U.S. officials hope those figures will be even lower during this conflict and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls the current Iraqi war plan “much, much, much different” from that used in Desert Storm. Technological advances are a big part of the reason why. Missiles are now guided by lasers and satellites, new tanks come equipped with computerized mapping systems and cruise missiles can be redirected midflight. High-power microwave bombs are able to knock out entire power grids with a massive energy surge. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett got the details from the Center for Defense Information’s senior adviser, retired rear admiral Stephen H. Baker, a former chief of staff for Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain and a battle group operations officer in Desert Storm.
NEWSWEEK: How much has U.S. weapons technology improved since the Persian Gulf War?
Stephen H. Baker: About 7 percent of the weapons used in Desert Storm were precision-guided. That number should come close to 95 percent this time–certainly in the initial week of the conflict. That’s a substantial reversal of the lethality that we had before. The major step forward was in 1995 and 1996 when we put up 24 positioning satellites. Now we have satellite-assisted munitions. That gives us the capability, as we saw in Afghanistan, of accuracy within 30 feet of the intended target. Tomahawk cruise missiles have satellite-assisted capabilities, as well, now. The latest version, the tactical Tomahawk–and we have over 100 in inventory now–has the capability to “loiter” [ in midair] and wait for a target assignment. If a target is designated as hostile in Iraq during a conflict, it can be neutralized or destroyed very, very quickly–even inside of 10 minutes of discovery. That is an ability we never had before.
So, hypothetically, U.S. troops could destroy an Iraqi missile before it’s even launched?
If a missile movement is detected we would be able to very quickly put a laser-guided weapon or satellite-assisted weapon to that coordinate and neutralize or destroy the target. We have battlefield awareness to a degree never before achieved because of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance network we have now that links together satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and airborne [jets] and the Special Forces on the ground. So everyone is in the net. We know where there is movement of friendly forces and of enemy forces.
That should help to keep the number of casualties down.
It should keep casualties, fratricide and collateral damage to a minimum and it points to the potential for a very quick and decisive conflict with a minimum loss of casualties.
Explain the strategy behind the massive bombardment of Iraq now underway.
I’m not sure people realize the size of the hammer we have lowered on Iraq. We want to decapitate Saddam’s ability to function whatsoever. Within 72 hours, we will try to neutralize and isolate Saddam and the Republican Guard.
Aren’t the risk of civilian casualties pretty high?
We’re going after regime-change targets. We are not going after shrines and schools. We want to impress upon the Iraqi people that they are not targets. We are very sensitive to military targets. Baghdad is the most digitized city that exists on this planet. We know the latitude and longitude to a thousandth of a degree of everything in that city. We are not getting involved in urban warfare or going door to door but very rapidly and very surgically going after military targets with overwhelming force. Saddam has towed aircraft near the perimeters of hospitals, mosques and schools, but the aircraft aren’t functional. I think we will not bomb those areas. It would have to be a very, very important target for us to take the step to allow for any form of substantial collateral damage at all.
The United States has dropped millions of pamphlets urging soldiers and others not to fight. How effective is that effort?
We probably dropped 20 million pamphlets from the sky during the Persian Gulf War and from what we could reconstruct, we reached about 98 percent of their troops and that resulted in more than 100,000 surrendering without firing a shot. That’s the desire this time–to keep carnage to a minimum. Psychological operations are very, very important, and that is why this phase, which has been ongoing in Iraq for a couple months, is more robust than in any other conflict we’ve seen. Pamphlets, radio broadcasts, telephone calls to higher-ups are so important. We’re hoping Saddam’s troops realize its senseless to scorch their own earth or offer members of their families as martyrs for someone who is not going to exist after the first days of the war. We’re trying to win the hearts and minds of folks.
What would happen if Saddam unleashed biological or chemical weapons on U.S. troops? How well prepared are we for that scenario?
The state-of-the-art detection capabilities are certainly in theater now. We have far better capabilities than we did in Desert Storm. There are even some unmanned aerial vehicles that have detection systems that can be launched ahead of ground troops and report on the environment. With the computer power we have now, what once took hours and hours to determine what type of a chemical or biological agent is in the area can now be done in a matter of minutes so we can avoid the area. And the best chemical and biological weapons suits available on the planet are in the hands of our troops. It’s quite a step forward in our technology.
Other military analysts have warned that the Iraqis may have jammers that affect the weapons’ global-positioning-satellite navigation tools or heat-generating decoys that fool heat-seekers on missiles. Have we considered these possibilities?
Iraqis are certainly masters of deception. There are decoys. It’s why we depend on the sophistication of our detection capabilities and why we see the Special Forces playing a really big part in this–they can determine what is an actual target and what’s not. We are certainly aware of the capabilities of GPS jammers, too. The jammers might degrade the accuracy of the weapons somewhat but it’d be in the last one or two seconds of flight and they still have a very accurate inertial system as a backup. And the latest cruise missile, which might debut in this conflict, is jam resistant and stealthy.
Is it possible that Iraq has made surreptitious improvements to its arsenal?
If we are 10 times stronger–at least–since the Persian Gulf, then Iraq is one-third weaker. The shelf life of their Scud missiles is certainly questionable. There is also the big question of just how loyal his troops are, especially after that first bomb falls.
How confident are you that we’ll win the war–and do so quickly? We have studied the tactics of a war with Iraq for the last year and continue to fine-tune them, and, well, it won’t be a piece of cake, but we will certainly try and keep casualties to an absolute minimum. We are striving for 100 percent with our strategy and tactics to have a very, very minimum number of casualties on both sides. We have capabilities so far above those of Desert Storm that I think it’s an achievable objective.
