EFFECTS-BASED TARGETING: ANOTHER EMPTY PROMISE

1 EFFECTS-BASED targeting : ANOTHER EMPTY PROMISE ? BY. T. W. beagle . A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF. THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES. FOR COMPLETION OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS. SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES. air university . MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA. JUNE 2000. Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited ii DISCLAIMER. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author. They do not reflect the official position of the US Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or air university .

2 Iii ABOUT THE AUTHOR. Maj T. W. beagle Jr. is a B-1 pilot. After graduating from the US Air Force Academy in 1986, he attended Undergraduate Pilot Training at Columbus AFB, Mississippi, before beginning his first operational flying tour in the B-52H at Carswell AFB, Texas, in early 1988. After four and a half years of nuclear alert, he cross-trained into the B-1 and transferred to Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, for the next five and a half years. While there, he upgraded to instructor pilot and served as Chief of Squadron Standardization and Evaluation.

3 An Outstanding Graduate of the USAF Weapons School, he served in the capacity of Wing Weapons Officer for a year before returning to the school as an instructor and flight commander. A senior pilot with more than 3,000 hours of flying time, Major beagle completed Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, in June 1999 and remained there to attend the School of Advanced Airpower Studies the following year. Upon graduation, he was assigned to the Air Staff's Checkmate division in Washington, DC. A 1992 Distinguished Graduate of Squadron Officers School, he also holds a Masters degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry- Riddle Aeronautical university .

4 He is married to the former Bunny Kay Patterson, and God has blessed them with five children: Alyssa, Zachary, April, Isaac and Eric. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. As in all things, I thank Jesus Christ, my Savior, for bringing me to this point and seeing me through the trying year it took to create this thesis. I also truly appreciate the tireless efforts of my advisor, Lt Col Forrest Morgan, whose patience, guidance, and wisdom taught me much. His diligence and high standards improved the quality of this study immeasurably. Any mistakes or shortcomings that remain, I jealously claim as my own.

5 My gratitude also extends to those who have served this country in uniform and been willing to leave loved ones in order to do their nation's bidding. This research only served to heighten my appreciation of their courage, professionalism, struggles, and sacrifices. With particular regard to this study, I thank those who not only served in Operation Allied Force, but then willingly took time from their busy lives to graciously respond to the countless e-mails with which I bombarded them. Lastly, however, my greatest debt of thanks goes to my family for giving of their husband and father.

6 My children (Alyssa, Zach, April, Isaac, and Eric) heard not now, Daddy's working on school far more than any children should. I thank God for my family, and I. thank my family for their patience and love. v ABSTRACT. What is EFFECTS-BASED targeting , and from where did this concept come? Is it based on a coherent theory and, if so, has the US Air Force incorporated it in its doctrine and operations? Is there more yet to do? These questions form both the focus and format of this study, which examines the evolution of EFFECTS-BASED targeting . Specifically, this paper asks how effectively has the US Air Force incorporated the concept of effects.

7 based operations into its procedures for targeting and combat assessment. To answer this question, the study defines EFFECTS-BASED targeting , asserting that commanders should direct airpower against targets in ways that produce specific, predetermined, military and political effects. The study explores the historical development of EFFECTS-BASED targeting theory and then conducts a focused comparison of four major air operations Pointblank, Linebacker II, Desert Storm, and Allied Force . in order to survey US airpower's actual combat experience with regard to EFFECTS-BASED operations.

8 This study determines that senior decision makers have always been interested in creating specific effects rather than simply destroying targets; however, as a whole, the USAF has been inconsistent in employing EFFECTS-BASED operations across the spectrum of conflict. American airpower has accomplished its most significant improvements at the tactical level of war, but is less reliable in creating operational and strategic effects. In a similar vein, airpower has become very effective at producing direct, physical effects, and it is becoming increasingly capable of creating certain widespread systemic effects.

9 Generally, though, the ability to even predict, much less generate, specific psychological effects remains yet a hope and may, in fact, act as a virtual ceiling on the potential of EFFECTS-BASED operations. vi Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER ii ABOUT THE AUTHOR iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..iv ABSTRACT v 1 INTRODUCTION ..1. 2 EFFECTS-BASED targeting : WHAT IS IT? .5. 3 THE THEORETICAL BASIS 16. 4 OPERATION POINTBLANK ..25. 5 OPERATION LINEBACKER II 38. 6 OPERATION DESERT STORM ..58. 7 OPERATION ALLIED FORCE .78. 8 CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS, AND IMPLICATIONS.

10 95. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..111. List of Illustrations Figure Page 1 Interaction of Direct and Indirect Effects ..6. 2 Effects Taxonomies ..10. 3 Complexity of Higher-Order Effects..11. 4 Z-Diagram ..12. vii Chapter 1. Introduction The evaluation of the effects of aerial bombardment operations .. has been raised to first importance by the maturing of air power in the present conflict. No established methodology has been evolved, however, for making such an evaluation; in fact the exact nature and scope of the problem itself .. are not generally understood.