bobdina
03-25-2010, 02:34 PM
U.S. air support pilots learn to hold back
By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times
Stars and Stripes online edition, Thursday, March 25, 2010
ABOARD THE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER — At the nightly "hot wash" debriefing on the Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pilot from the Pukin' Dogs squadron was explaining how he dropped a 500-pound bomb on a Taliban target in Afghanistan — and why.
The pilot, a Naval Academy graduate with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, would face two such cross-examinations before he could get some sleep after his 12-hour mission.
"It's very professional but very gloves-off," said the 34-year-old lieutenant commander, who prefers that he be identified only by his call-sign, Thurman.
Pilots have always undergone intense debriefings after combat missions, but the questions focus now on whether they were certain that no civilians were endangered before they dropped a bomb or launched a missile. One Super Hornet pilot aboard this carrier off the coast of Pakistan says the grilling is a bit like defending a master's thesis, with professors trying to poke holes in your explanations.
"They ask very pointed questions and you best have the answers," Thurman said.
It's hard to a mud-mover — slang for a pilot who aggressively supports ground troops — when the bosses won't let you push the button.
Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, says mission No. 1 is to avoid civilian casualties, even if it means letting Taliban fighters escape. Those casualties, McChrystal said, are undermining Afghan support for the U.S.-led coalition. In its last deployment, the Eisenhower's warplanes dropped 66,000 pounds of bombs on Afghanistan. In this deployment, it is doubtful that the Eisenhower squadrons will drop a fraction of that amount.
Targets are more limited, said Capt. Roy Kelley, an F/A-18 pilot and commander of Carrier Air Wing Seven aboard the Eisenhower. And the number of bombs per engagement has gone down.
"Where once we would use five bombs, now we will use one," Kelley said.
The McChrystal rules appear to be helping reduce the number of civilian deaths caused by NATO and allied Afghan forces. A report by the human rights division of the United Nations found that in 2009, 596 civilian deaths were caused by those forces, compared with 828 in 2008 — in both years, airstrikes caused most of those deaths.
In 2009, the percentage of overall civilian deaths attributed to NATO and allied Afghan forces, as opposed to the Taliban, decreased from 39 percent to 24 percent.
The impact of the more restrictive use of airstrikes and the use of ground weapons on the war is debatable. Although officers believe it is helping win the confidence of the Afghan people, some ground troops believe the restrictions put them at greater risk.
"The bad guys know our hands are tied: They hide behind women and children, or where we think women and children might be, and they know we can't shoot back or call an airstrike," said Staff Sgt. Joseph Brooks. "It means we have to sit there and get shot at and not return fire. It's very frustrating."
It can be difficult for a pilot to exercise restraint when soldiers or Marines are in a firefight and calling for air support, said F/A-18C pilot Lt. Nicole Johnson, a member of the Rampagers squadron.
"It's an adrenaline blood-rush when you can hear, in the background, that our guys are getting shot at and they're calling for air support," said Johnson, 30, whose call-sign is Bad Dog. "But you've got to be careful."
In preparation for the Norfolk, Va.-based carrier's return in January, pilots were briefed extensively on the new rules under McChrystal, who took over in June 2009, just as the Eisenhower was ending a deployment.
"We had a heart-to-heart discussion with our people," Kelley said. "They needed to know what are objectives are — that we're here to protect (the Afghan) people and that means limiting civilian deaths."
Kelley is notified immediately by military air traffic controllers in Qatar when one of his pilots has launched a weapon. Word sweeps through the air squadrons: "We dropped." The Eisenhower pilots conduct 25 percent to 30 percent of the air missions over Afghanistan; the rest are done by land-based U.S. and coalition warplanes.
Each day the warplanes circle over Afghanistan, waiting for a call from troops requesting an airstrike. On the ground, infantry commanders, sometimes with lawyers at their elbow, go through a checklist to make sure their request fits the rules of engagement.
The final decision, though, rests with the pilot. The difference between McChrystal and his predecessor had an immediate impact on pilots.
"This year we are a lot more careful," Johnson said. "There are a lot more rules and regulations on what we can and can't do, and we need to make sure there are check marks in all the boxes."
At the hot wash, Thurman, who flies an F/A-18E Super Hornet, explained that he had gotten a call from British soldiers under attack by Taliban fighters in the Kajaki area in Helmand province. In his excitement, the forward air controller's British accent became hard to understand.
"I had to tell him, 'Slow down, slow down, so I can understand you better,' " said Thurman, noting that he had to dial in a 10-number grid to launch a bomb and couldn't afford to misunderstand a number.
Hurried exchanges took place, and Thurman was assured that approval had been given — the Taliban fighters were in an isolated building away from homes and farms. A GPS-guided bomb was launched; three fighters were listed as killed, one possibly a commander.
At the second debriefing, attended by Kelley, Rear Adm. Philip Davidson, commander of the Eisenhower strike group, and other senior officers, a classified video of the bomb's flight was shown. It indicated what Thurman could see. Such a video is used to check against the pilot's recitation of what happened.
"Often, in this war, it's the bombs that you don't drop that are the most important," Davidson said. "Every fight has its nuance and you have to align the tactics with the strategy."
Thurman's decision was backed by Kelley and the others. He was cleared to fly again the next day.
In an interview the next morning, Thurman said the new rules of engagement make sense, saying, "The Afghans believe the planes are omnipotent and that when we have civilian casualties that we did it on purpose."
There's another reason that he backs the rules even if it can be difficult to hold back when colleagues on the ground are under attack.
"I've never been told that I've caused civilian casualties," he said. "I don't want that on my conscience."
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68907
By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times
Stars and Stripes online edition, Thursday, March 25, 2010
ABOARD THE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER — At the nightly "hot wash" debriefing on the Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pilot from the Pukin' Dogs squadron was explaining how he dropped a 500-pound bomb on a Taliban target in Afghanistan — and why.
The pilot, a Naval Academy graduate with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, would face two such cross-examinations before he could get some sleep after his 12-hour mission.
"It's very professional but very gloves-off," said the 34-year-old lieutenant commander, who prefers that he be identified only by his call-sign, Thurman.
Pilots have always undergone intense debriefings after combat missions, but the questions focus now on whether they were certain that no civilians were endangered before they dropped a bomb or launched a missile. One Super Hornet pilot aboard this carrier off the coast of Pakistan says the grilling is a bit like defending a master's thesis, with professors trying to poke holes in your explanations.
"They ask very pointed questions and you best have the answers," Thurman said.
It's hard to a mud-mover — slang for a pilot who aggressively supports ground troops — when the bosses won't let you push the button.
Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, says mission No. 1 is to avoid civilian casualties, even if it means letting Taliban fighters escape. Those casualties, McChrystal said, are undermining Afghan support for the U.S.-led coalition. In its last deployment, the Eisenhower's warplanes dropped 66,000 pounds of bombs on Afghanistan. In this deployment, it is doubtful that the Eisenhower squadrons will drop a fraction of that amount.
Targets are more limited, said Capt. Roy Kelley, an F/A-18 pilot and commander of Carrier Air Wing Seven aboard the Eisenhower. And the number of bombs per engagement has gone down.
"Where once we would use five bombs, now we will use one," Kelley said.
The McChrystal rules appear to be helping reduce the number of civilian deaths caused by NATO and allied Afghan forces. A report by the human rights division of the United Nations found that in 2009, 596 civilian deaths were caused by those forces, compared with 828 in 2008 — in both years, airstrikes caused most of those deaths.
In 2009, the percentage of overall civilian deaths attributed to NATO and allied Afghan forces, as opposed to the Taliban, decreased from 39 percent to 24 percent.
The impact of the more restrictive use of airstrikes and the use of ground weapons on the war is debatable. Although officers believe it is helping win the confidence of the Afghan people, some ground troops believe the restrictions put them at greater risk.
"The bad guys know our hands are tied: They hide behind women and children, or where we think women and children might be, and they know we can't shoot back or call an airstrike," said Staff Sgt. Joseph Brooks. "It means we have to sit there and get shot at and not return fire. It's very frustrating."
It can be difficult for a pilot to exercise restraint when soldiers or Marines are in a firefight and calling for air support, said F/A-18C pilot Lt. Nicole Johnson, a member of the Rampagers squadron.
"It's an adrenaline blood-rush when you can hear, in the background, that our guys are getting shot at and they're calling for air support," said Johnson, 30, whose call-sign is Bad Dog. "But you've got to be careful."
In preparation for the Norfolk, Va.-based carrier's return in January, pilots were briefed extensively on the new rules under McChrystal, who took over in June 2009, just as the Eisenhower was ending a deployment.
"We had a heart-to-heart discussion with our people," Kelley said. "They needed to know what are objectives are — that we're here to protect (the Afghan) people and that means limiting civilian deaths."
Kelley is notified immediately by military air traffic controllers in Qatar when one of his pilots has launched a weapon. Word sweeps through the air squadrons: "We dropped." The Eisenhower pilots conduct 25 percent to 30 percent of the air missions over Afghanistan; the rest are done by land-based U.S. and coalition warplanes.
Each day the warplanes circle over Afghanistan, waiting for a call from troops requesting an airstrike. On the ground, infantry commanders, sometimes with lawyers at their elbow, go through a checklist to make sure their request fits the rules of engagement.
The final decision, though, rests with the pilot. The difference between McChrystal and his predecessor had an immediate impact on pilots.
"This year we are a lot more careful," Johnson said. "There are a lot more rules and regulations on what we can and can't do, and we need to make sure there are check marks in all the boxes."
At the hot wash, Thurman, who flies an F/A-18E Super Hornet, explained that he had gotten a call from British soldiers under attack by Taliban fighters in the Kajaki area in Helmand province. In his excitement, the forward air controller's British accent became hard to understand.
"I had to tell him, 'Slow down, slow down, so I can understand you better,' " said Thurman, noting that he had to dial in a 10-number grid to launch a bomb and couldn't afford to misunderstand a number.
Hurried exchanges took place, and Thurman was assured that approval had been given — the Taliban fighters were in an isolated building away from homes and farms. A GPS-guided bomb was launched; three fighters were listed as killed, one possibly a commander.
At the second debriefing, attended by Kelley, Rear Adm. Philip Davidson, commander of the Eisenhower strike group, and other senior officers, a classified video of the bomb's flight was shown. It indicated what Thurman could see. Such a video is used to check against the pilot's recitation of what happened.
"Often, in this war, it's the bombs that you don't drop that are the most important," Davidson said. "Every fight has its nuance and you have to align the tactics with the strategy."
Thurman's decision was backed by Kelley and the others. He was cleared to fly again the next day.
In an interview the next morning, Thurman said the new rules of engagement make sense, saying, "The Afghans believe the planes are omnipotent and that when we have civilian casualties that we did it on purpose."
There's another reason that he backs the rules even if it can be difficult to hold back when colleagues on the ground are under attack.
"I've never been told that I've caused civilian casualties," he said. "I don't want that on my conscience."
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68907