Daenerys, Dragons, and Doctrine: an Airpower-Centric Analysis of Game of Thrones

Dany's use of airpower is neither tactically nor strategically wise

"Let's burn all this food so we can't use it to feed our army"

Spoils of War was, I'll admit, emotionally satisfying.  After long years of waiting, we finally got to see Daenerys unleash one of her dragons in a battle on Westerosi territory.  It was a well-shot scene, and depicted a dramatic battle and a decisive victory for our favorite (or second-favorite) Targaryen.  And yet, as I drifted off to sleep after watching the episode, I couldn't help but feel that something about it felt...well, wrong.

When I awakened, I knew what it was.  Dany's dragonstrike was a victory, true, and assaulting the Lannister (and Tarly) army had a certain visceral appeal.  But the part of my brain that thinks in terms of enemy centers of gravity and target analysis was displeased.  Ultimately, from both a strategic and tactical perspective, Dany's current course of action is both inefficient and probably counterproductive.

The lens of airpower theory and doctrine is a good way to examine the situation critically.  How might the more prominent thinkers in the fields of airpower and targeting characterize her approach?  Not very flatteringly, I would submit.

Consider John Warden, one of the men who developed the core idea that became the DESERT STORM air campaign plan  Warden developed the "Five Rings" hypothesis about employment of airpower.  It describes any sort of complex target (for example, Cersei's regime) as being visualized as five concentric rings, from outside to the bullseye, they are:

- Fielded military forces (for example, the army that Dany torched)

- Population (the peasantry, essentially)

- Infrastructure (roads, farms, mines, ports, etc)

- System essentials/organic essentials (for example, the food that Dany torched)

- Leadership (Cersei and her inner circle)

Warden would advocate inflicting paralysis by striking the leadership as hard as possible, with (if resources permitted) simultaneously hitting the other rings.  Warden holds that attacking fielded military troops is actually a generally inefficient and ineffective use of resources. This was, in fact, Dany's first instinct - to hit the capital of King's Landing.  But when her plans went awry, she sought new advice.

Jon Snow-Targaryen and Tyrion both argued against her taking her dragons straight to King's Landing.  Both made the same specious argument - that by attacking King's Landing they could win the war, but would inevitably lose the peace by inflicting what her advisors believed to be inevitable excessive collateral damage.  In this, both men's thinking is bounded by outmoded models of weapon capability.  In essence, it is as if Tyrion and Jon believe that Dany's airpower is capable only of the sort of massive indiscriminate aerial destruction that characterized most of the WWII strategic bombing campaign - in which (effectively), cities were the target rather than specific elements within a city.   (Some of the original airpower theorists such as Gulio Douhet would actually have recommended directly attacking the civilian populace in order to break their will; this was the sort of doctrinal thinking that - combined with the low-level of available technology - led to the massive bombing of cities in the Second World War.)

But Dany's dragons are in essence precision-guided munitions.  As such, she need not raze the capital city.  Instead, she could focus her efforts on the center of gravity - Cersei and the Red Keep.  There is little question that her dragons are capable of handling that target.  With Cersei gone and no Lannister heir, the regime would be no more.  Yes, someone else could step up and claim the Iron Throne (Jamie perhaps, assuming he's not dead), but for practical purposes there would be no more centralized resistance to Dany.  Scattered and uncoordinated resistance would likely still exist, at least for a time, but it's unlikely to be able to pose a direct threat to her consolidation of power.  Indeed, the longer she waits to assault King's Landing, the greater the potential threat from the incipient but growing Lannister air defense becomes.

Leaving aside for another time the political aspects of "winning the peace," let us turn to the tactical action in which Dany attacked the loot train along the Blackwater Rush.  Here we see a number of things that make targeteers, planners and airpower enthusiasts cringe.

First, her tactics unnecessarily resulted in the deaths of several of her Dothraki light cavalry.  The mere presence of the Dothraki in proximity to the Lannister army essentially fixed her enemies in place.  In classic infantry vs cavalry mode, the infantry had little choice other than to use a phalanx formation in square in order to avoid being flanked (which usually results in rapid defeat in an infantry vs cavalry situation - and most other scenarios as well).  Once fixed in place, there was no need to waste the lives of her soldiers by attacking the formation.  Much like the coalition in DESERT STORM (and yes, this is a bit of an oversimplification in order to stay a reasonable length), Dany has air superiority.  As such, she could launch airstrikes at leisure, until the Lannister force was in no shape to offer resistance.  Instead, what she did is the rough equivalent of if General Schwarzkopf had ordered the ground forces to charge into Kuwait on the first day of DESERT STORM. 

Instead, Dany should have taken her time to pick apart the army and break it.  Yes, her first strike created an exploitable break in the lines, allowing her Dothraki to blitz into the rear of the Lannisters, but while that was happening, other soldiers were dying to Lannister spears and arrows unnecessarily.  There will come a day when she will rue the casualties that her own tactics created.  A few airstrikes (parallel to the line of troops, rather than perpendicular to them) would have been more effective at rapidly defeating her foes, ultimately, with probably less loss of life on both sides.

But rather than do this, Dany decides to focus much of her dragon's effort on destroying food.  This is inexplicable and largely inexcusable from a targeting standpoint.  If she thought she was going to lose the fight, she could have made a case for destroying the enemy supplies in order to prevent her enemy from using them.  As it is, she expended a fair amount of effort on burning food that she needs to feed her own troops.  There's little forage in the vicinity (after the Lannisters and Tarlys raided the local farms).  Keeping the supply carts intact (if she could have kept her cavalry from looting the contents - a questionable proposition at best) could also have given her a means to influence the local peasantry.  Giving back even a portion of what her enemy looted would help build a reputation for kindness among the Westerosi.  Burning the food was simply counterproductive (albeit pretty to watch).

In short, there's a great deal that modern doctrinal thinkers could criticize about Dany's employment of airpower on both a strategic and tactical level.  For her sake, one hopes she will learn rapidly from her mistakes.

Winter is coming, after all.