Use of MOAB and assessing new US defense posture

Can Kasapoğlu, a defense analyst at the Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy (EDAM), an Istanbul-based think-tank wrote an article about 'Use of MOAB and assessing new US defense posture'
On April 13, 2017, the United States Air Force targeted a Daesh position in Afghanistan by using a GBU-43B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb -- also popularly known as the 'mother of all bombs'.

Although much has been speculated about the "MOAB incident" with regards to its high-end qualities and its use as a result of a political-military decision, only few real assessments have been offered so far.

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the MOAB, one should analyze, first and foremost, the issue through the lens of three key parameters: GBU-43B as a weapon of choice, President Donald Trump-led administration's and the Pentagon's decision to use it, and the target set of the strike.

Only after a careful review of the above-mentioned parameters, we may hope for an analytical guidance that would hint at the new White House defense policy and military strategy. Yet, we should still make note of something. Open-source defense assessment is a field of contemporary professional consulting and risk-analysis solutions, and it demands utmost cool-headed and objective methodologies for data collection and process. In other words, although the "global U.S. defense posture tour d'horizon through one bomb" kind of op-eds could seem "shiny and breezy" and the use of MOAB could indeed tell us something, we should see a lot more than this to accurately anticipate the Trump administration's defense perspective.

- Operational assessment

The MOAB is a giant asset with a blast radius of 137 meters and its blast yield is reported to have 11 tons of TNT even though it is still not the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used.

Militarily, the GBU-43B has a narrow target set of underground tunnel and bunker complexes as well as harsh terrains with caves and minefields. The bomb is designed to exert overpressure on the target area. In other words, the Daesh concentration in the cave and the tunnel system in Nangarhar-Afghanistan were probably the primary reasons that made the MOAB the weapon of choice. The bomb is too large for most bomber aircraft, so the MC-130H Hercules is the preferred launch platform.

Open-source battle damage assessment through satellite imagery before and after the MOAB launch revealed that nearly all above-ground structures were destroyed in the area. Other indicators, such as the destruction of the pre-existing tunnel entrance, suggest that the underground complex was most likely significantly damaged. Clearly, the GBU-43B is believed to have met the military demands on its combat debut.

Returning to our analytical guidance; it seems that the decision to drop a MOAB makes sense given the target set. According to the Pentagon, the operational commanders made the decision. However, it could be said that such a move had to receive a go-ahead from a higher authority.

Without a doubt, President Trump, his defense and foreign policy team, and the Pentagon were well aware of the fact that using the MOAB as a weapon of choice would hit the headlines. After all, using a massive conventional bomb on its combat debut to target Daesh -- especially when the world has been waiting for the White House's new strategy to defeat Daesh -- and taking all these steps in Afghanistan are already enough to deliver an effective political-military signal.

- Seeing the bigger picture

Nevertheless, one should see beyond the use of MOAB to develop a thorough understanding of the American defense posture and military strategy under the Trump administration. Above all, it still remains to be seen how the primary reference documents of the U.S. defense policy will be shaped.

Among the aforementioned documents, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is expected to be released in 2018. The new QDR will reflect the U.S. military doctrine shaped by Defense Secretary Mattis while hinting at the planned defense posture during the Trump presidency.

The 2014 QDR was based on four core national interests: The security of the U.S., its citizens and U.S. allies and partners; a strong, innovative and growing economy in an open international economic system; respect for universal values at home and around the world; and the U.S. advancing an international order that promotes peace, security and stronger cooperation.

Even more importantly, the 2014 QDR considered the military power as "just one of many tools [the U.S.] has as a nation have to protect [its] national interests. Whenever possible, [the U.S. would] seek to pursue these interests through diplomacy, economic development, cooperation and engagement, and through the power of [the American] ideas." Thus, it remains to be seen if the 2018 QDR will attach special emphasis on promoting American supremacy globally, and label the U.S. military might as a pioneering tool among others in an unpredictable and menacing world.

Secondly, there is the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) document. The 2010 NPR had embraced a constructive rhetoric vis-a-vis Russia despite the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. In January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order and commissioned Secretary Mattis to initiate the NPR process.

The NPR is the top document that shapes Washington's nuclear policies and capabilities. Especially following the Ukrainian crisis and the annexation of Crimea, the international community wonders how the forthcoming NPR will approach the strategic arms reduction perspective with Moscow.

The future of tactical nuclear weapons will be another hot topic that the next NPR is expected to touch upon. Last but not least, the Trump administration is expected to release its counter-Deash strategy soon. The strategy paper is a requirement as the Congress prepares to pass the government's spending bill.

- A new era

It is evident that the Trump administration's approach to the military toolkit in international affairs differs from the former President Barack Obama-led administration's (over) cautious approach, which was found indecisive by some experts as well a number of traditional U.S. allies.

President Trump has already granted more initiative to the Pentagon, authorized a Tomahawk strike to punish the Syrian Baathist regime's chemical weapons use, deployed the high-end F-35 multirole aircraft to Estonia, did not refrain from escalation with North Korea, and opted for more air power to tackle al-Qaeda in Yemen. All these factors hint at the new White House's understanding of military power and security problems.

To sum up, it is assessed that the use of MOAB was just one of the above-mentioned evidences that suggest a more determined defense policy, and more structural evidences should be seen before we are able to reach a final assessment. Yet, we have enough input to argue that, in the course of more reliance on military power in solving problems, Secretary of Defense Mattis and the Pentagon will enjoy stronger positions in the U.S. strategic affairs.