Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, and bigger bombs -- up to 2,000-pounders -- are often used there. The targeters planning strikes there sometimes have the luxury of wide-open spaces and enemy forces that tend to gather in relatively large groups, sometimes 20 to 25 fighters. Many more bombs were dropped in Afghanistan last year (3,572) than in Iraq (1,447).
The combat zones in Iraq tend to be more urban, and more complicated. But it doesn't take much of a bomb to kill one man. So the Air Force has altered one of its relatively smaller munitions into a kind of sniper's weapon. The bomb usually carries 200 pounds of explosives -- but the Air Force pulls out most of the explosives, leaving in less than 30 pounds, and fills the rest of the bomb with cement. The bombs have become so useful for narrowly targeted missions that two-thirds of the Air Force fighters now go up every day with this weapon nestled under the wings.
The Air Force has developed other methods to control bombing damage. Pilots can now quickly alter the settings on a bomb to delay the detonation anywhere from 5 to 25 milliseconds. That change can cause the plummeting bomb to burrow deep into the earth before exploding. "It is incredible," says Col. Bill Carranza, an Air Force attorney who watches Predator images in real time to help commanders determine when airstrikes are legal. "A 500-pound bomb with a five-millisecond delay -- five people in a room, somebody will get up and walk away."
The entire chain of events, from stalking to airstrike, can happen very quickly. This occurs when the location of a valuable target is only known for a brief period of time -- they know where Bubba is, but they don't know long he'll be there. The Air Force calls these "time-sensitive targets." In such situations, the entire process -- pulling up the 3-D satellite images, estimating possible civilian casualties, choosing weapons -- can necessitate completion in less than 30 minutes.
While the Air Force handles that whole process, Army or Marine commanders on the ground always make the final decision on whether to drop a bomb. But the Air Force knows whom to look for. The Bush administration -- the president himself and the secretary of defense -- have established broad categories of people who can be targeted, according to Air Force officials. Using those parameters, the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan literally draw up a list of names. Lawyers, like Carranza, and intelligence specialists review the intelligence behind each name on that list.
That review is important under international law. The Law of Armed Conflict, a web of international treaties including the Geneva Conventions, prohibits the intentional killing of civilians unless they are taking a "direct part in hostilities." This gets very complicated when fighting an insurgency.
"A problem is that Bubba is not a member of an army that is a party in a conflict," explains Gary Solis, a former Marine prosecutor at Georgetown University Law School. Solis says there is disagreement among experts about whether, for example, a terrorist is taking a "direct part in hostilities" when he is out walking his dog. "There is definitely an interpretational issue here," Solis says. "We are pressing the envelope in the law of armed conflict when we do this. I think some of the international community would say this is unlawful."
Last August, two Army helicopter pilots were downed in Afghanistan, awaiting rescue. There was an individual located 400 yards away who -- for reasons that can not be printed in this article -- it was determined was posing a clear threat to the stranded pilots. But then this individual didn't make any physical move toward the pilots, appearing to take no overt hostile action. So was he taking a direct part in hostilities?
In this case, the commander on the ground put the question to the Air Force attorneys watching from the floor. "The question was, 'If I have to kill this guy, is there a legal concern?'" Carranza, recalls. Carranza sent forward a decision and a recommendation. "I told them, yes, you could [bomb him]." But his advice was to wait for more cause to do so. "My recommendation was, 'You probably have enough now. [But] if you get a few more things, you've got a real solid case,'" he says.
This was happening quickly, in real time, under obviously tense circumstances. Carranza says that in the end, the commander chose not to drop a bomb and the pilots were safely rescued while the Air Force kept an eye on the threat 400 yards away. "I have to tell you," Carranza says, "I don't envy the people who have to make those choices."
All of the technological and tactical advances during the Iraq war have meant that commanders have had to make those choices more often. "Prior to this, we never did targeting of individuals," says Crowder. "Full-motion video is in such high demand now," he says. "I can follow a guy back to his house and then take out the entire house of IED makers," he says, referring to insurgents using roadside bombs.
The Air Force may be in this business for a long time. For all the talk in the United States about getting troops out of Iraq, there is a sense among Air Force officials that they are going to be fighting from this command center long after there are fewer boots on the ground. During my visit, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne arrived to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new, very large and very permanent-looking living quarters for Air Force personnel stationed here.
Lt. Col. Bill Pinter, who does strategic planning here, says nobody expects the mission to end anytime soon. "They don't have an Iraqi Air Force," he tells me, referring to the Iraqi government's nascent efforts to establish some sort of air power. "The Air Force will be the last ones to go out the door."
About the writer
Mark Benjamin is a national correspondent for Salon based in Washington, D.C. Read his other articles here.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)