Predictable Consequence of Air Strikes

The phrase "I told you so" doesn't play well among anyone, and certainly isn't accepted by an elite pundit class that continues to blather via corporate media despite consistently getting it wrong. But I and and many others have predicted increased use of areal bombings and resultant civilian deaths. (See also: comparison of Vietnam and Iraq war time lines).

The fact is it doesn't take an expert to figure out that, as the US reduces troop strength it will increase the use of "air power." By its nature, despite false hopes of "smart bombs," bombs, missiles, cannons and heavy machine guns fired from the air are crude. The information on which such attacks are made is often crude. The potential for getting the information right, but actually shooting at the right target is farily high. The result is more civilian killings by the US, and that has been happening for some time now.

Today we hear another in a long series of such incidents.

A U.S. military airstrike this week killed 47 civilians traveling to a wedding, the head of an Afghan government commission investigating the incident said Friday.

The airstrike on Sunday in Deh Bala district of Nuristan province also wounded nine civilians, said Burhanullah Shinwari, the deputy chairman of the Senate, who led the delegation.

Will the commission findings change anything? Maybe, in the short term, the US will be a bit more careful. But any significant change in civilian deaths at US hands will only occur if US forces withdraw completely, which in Afghanistan is highly unlikely. You won't hear the pundit class saying this, because they can't. The rich and powerful won't let it happen. So the people's press will have to keep making this point until the rest of the people catch on.

Sources:

Associated Press, 47 Afghan civilians killed by US bombs, group says, Amir Shah, July 11, 2008.

U.S. Bombings in Iraq Increased Fivefold in 2007

The following report updates my blog entry of January 11, 2008 on this topic. According to news headlines from DemocracyNow:

U.S. Bombings in Iraq Increased Fivefold in 2007

New figures from the Pentagon show the U.S. carried out fives times as many aerial bombings in Iraq last year as it did in 2006. According to the Washington Post, U.S. forces dropped more than 1,400 bombs—an average of nearly four a day. The 2006 total was 229 bombs, an average of four per week. The UN estimates at least two hundred civilians were killed in U.S. bombings from April until the end of the year. The figures come as the U.S. continues an extensive bombing campaign over Arab Jabour south of Baghdad. In one of the largest strikes since the 2003 invasion, U.S. warplanes dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs in a ten-minute span one week ago. Military experts are predicting an increase in the bombing, should the U.S. draw down its forces in Iraq. Airstrikes are also at record levels in Afghanistan. NATO bombings topped 3,500 last year, doubling the number for 2006.

Sources:

DemocracyNow Headlines, January 17, 2006.

Pure Propaganda: Air Strikes a Success

The record, logic and the physics are clear. Increased areal bombing increases civilian deaths, regardless of increased accuracy of the weapons.

In Vietnam, the US drew down troops, increased bombing and civilian deaths increased. For over a year now, in addition to troop increases in Iraq, the US has significantly increased air attacks. A resulting increase in civilian deaths has been documented by many sources.

The Associated Press reports, "Commanders tout success of Iraq strikes." [1] This is a clear propaganda piece, and unfortunately, the AP is serving as the stenographer.

We know, and AP editors know, that my opening statements are true. That's why they throw the following bone to the unwashed masses:

Despite the massive size of the air strikes, Donnelly said that to the military's knowledge, no civilians were killed. That could not immediately be independently confirmed. He added that the targeting of three targets was called off because unmanned surveillance planes showed civilians in those areas.

As a government official, I know what the phrase "to the military's knowledge" means. It means, "we know that this policy of increased use of areal bombing increases civilian deaths, but in this particular case, we don't have detailed data, so... maybe civilians didn't die."

There's an implication that the military will get back to us later when they have more "knowledge." But how many of us will ever hear about their improved knowledge on this particular case? I follow this Iraq war fairly closely, and can almost guarantee I will NOT ever hear what happened to civilians in this case, even if the military gains the "knowledge".

But I have enough knowledge to see through the propaganda. It's a pathetic embarrassment to be American in the face of this Orwellian state of affairs. So I write a stupid blog entry, and go to work. I should do better than that.

Here's the contact for the Associated Press. Refer to the article sourced below. Ask them to find out, and report back to you, how many civilians died in this particular set of air strikes.

See Update: "U.S. Areal Bombings in Iraq Increased Fivefold in 2007"

The Date in 2003
Bush tells [former] Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar he plans to go to war two days before he tells Secretary of State Powell. This fact is revealed to the public April 18, 2004 [2].

Sources:

1. Associated Press, Commanders tout success of Iraq strikes, BRADLEY BROOKS, January 11, 2008.

2. Mother Jones, Chronicle of a War Foretold, Tim Dickinson and Jonathan Stein, Sept - Oct 2006.

Photo: This photo happens to be of Lebanon, but it's counter propaganda value is justified. We need an image in our mind of what "bomb" or "explosion" means.