Air Power, Accuracy, and the Law of Targeting: Why No Brave New World?

• Author: Adam Roberts
• Position: Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and Fellow of Balliol College
• Pages: 133-150

VIII

Air Power, Accuracy,

and the Law of Targeting:

Why No Brave New World?

Adam Roberts1

Jeffrey Walker's paper on "Strategic Targeting and International Law" is clear,

punchy, and splendidly heretical. Iagree with much of it. It is indeed useful to

focus adiscussion of targeting on one dimension of warfare. Today it is undoubt-

edly air power that is the driver ofrevolutionary changes in the conduct ofwar, and

that presents some of the most difficult and challenging problems as regards the

implementation or adaptation of existing legal norms. As Mr. Walker notes, for

generations airmen have yearned for accurate, survivable and reliable all-weather

day/night weapons. Now they have got them. He and Iagree that this situation is

strewn with hazards, and that there is no brave new world ofprecise and legally un-

controversial bombing. Isuspect that this situation reminds both of us of that an-

cient and clever curse: "May your wishes be granted."

However, as will be seen from what follows, Idisagree with his main conclusions.

Specifically, Idisagree with him about why, despite improvements in accuracy, the

role of bombing in contemporary warfare remains costly in civilian lives and de-

struction. In addition, Ido not share his extreme pessimism about the role ofthe laws

of war in imposing some limits on bombing. As regards his proposed solution

—

Air Power, Accuracy, and the Law of Targeting: Why No Brave New World?

more effective political control of the military—Iam all in favor of it, but for reasons

indicated below it does not solve the particular problems he identifies.

In responding to his paper Iwill focus on four main issues relating to air power.

First, the significance of the technical developments that have made possible a

greater degree of accuracy and discrimination in bombing than in earlier eras. Sec-

ond, the provisions of the laws of war that relate to targeting, and the ways in which

they have shaped and reinforced the tendency toward discrimination in bombing.

Third, certain problems that remain, that help to explain why air bombardment is

far from achieving perfect precision and discrimination. Fourth, the special diffi-

culties that have arisen regarding the obligations on the defender to distinguish

military activities from civilian objects. Finally Iwill attempt to draw some

conclusions.

In each of the sections below, my discussion of the issues, like Mr. Walker's, will

focus on four wars:

•The War over Kuwait (1990-1)

•The War over Kosovo (1999)

•The War in Afghanistan (200 1-)

•The War in Iraq (2003-) 2

These wars have certain similarities. In all of them there have been United States-

led coalitions—though the coalitions have involved combat forces from progres-

sively fewer countries.3In all, the US-led forces had more or less complete command

ofthe air, and used air power (including precision-guided munitions) extensively. In

all, they were fighting against one essentially third-world State that was more or less

isolated diplomatically and had been subject to economic sanctions. In all, there was

at some stage acivil war or regional rebellion ongoing in the country concerned, as

well as an international war. In short, these were all thoroughly unequal contests.

The bombing in these wars has been amixture of strategic (intended to bring

about change on its own) and tactical (in support of ground operations). Mr.

Walker says of strategic bombardment: "We now have the technology but no lon-

ger the need." 4If one interprets this to mean, as much of his paper suggests, that the

actual uses of air power in recent wars have been very different from any of the clas-

sic visions such as those of Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell, Ihave no problem

with his statement. However, if he takes this to suggest that air power today is a

would-be solution in search of anon-existent problem, then while Isympathize

with the spirit of his remarks Ihave difficulty in accepting the analysis. He is right

that there is adanger of using air power, as adefault option in situations where, for

whatever reason, it is not appropriate. However, for better or for worse, some situ-

ations arise in which the application of air power is capable of achieving significant

134