Are we getting worse at target identification?

1LT William Clardy — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:48:31 -0400

After our mixed track record for mistaking wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan for insurgent activities, and already acquiring a reputation for indifference to civilian casualties, why does it seem like our intelligence teams still either don't know or don't care about how many civilians get killed by careless (thoughtless?) targeting? Is this a de facto new standard that will be the price of our preoccupation with zeroing out American casualties?

As a related concern, how many folks here have qualms about our decision a few years ago to quietly redefine "insurgent" to include all military-age males in the target area?

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/10/and-yemen-burns-washingtons-blessing/122521/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

And Yemen Burns With Washington's Blessing

The Saudis keep hitting civilians — a wedding party on Monday, killing 120 — and blaming U.S. intelligence for bad targets.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 5 at 2015 10:53 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:53:40 -0400

Looks as though our Intel or lack of needs much improvement.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 11:00 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:00:27 -0400

I think the reason why is we have more times where the target is not being observed by a FO and fired on by drones.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 5 at 2015 11:03 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:03:34 -0400

The most important and best reconnaissance asset an Intelligence Analyst has is the Infantryman.

Let me repeat, the BEST asset we have is INFANTRY. You have the most visibility. Everything else is playing second fiddle, either because of DISTANCE or TIME. Intelligence is Information which has been analyzed to provide a picture for the commander. That's it.

If we have a Squad encounter a Squad, that tells us there is likely a platoon "in the area." When another squad finds the second squad, we use that information "to build a more complete picture" like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.

In unconventional warfare there are less pieces, and the picture is fuzzy. So, it is getting harder for Intelligence present a reasonable image. We're not fighting a ground war on this, so we're neutered on this. There is no "man on the ground."

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Oct 5 at 2015 11:25 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:25:25 -0400

The question we should ask is how is the enemy getting better at disguising what's really going on

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 11:26 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:26:17 -0400

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS has it correct. That being said, there is no such thing as perfect intelligence. Anyone who demands it is a fool. Risk is left to commanders, not to congressmen or reporters. It's easy to look back at a situation, which is hard to determine from a Tactical Operations Center at 0300 in the morning and say that the commander should not have made a call. BS. If you don't want bad things to happen, don't go to war. Don't fly sorties. Don't launch drones. The only way to ensure no loss of civilian life is to keep a military away from the area. Our definition of "significant" civilian casualties has changed significantly as well. We go OUT OF OUR WAY to ensure that civilians don't get hurt. We are spending millions of dollars creating missiles that limit damage. We used to turn the mean temperature of cities in Japan to 500 degrees farenheit and call it a strategic success. I think we have come a long way in the efforts we take to reduce casualties. Anyone who demands a "no-civilian casualty" war is a fool. Moving out without the reason behind the strike is ignorant. We don't know the whole story. All we know is that civilians died. Just like last week....and a month ago...and a year ago...and 10 years ago. We do our best to control it. Sometimes (and not often) we fail. Things that explode kill people.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 5 at 2015 11:29 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:29:32 -0400

The only way to prevent collateral damage is to NOT shoot, bomb, or otherwise use lethal weapons. There is and always has been civilian deaths in combat. We are the most cautious of any military in the world. We take casualties while protecting civilians and don't complain (with a few notable exceptions). This can not be accomplished unless we have spotters on the ground directing fire. Who will be the first to go into an area filled with ISIS to direct fire?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 11:39 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:39:07 -0400

What I THINK is actually happening is that terrorist/insurgents/whateveryouwanttocallthems are starting to use civilian shields more and more. I don't think we have actually targeted the hospitals/mosques/weddings/etc. I think we are targetting legitimate enemies of the state and they are taking shelter in those areas intentionally, knowing that even if they die at least the publicity will be in their favor, and also that we still ARE reluctant to target them even if the media seems to indicate otherwise.

I agree hitting a hospital or wedding is awful, however sometimes it isn't the US doing it, and other times it isn't what it seems.

Just remember for every story you see about a US strike that hit a hospital, there are 100 other stories you didn't see about the targets we didn't hit because of the civilian casualties. The reason it's news when the US does it is because it isn't the norm. When it stops being reported, then you know we've come to a new era.