The AC-130's deployment should also serve to reassure U.S.  allies, both
inside Afghanistan and throughout the region.  Until now the United
States has struck Afghanistan from a distance, raising questions about
Washington's commitment to the battle.  As the United States moves to
the battlefield and more U.S.  troops are put at risk, countries like
Uzbekistan and groups like the Northern Alliance will be more confident
that Washington will see the war through to its conclusion. 

U.S.  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin
Powell have been making just that case on recent tours of the region. 
Rumsfeld Oct.  15 suggested tactical U.S.  air strikes could soon begin
targeting Taliban frontlines in northeastern Afghanistan. 

This would bridge the gap between the Northern Alliance, which has
decried the U.S.  failure to strike targets in support of its advances,
and Islamabad, which does not want to see the Northern Alliance roll
into Kabul before a coalition government is formed.  The arrival of the
AC-130 over the battlefield lends weight to Rumsfeld's words, as do
recent air strikes against the Taliban in Mazar-e-Sharif. 

The Taliban must now prepare for the possibility of tactical U.S.  air
support for Northern Alliance advances in the north as well as for U.S. 
Special Forces operations in the south.  If tactical strikes intensify
rapidly in the weeks before Ramadan, the Taliban may feel pressure to
abandon fixed positions and attempt to draw the United States into a war
in the mountains. 


------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Israel.backs.Palestinian.state,.end.to.violence]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Credibility,.Diplomacy.and.Military.Reality]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:55 PST