Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Carpet Bombing: A Brief History
Ted Cruz locked onto the phrase “carpet bombing” on the campaign trail and repeated it in the most recent Republican debate. He presumably means heavy, concentrated, tactical airstrikes such as those used in the First Gulf War. In popular imagination, these were also decisive in the Second Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the 1999 campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, he probably means a massive concentration of tactical airstrikes against all C3 targets (command, control, communication) and against enemy logistics and operational forces.
It’s true that the air rate of sorties (one craft, one mission) against ISIS has been very low compared to those campaigns. It seems that Cruz envisions using air power alone to destroy ISIS by accelerating the tempo of strikes. For some reason, he’s confused the phrase “carpet bombing” with this idea. Perhaps he saw it on a documentary somewhere.
In the last debate, Wolf Blitzer immediately assumed he was talking about area bombing — the use of heavy bombers during the Second World War to smash enemy cities. The technique was first used by the Germans, based on the theories of 1920s air warfare advocates such as the Italian general Guilio Douhet and the American general William “Billy” Mitchell. Anyone who wants a grim laugh should read Douhet’s book, The Command of the Air. (He vastly overestimated the amount of damage a ton of bombs could do, among many other mistakes.) But at the time, air force generals really thought he was onto something, and the idea that wars may be won through airpower alone has long gripped military planners and still grips popular imagination.
Area bombing like that conducted during the Second World War would be truly impossible to conduct in this day and age. Short of using nuclear weapons, it’s hard to imagine how bombing assets could be sufficiently concentrated enough to permit such a heavy strike. And it would be a clear war crime under the 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
I’m certainly among those who believe the area bombing campaigns were not a complete waste of lives, in that they significantly shortened the course of the Second World War. But that’s another discussion, and that wasn’t really “carpet bombing,” either.
Wikepedia’s definition of carpet bombing appeals to the Medimex dictionary:
Carpet bombing, also known as saturation bombing, is a large aerial bombing done in a progressive manner to inflict damage in every part of a selected area of land. The phrase evokes the image of explosions completely covering an area, in the same way that a carpet covers a floor.
I don’t think that’s quite the correct definition, either, so I’ll clarify. Carpet bombing is the use of heavy bombers and a strategic or operational-level weapon — the type needed for area bombing — to support tactical operations. For example, the Strategic Air Command’s B-52s, originally designed to deliver nuclear weapons, were modified to carry conventional high explosive bombs for use against Viet Cong sanctuaries.
Let’s define some terms: tactical, operational, and strategic. “Tactical” refers to achieving limited, short-term goals. We need to take that town tomorrow. We need to bomb this artillery unit. We need to achieve a breakthrough. Tactical airpower.
“Strategic” planning is the way wars are won, from the planning of a campaign to deployment, and even in the design of weapons over the course of a war.
“Operational” describes all the plans that derive from these — plans that bridge the gap between the tactical and the strategic.
The first successful use of carpet bombing — that’s to say, massive bombing, concentrated in a narrow and shallow area of the front, and closely coordinated with advance of friendly troops — came at the end of the Tunisia campaign in 1943. The best examples of its successful use come during Operation Totalize at Caen during the Normandy battles. This was spearheaded by the Canadian Army, using the newly-built Armored Personnel Carriers that were later to dominate the battlefield. The Germans had been stubbornly preventing a northern breakout. Hundreds of British tanks had been destroyed trying to punch out of Caen. German 88 mm anti-tank guns had clear lines of fire over great wide fields, holding off all daylight attacks. Under the cover of night, using a carpet-bombing force, the Canadians were able to break out and cover the ground.
The RAF had spent years developing effective techniques for night combat, but were not very proficient in attacking during the light of day. Using the same carpet-bombing techniques during the day proved ineffective. After a short drop that killed Allied troops, the use of carpet bombing was suspended for the duration of the war. The bomber barons were happy to return to what they thought was the real mission: area bombing cities.
The Korean war was the heyday of carpet bombing. The United States quickly gained control of the skies and began bombing anything that moved. Curtis Lemay, commander of the Strategic Air Command, later claimed that the US killed at least 20 percent of the North’s population during the conflict. The truth is they bombed everything they could: rails, roads, and supply centers. Despite all of this, the North Koreans adapted and managed to keep their armies supplied along the 38th parallel.
The last true use of carpet bombing was in Vietnam. A group of 28 B-52 bombers were retrofitted to support tactical strikes. Their heavy bombs would fall on the jungle, clearing out large areas upon which helicopter forces could land.
They were also used in a tactical role, but were much less effective. It took them several hours to fly from Guam to get on station. Often they would bomb targets only to find the enemy had already left the area. This happened so often it caused the National Security Agency to investigate.
The Soviet Union didn’t often have as many bases as the United States from which to monitor communications, so they had set up a fleet of “fishing trawlers.” Outside, they looked like commercial craft. Inside, these were packed to the rivets with intelligence gear. The NSA worried that the Air Force’s sophisticated communications gear had been cracked by the Soviets, meaning the SAC’s bombers were in danger of being intercepted, or worse, sent conflicting orders.
The NSA team arrived on Guam and quickly determined that they needn’t fear the worst: The problem was much simpler. Since the airmen in Guam knew they were in a rear area, they didn’t bother to use operational security, and they broadcast all information in the clear. The Soviet trawlers took that information fed it back to Moscow; from there, the Viet Cong were tipped off about when the bombers would arrive, their fuel loads, and other insights that helped them to pinpoint where the B-52s would strike.
Suffice to say, no, Ted Cruz doesn’t want to nuke Raqqa. He seems to want to use heavier air strikes to win. But that won’t defeat ISIS. It’s a classic air power delusion. Militarily speaking, the only way to defeat them is with ground forces supported by airstrikes.
If the North Koreans could supply their armies even as Curtis Lemay bombed everything that moved for two years, it should be obvious that bumping up the pace of sorties won’t remove ISIS.
Until this president or the next grasps this — and speaks the truth to the American people and their allies — you may assume he or she has no serious plan to dislodge them.
Published in General, History, Military, Politics
This is a key point. Shale beds of different varieties almost wrap the earth. That doesn’t guarantee that all of them will be economically viable to produce hydrocarbons, but as long as governments around the world work to prevent even trying the technology the answer isn’t known.
I think this is a great comment. Exporting the technology is more viable than fuel.
I think some American environmentalists truly want to live in caves.
Giant Killer
Though the Germans didn’t follow through, they did several large scale carpet bombing operations during the war. Especially on the Eastern Front, the bombing of Stalingrad with Fleigerkorps VIII is the most striking a thousand airplanes dropping firebombs devastated it before the German army even attacked the city. They also were planning a large scale bombing campaign in 43, but the retreat after Kursk prevented that from being implemented. Concentrations of heavy bombers and the V1 rockets were to be used.
Captainpower
A magazine I write for Strategy and Tactics has several pieces on the Nixon Bombing campaigns. They were much more effective than the early Rolling Thunder operations and are credited with bringing the North to the table for the Paris Peace Accords. The first real use of precision laser guiding bombs as I recall.
That makes sense. I knew it was more expensive to do than to do via pipeline, but didn’t understand that the issue was cooling it. But the knowledge that it would be much costlier is why I said “subsidized.”
Everyone here’s going to vomit at that suggestion. They’ll point out how expensive this would be, how much government intervention in the market it would involve, the unfair burden it would put on us, and they’ll respond viscerally: “Subsidize European energy bills? What about our own bills? Why don’t they cut their social spending budgets?”
Answer: At this point, we have no good military options left. Putin turned this into a direct superpower conflict. It’s too late to establish a no-fly zone. It’s too late to fight a proxy war: He’s killing and will continue to kill our proxies. Anyone who thinks they’ll ever trust us again is nuts. The risks and costs of a military intervention in Syria were huge to begin with; now they’d be staggering.
Don’t bring the war to an end? ISIS will spread like a cancer. And there can be no end to it with Assad in power. And there can be no end to it until Putin and Iran get out of there — or are forced to the negotiating table from a highly weakened position.
Putin’s weakness is that Russia’s a lunatic, nuclear-armed petrostate — and nothing more. Well, we’re a petro-state too now. And a whole lot more. Creating conditions such that Russia’s unable to export its gas makes more sense to me than any other strategy I can think of.
Anyone have a better idea?
In re Nixon’s Vietnam bombings. So far as I have read, he started bombing the North, as opposed to LBJ? Also, unlike LBJ, he did not cherry pick targets to salve his conscience? But I agree that it was effective & would have proved important, had it not been aborted-
It ain’t over yet. My family’s in Bamako right now, where the security situation’s okay, but the north’s still very unstable.
To me the whole point, is bomb them senseless, and that is clearly what he meant, in the vernacular of his audience.
I do not think the average Cruz voter, or any voter, cares on the specifics of “carpet bombing”. The average voter wants to feel safe, and if talking about wall to wall coverage by explosions gets their votes, then Cruz is going to do it.
Personally, I am not for pure carpet bombing. I am for putting a bomb in every bit of infrastructure (bridge, dam, railhead, power plant, etc.) anyplace controlled by ISIS. Ditto for any nation that supports ISIS. Repeat as necessary.
For any units in the air, at sea or on the ground, the rules of engagement are as follows: Win.
I’m not sure we are a petro-state. Sure, we’re fixing to (my wife hates it when I say that) start exporting petroleum products, but regardless of how much we export, it will never be a large per centage of our GNP.
The subsidies amount to 5th generation warfare. I am only opposed to doing so because Europe hasn’t exhausted every internal means and resource to produce its own energy.
Those would be very good starting points. Once Europe has exhausted every internal energy production option without regard to environmentalists, unions, and EU bureaucracy then we can have a meaningful discussion about NATO waging 5th generation warfare on Russia.
Which, by the way, is a good thing.
Petro-States are characterized by high rates of corruption, decadence, and indolence. From Venezuela to Saudia Arabia to Alaska to even (in its way) Norway.
Stable ongoing wealth eliminates necessity.
Without necessity, invention suffers.
We still import more than a 1/3 of our crude consumption. Every barrel we export will be replaced with imported crude thanks to our arcane shipping regulations.
Absolute agreement. Why should we defend a Europe that is not even able to agree to produce its own natural gas?
Putin will fail by himself, in my opinion. He is ridiculously overextended, and his own people are in terrible, terrible shape. Putin can still extort from Europe to some extent (including using his nukes), but an actual invasion is beyond his reach.
Well, perhaps what he’s saying will make them feel safe. But the thought that he’s got no idea what he’s talking about makes me feel the way I would if a surgeon told me — as he wheeled me off to the operating table — “You know, I never went to medical school! Fact is, I’ve never tried this before. Never even read much about it. But I saw this great documentary about brain surgery on the Discovery Channel, and it didn’t look so hard — so you just relax.”
Nothing to do with defending Europe. If you want to be “safe from terrorism,” though, you’d best have a strategy. Not just a tactic.
I think you wrote a good comment about Putin and ISIS, but also think it is a long reach.
ISIS isn’t the problem, they are just the operations department. ISIS in Syria, Iraq, etc. is even less of the of a problem. We have to deal with the problem here in the U.S. first and foremost.
If we truly want to be safe from terrorism, if that is even possible, we must first identify the source of the terrorism. To date we fail to do so and thus all other strategies to make us safe from terrorism fail. Example TSA.
And your grand strategy for fighting terrorism is to deprive Russia of its primary source of dollars?
Russia, for all its faults, is on the front line against Islamic Supremacists.
I’ll bite. Why should we defend a Europe that is not even interested in defending itself? Europe is almost as rich as we are, they just have different priorities. Why should we pick up the slack in defense?
Exactly. We’re a whole lot more. Petroleum (along with 8,000 nuclear warheads, a ten-to-one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, a monopoly on naval tactical nuclear weapons, and, quite soon, intermediate-range ground-launched missiles) are really all Putin’s got going for him. That plus a devastatingly effective propaganda and intelligence machine.
See my comment above: a devastatingly effective propaganda and intelligence machine. To the point that you think this.
I completely agree. The whole thread has educated me in a phrase I did not understand. It bothers me a little that Senator Cruz uses the term in a presidential debate without understanding it but I think he was using it generically to replace bomb the H— out of IS. The carpet bit is funny. Thank you Ricochet.
I thought “The One” was going to fix that. What was with the reset?
Time to stop focusing on “The One” and to consider who will be qualified to handle the problems he’ll inherit.
ToryWarWriter – you’re right about the German plans in 1943, and the massed use of what was left of the Luftwaffe against Russian offensive formations. They never did produce more than designs and a couple of prototypes of a serious heavy bomber, though, and the Luftwaffe remained tactically focused throughout. The German rocket assault on the UK would not have been likely to produce strategic results without a nuclear warhead. The success imbalance between the US and British air war and the German defenses/countermeasures is, I think, rightly considered one of the clearest deciding factors in the outcome of that war.
Strategy and Tactics is one of last two subscriptions I maintain. It has the best historical (and the best historiography) of any current popular publication. It’s an impressive credit to have been published there – congratulations.
Your analogy is invalid. That was not what Cruz was doing. But, I get it, you don’t like Cruz. I imagine you don’t like anyone that does not sound like a member of the intelligensia. You want someone more European in nature, who will open the flood gates and let anyone and everyone into the nation.
I want someone who will exterminate our enemies abroad, whatever it takes, so that not one more American child will be killed by Islamic Jihadists.
Cruz is nowhere near me, but he is closer to me than to you.
1972 Christmas Bombing of Hanoi was the biggest bombing raid I remember in the north. With a 1000 reported killed and 12 B52’s, that was a warning not an attack.
The photo I posted near the top of the thread was in the “Parrot’s Beak” Cambodia/South Viet Nam border area. That concentration in an urban area would have killed many thousands. I heard the B52’s hitting the jungles and paddies from 10-15 miles away and the sounds of the planes, the Crrumps and the tremors – shock and awe.
They want YOU to live in a cave. Well, you are right, some of them do want to live in a cave.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
I think your characterization of Cruz here is a little unfair. Most politicians have very little idea on how these things work. That’s why they have military advisors, many military advisors only have their personal experiences and that’s why they have their staffs. And then the Staff goes and writes a summary of an article written by me. We call it the circle of life. Comparing Cruz to the guy in the Holliday Inn commercials is a bit over the top.
My worry is when a Pol ignores all that and thinks they are gods chosen, like Obama and starts overriding the theatre commanders, because he ‘knows’ how things really work.
Bryan G. Stephens
Bryan, I think Claire has proven herself that she doesnt need cheap shots. She may not like Cruz, but calling her a European Cosmo is a little unfair. We can civil debate and back and forth without reacting like a bunch of Democrats. Were better than that.
Blessed are the peacemakers…. ;)
Some people think I already live in a cave.