Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search

                                                  ~FTER flCTION

               ITEM:       Target Development/Nomination~       -

               OBSERV~TION:        During' Desert Storm the MEF frequently nominated
               targets for air strikes based on questionable information          ~n
               example is the nomination of a `possible CP" based on a single
               SIGINT cut accurate to only 1 NM

               DISCUSSION:        Target information was frequently sketchy and often
               outdated, precluding validation and proper weaponeering.          Target
               "files        were inadequate- and did not paint a picture of target
               historY~,~ 6o'mp~ositi6n, dimensions, or BD~ (when the target had
               bee~n previously struck)          Frequently, the MarLnO current
               oper~tions staff had to call the MEF headquarters to try to
              `~~?obtain more information on a target scheduled for attack        This
             ~{~~~nf6~mation
  -. ~*~:-`~.    :-~ ?s;-    -   was rarely available and often delayed by hours

              ?~~LESSONS, LE~RNED      Recogniring the need for aggressive targeting,

              - this must be balanced by good judgment and common sense          Targets
              - ho£iid 6nly be nominated for attack when there is reasonable
-`             jnformation that all~s for mission plannning and a reasonable
          - ~.~~~f~~055ibilit~ of target acquisition and mission success

              -~ ECOMMEND~TION:       That the Marine Corps intelligence community in
             - :~` oncert with the tactical aviation community develop standards
           `T¼~1~!or target validity and nominating criteria:        a target planning
               -        -- ~eret/c~hecklist  --


4~~.-        ~?~" -


k~~ ~~,,                -


  - `(~ -     --

Document Page: First | Prev | Next | All | Image | This Release | Search