Several years ago, I warned that as the Bush/Cheney administration sought to reduce politically problematic casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would resort to increased use of air attacks to combat the growing insurgency in Iraq and the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
I also predicted that the result of this switch in tactics would lead to higher civilian casualties in those two countries.
We're now seeing those results.
In the latest reports from Iraq, we had 15 women and children slain, mostly in their homes by rockets and bullets fired from helicopter and fixed-wing gunships which were allegedly in pursuit of some supposed "al Qaeda" fighters, and as many as 17 civilians killed in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood when US forces called in air strikes after seeing a group of men they deemed to be hostile. Again those air strikes ended up killing more civilians than alleged enemy fighters.
The casual use of the term "air strikes" belies the horror of what is happening. It's one thing to call in air strikes during a battle out in the desert or the mountains, where the enemy is isolated and readily identified. It's another to call in the bombers and gunships in the heart of a densely populated city. Such tactics are guaranteed to kill innocent people in large numbers.
In Afghanistan, meanwhile, where there is even less media coverage than in Iraq, the casual slaughter of innocents by American forces has become routine — so much so that even British officials are complaining. The US command simply "regrets" the "loss of innocent life," making it sound like the after-effects of a natural disaster, when it fact the killings are the predictable result of the cold calculus of mass murder by a technologically advanced military inflicted on an impoverished Third World country. It is unacceptable to argue, as the Pentagon does all the time, that the enemy "uses civilians as shields." Maybe they do, but that's the reality, and the military has to accept it, not ignore it. If a gunman is holding a baby, you can't just shoot the baby and blame the gunman.
In both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, the slaughter of civilians
by US forces has been so outrageous that even their puppet leaders have
been compelled to speak up, demanding that the US stop being so
aggressive and indiscriminate.
The problem is, if the US stops using its gunships and its
fighter-bombers to do its fighting, it will have to either quit and go
home, or put more troops out on patrol, where they are vulnerable to
attack. In fact, the Pentagon may not even have that option. Already,
it has been reported that troops in Iraq have coined the term "search
and avoid" for missions where they go out under orders, but then spend
their time avoiding danger.
What would one expect? The rank-and-file troops know that the war
is lost in both countries, and that the American public doesn't support
what they are doing anyhow, so who's going to want to die for that?
You'd have to be a real chump to let yourself be killed just to provide
political cover for a politically challenged president and vice
president — especially a president and vice-president who famously
ducked their own duty during the Vietnam War.
It's tough to respond to all the opinions in the above article. Not a lot of facts in there. My opinion: Since our country is now in a war against people that hide in mosques (churches), standing behind women and children, not wearing uniforms, and shooting at both civilians, police, and our military.... we should shoot back. Look at history, it's always been the right decision. One wishes it could be cleaner, less deadly, but it can't. That's the fact of the matter.
1
October 28, 2007
Ken Larson: THE BOTTOM LINE
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.
It made no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
