Posted on May 29, 2015
What does "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" really mean?
16.7K
96
70
4
4
0
For a few weeks at least the DoD News service emails have included the phrase "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" usually associated with attacks against small tactical units. I understand how occupation of land or the short-time potential of bringing direct or indirect fire limits the use of terrain [that implies real time observation]; but, I am not certain what the phrase means or how long the tactical advantage will be retained after the aircraft depart the AO.
[5/29/2015 update to question] The phrase seems to be focused on denying ISIL offensive capabilities.
May 28 - Near Tal Afar, Iraq an airstrike struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
May 14 - Near Asad, Iraq two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and occupied land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage
May 11 - Near Mosul, Iraq two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
May 5 - Near Ar Raqqah, Syria three airstrikes struck land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
Contrasted with -- May 5 - Near Mosul, Iraq seven airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, two ISIL staging areas, two ISIL excavators and an ISIL defensive position.
I certainly am hopeful for the strategic and operational defeat of ISIS. I hope the use of the phrase means something tangible and is not merely part of an information or deception campaign.
[5/29/2015 update to question] The phrase seems to be focused on denying ISIL offensive capabilities.
May 28 - Near Tal Afar, Iraq an airstrike struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
May 14 - Near Asad, Iraq two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and occupied land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage
May 11 - Near Mosul, Iraq two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
May 5 - Near Ar Raqqah, Syria three airstrikes struck land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
Contrasted with -- May 5 - Near Mosul, Iraq seven airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, two ISIL staging areas, two ISIL excavators and an ISIL defensive position.
I certainly am hopeful for the strategic and operational defeat of ISIS. I hope the use of the phrase means something tangible and is not merely part of an information or deception campaign.
Tactics
Military History
11A: Infantry Officer
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 25
7
7
0
Unfortunately, it's a load of crap. It's the worst political-media bullshit talk, and it doesn't mean a thing. A bridge at best. It's what they say when they don't know if we killed a bunch of bad guys or just blew dirt in the air.
(7)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Thanks Col Joseph Lenertz, I suspected the insertion of the phrase this past month was to give an impression that the limited air power campaign was making significant strides without having to back it up. When you mentioned crap, it reminded me of the acronym I developed while working in the Pentagon for many years - CRAP is the acronym for Critical Requirements and Programs. It usually got a chuckle but most of the time somebody on the staff was talking about competing crap the acronym fit very well.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Bombs dropped. Bombs hit the ground.
'Struck land feature' translate into, "The bombs did hit the ground and there was nothing there." 'Denying a tactical advantage' translates in "If they were really trained in Land Combat they would have put people there because it would have been a good position...except for us bombing it."
Remember gravity is not only a really good idea, it is a law.
'Struck land feature' translate into, "The bombs did hit the ground and there was nothing there." 'Denying a tactical advantage' translates in "If they were really trained in Land Combat they would have put people there because it would have been a good position...except for us bombing it."
Remember gravity is not only a really good idea, it is a law.
(6)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
MSG Brad Sand, I jokingly tell friends that I am resisting gravity and generally suffering the consequences. Speaking of bombs dropped and gravity, for some reason today Road Runner and Wyle E. Coyote and their frequently ignoring and rebelling against gravity and common sense. ACME products may be useful in inflicting some damage on ISIS. It would be great if a cartoon similar to Road Runner could be developed with minimal language and good animated action targeted towards ISIS wannabes.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
LTC Stephen F.
To be honest, MAJ Bryan Zeski I was thinking of killing those leaders with unique capabilities such as finance, information system, recruiting and web strategy, etc. Those leaders are hard to replace.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
True, but I doubt those things are being destroyed by airstrikes on land features. =)
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Yes, MAJ Bryan Zeski, unless they were "unfortunate" enough to believe they were indestructible and were forward deployed into a targeted area. Hopefully friendly SOF are involved in targeting.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I think that, if they have any common sense, which I suspect they do, they have those resources dispersed in countries and areas that are more connected to the rest of the world and not anywhere near the front-lines.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
LTC Stephen F.
SGT Richard H., I hope that the holes are big enough that many of them plus a few vehicles fall to their doom.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
So, as an Air Force Nurse (with prior Army Medic experience)...and some time to think about tactics due to my low levels of PTSD and my paranoia I would say there are quite a number of targets that would be eligible. I would suggest that the only stand of trees in the country on a hill top, the only water in an area, hill tops, mountain passes allowing easier passage (or the ONLY passage), river/water crossing points, Ridge lines with good fields of fire on opposition troops...the list goes on! Hitting mud huts, bridges, and other man made structures is ok....denies them travel and cover/refuge, oil wells etc limits their income; but all these are MAN MADE.
Does the phrase "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" really mean much more then hundreds of thousands of dollars blowing up dirt and rocks? Probably not. BUT, denial of a tactically superior vantage point, especially when you do not have enough people to place there to defend it..... maybe priceless to those that need it! Now, to the senior ranking officers that called bunk, I am not calling you out, BUT from both a tactical and strategic position, maybe a bit more then bridges would be worthy of being hit.... Needs review of more then just a nurse to verify tho!! ;-)
Does the phrase "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" really mean much more then hundreds of thousands of dollars blowing up dirt and rocks? Probably not. BUT, denial of a tactically superior vantage point, especially when you do not have enough people to place there to defend it..... maybe priceless to those that need it! Now, to the senior ranking officers that called bunk, I am not calling you out, BUT from both a tactical and strategic position, maybe a bit more then bridges would be worthy of being hit.... Needs review of more then just a nurse to verify tho!! ;-)
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. & Maj Chris Nelson - Gentlement; I concur with Col Joseph Lenertz - the statement is a load of crap akin to the claim that bombing is 100% effective because every single bomb hits a target (the ground).
A "tactical advantage" is transitory and is only of some real use if it [a] assists in a battle already ongoing, or [b] disrupts the logistics chain involving a battle already ongoing.
Of course there is always the possibility that the PR person simply doesn't know the difference between "tactical" and "strategic".
A "tactical advantage" is transitory and is only of some real use if it [a] assists in a battle already ongoing, or [b] disrupts the logistics chain involving a battle already ongoing.
Of course there is always the possibility that the PR person simply doesn't know the difference between "tactical" and "strategic".
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
- "airstrikes struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage" has no defined doctrinal meaning that I am aware of.
- The phrase is possibly a way to communicate "we are doing something" to the American public but most military professionals will see it for what it is (essentially meaningless).
- Never use nine words when one or two words work better (killed, destroyed, defeated). We can't use these words, however, since they would most likely be outright lies since we are not doing these things.
- It is things like this that better enable me to understand why the United States has not truly won a conflict at the operational or strategic levels of war since the end of WWII let alone properly shaped or detered a conflict as our doctrine and national military strategy state.
- The phrase is possibly a way to communicate "we are doing something" to the American public but most military professionals will see it for what it is (essentially meaningless).
- Never use nine words when one or two words work better (killed, destroyed, defeated). We can't use these words, however, since they would most likely be outright lies since we are not doing these things.
- It is things like this that better enable me to understand why the United States has not truly won a conflict at the operational or strategic levels of war since the end of WWII let alone properly shaped or detered a conflict as our doctrine and national military strategy state.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Thank you COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM, for confirming what I suspected. I concur with your assessment that using more words usually muddies the water when single words clarifies the meaning. Yes our conflicts fought since the generally unconstrained warfare of WWII have not been fought to successful resolution. I certainly hope we don't get involved in another period of unconstrained warfare; but, I do hope we will be able to define our enemies as they truly are without being concerned about offending anybody.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Catch-22 (6/10) Movie CLIP - Bomb the Ocean (1970) HD
Catch-22 movie clips: http://j.mp/1BcPxTS BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/sW9BrI Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DESCRIPTION: Y...
This should be read as "We missed."
This comes from that part of the Book/Movie "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller. In it the bombardier in the lead aircraft, CPT Yossarian, does not want to bomb a small Italian town that has no military significance, but was randomly selected so that they ad something to bomb. Yossarian toggles early triggering the rest of the Bomb Group to do the same. The strike photos show that they "Scored a Direct Hit on the Ocean" but with extremely good bomb groupings. The General is then called in to give the aircrews medals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcmwPYCUysw
This comes from that part of the Book/Movie "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller. In it the bombardier in the lead aircraft, CPT Yossarian, does not want to bomb a small Italian town that has no military significance, but was randomly selected so that they ad something to bomb. Yossarian toggles early triggering the rest of the Bomb Group to do the same. The strike photos show that they "Scored a Direct Hit on the Ocean" but with extremely good bomb groupings. The General is then called in to give the aircrews medals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcmwPYCUysw
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
@SSG Roger Ayscue, thank for posting. While was a cadet at West Point we read Catch 22, that year my tactical officer was named Major Major - the irony did not escape us. Later I met him in Germany and he had been promoted to LTC Major. We always wondered if he named any of his children Sargent or Sergeant.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC Stephen F.
MSG (Join to see), I hope that term indicates there are "friendlies" over-watching that denied terrain with both observation and direct and or indirect fire to control said terrain.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I would hope they are, and that is what determined the terrain worth hitting.
Like the days of Operations northern and southern watch. There were ways to keep eyes on what we need to keep eyes on.
The news has reported stories on the major league hitters over there boing business. and business seems to be good.
Like the days of Operations northern and southern watch. There were ways to keep eyes on what we need to keep eyes on.
The news has reported stories on the major league hitters over there boing business. and business seems to be good.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Blowing up a bridge or closing a narrow passage point with debris? I guess doing something to slow their rate of march or divert their route. Typical military bureaucratic nonsense most likely.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
COL Jon Thompson, every time I try to come up with a "reasonable" thought process for the use of the phrase the DoD email messages throw a wrench into it. First I thought it referred to targeting features which could be used in offensive operation like bridges, DoD mentions air strikes against bridges separately. Several people have applied their experience and understanding of operation in Afghanistan with its terrain to the application of the phrase. Sometimes the phrase has been used in vicinity of the mountainous northeast and sometimes the phrase has been used on the Nineveh plain and other relatively flat areas. Bottom line is I think your assessment of "Typical military bureaucratic nonsense most likely" is probably correct.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Usually, it refers to striking either lines-of-communication, such as roads, to deny high-speed movement into an area.
Sometimes, it may refer to striking berms, trenches, or other temporary fortifications to disallow their use by ISIL forces.
Could even be abandoned buildings, or buildings not currently inhabited by enemy but known to be staging areas.
We did this a few times in Afghanistan as well, particularly on hills and peaks known to be points of origin for indirect fire.
Sometimes, it may refer to striking berms, trenches, or other temporary fortifications to disallow their use by ISIL forces.
Could even be abandoned buildings, or buildings not currently inhabited by enemy but known to be staging areas.
We did this a few times in Afghanistan as well, particularly on hills and peaks known to be points of origin for indirect fire.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Lt Col (Join to see), Thanks, I think your first point "striking either lines-of-communication, such as roads, to deny high-speed movement into an area." The DoD Messages for Iraq and Syria do not seem to apply the term for air strikes against defense focused terrain including trenches and buildings and staging areas are also listed separately.
I expect the air strikes you conducted in Afghanistan were under observation and could be followed up by other assets.
I expect the air strikes you conducted in Afghanistan were under observation and could be followed up by other assets.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
You would suspect correctly...which may be another difference in the reporting. the JTACs controlling the strikes in Afghanistan were generally in the field, with eyes on the target. In Syria, not so much.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google