The NY Times reports that the UN has "convincing evidence" that a US air strike in Afghanistan has killed 90 civilians, including 60 children.
Air strikes don't win wars. The allied bombing of Germany was not what defeated Hitler; the carpet-bombing of Tokyo did not defeat Imperial Japan; bombing Cambodia, North Vietnam, and Laos failed to defeat the Vietcong; in the 1980s, Russian helicopter gunships firing on targets throughout Afghanistan did not lead to a Russians victory; US air strikes on Tora Bora did not even lead to the capture of Bin Laden in 2001. Precisely what objectives have been accomplished after five years of air strikes on targets throughout Iraq? Bombing is an ineffective way to fight a war.
Moreover, air strikes seem to be particularly counter-productive when the enemy is an insurgency. Money quote from the NY Times article:
NATO's attempt to win a war in Afghanistan looks half-baked.How the military came to call in air strikes on a civilian gathering still remains unclear. Two parliamentarians, Mr. Safi and Maulavi Gul Ahmad, who is from the area, said the villagers blamed tribal enemies for giving the military false intelligence.
“According to the villagers their enemies give false report to Americans that foreign fighters were gathering in the village,” Mr. Safi said.
carpet bombing WIN wars.
ReplyDeleteThat is the issue.
Japan did surrender because of bombing of hiroxima and nagasaky.
Serbia did surrenderin 1999 , because of NATO bombing.
Sometimes bombing not enought..., but it does help a lot.
When it comes to afghanistan and south vietnam.., in both cases these countries were helped by external countries.
The uprising in afghanistan was located in pakistan.
When it comes to south , North vietnam..,this country was helped by russia and china.
Pedro,
ReplyDeleteSometimes bombing not enought..., but it does help a lot.
But it's hardly ever proven the decisive factor, and when used against an insurgency, it might be flat-out counterproductive.
Japan - I didn't mention nuclear bombing because I wanted to address only the issue of the effectiveness of conventional air strikes. Quite clearly, conventional bombing of Tokyo and other cities did not cause the defeat of Japan.
Germany - every major city bombed to ruin, yet it still proved necessary to mount an big land/sea invasion.
When it comes to afghanistan and south vietnam.., in both cases these countries were helped by external countries. The uprising in afghanistan was located in pakistan. When it comes to south , North vietnam..,this country was helped by russia and china.
Yes, that's true. In both cases air strikes arguably helped turned the local populations against the country that was doing all the bombing.
Serbia - This appears to be the exception -- a case where conventional air strikes proved decisive. However, Serbia is a small country and there was no insurgency to contend with.
NATO appears to have been extremely lucky in the Kosovo war:
ReplyDelete"By the start of April, the conflict seemed little closer to a resolution and NATO countries began to think seriously about a ground operation — an invasion of Kosovo." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
thanks Jotman for bringing up this matter. MSM hardly picked up this subject. you know - it is "collateral damage"...
ReplyDeleteI am watching at the moment this video:
Weapons of Mass Delusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqoJHOSrjQo
and there it is quoted M. Albright when she said that 500'000 dead children in Iraq worth it if it helps to topple Saddam.
Saddam ! the very person they have supplied with those very WMD !
now to answer your question:
>>>> Precisely what objectives have been accomplished after five years of air strikes on targets throughout Iraq? <<<
well, it accomplishes quite several objectives actually !
1) most obvious - military industry complex and the corporations which get contracts with Pentagon - PROSPER !
I mean - they get rid of their stock of products (like bombs) and get chance to produce more and make money. otherwise - if you produce product and keep it in stock, then production freezes.
2) taking out the steam of whatever internal political problems - diversion of public attention from social and economic problems inside country;
3) doing this same thing (as in 2) on another level: signing up and sending to serve as a 'cannon meat' the young "NOT economically viable" folks, who are usually most active politically and therefore potentially explosive. in other words - reducing threat to the SYSTEM of neo-con regime.
4) getting some degree of influence in oil-rich region.
5) no less important - tweaking nose of Russia and even China - challenging their infulence in the region.
6) showing Arabs and all Muslims who is the Boss on this planet.
7) getting HUGE profits from all sorts of contracts related to such kind of FULL SCALE military campaign: as well known, weapons without logistics are lame in winning wars. so, there are SO MANY companies, or rather corporations which thrive and get fat from the contracts with Pentagon which are not even related to Military industry - but simply supply of food, medicine, etc. etc.
AND
one of those corporations which thrive is MSM - because they can keep their ratings higher ! in another video I've just watched (I think Pilger's) it is explained:
MSM otherwise are loosing money or barely keeping evens BECAUSE the average intellectual level of their auditory doesn't allow more or less Quality programs ! so, therefore all this war-mongering, false patriotism (which allows abuse of US Constitution), hysterical propaganda as "Freedom", "Democracy", "war on terror" and other bla-bla-bla - they all keep IGNORANT and bored public glued to their TVs waiting for some entertaining on their level: as O'Reilly F*ctor on FoxNews ....
so - all the elite and big corporations get nice sweet profits.
and you say - what is accomplished?
oh, my friend - quite a lot !
but I know - you've asked this question rather rhetorically like.
so, thanks for raising it anyway !
if only there were more people asking such question and seeking answers !
but young people become more and more aware. search for video "Sly Fox" !
I suspect #1 and #7 explain almost everything. Now that an Iraq pull-out seems to be on the horizon, it's interesting to note this renewed interest in getting back to the cold war with Russia.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the MSN, look at NBC. The parent company of NBC of course is General Electric. According this GE webite:
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/index.html
"From fighters, helicopters and transports to the next generation of unmanned aircraft, GE's military engines provide the necessary power and reliability for any military application."
This website:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=General%20Electric tracks GE military contracts and since late 2006, these contracts have totaled: $2.8 billion.
With fuel prices hitting commercial aviation, the military side of the business probably takes on added importance to management.
MilitaryIndustrialComplex.com is both a highly amusing and important website: check out all the google ads for GE products down one side of the page, and the John McCain banner ads running on the top. The ads help to demonstrate the point.
Beautiful:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/military_industrial_complex_video.asp
sure, you're right !
ReplyDeleteyes, even only #1 and #7 alone would explain all this.
and don't forget - there are already new generation weapons on the conveyor ! which are - robotic (sort of drones in "Star wars"). they are already made and used as that man-less aircraft US uses (forgot its name).
so, what does that mean?
simple: it means that before starting the mass production and employment of these new generation weaponry - US and Western military have to get rid of the old weapons, which are becoming increasingly obsolete !
and how to get rid of them en masse ? sure answer: by waging full scale wars. how else?
as B. Clinton has said :
ReplyDelete"it is economics, stupid !"
so, it is business - making money.
I think it was Ron Paul who has explained that talking in corporate terms, corporations have to double their assets every quarter. so, capitalism has to take over and control ALL resources on this planet eventually ... and it is only a matter of business competition for them. "collateral damages" (= civilian deaths) are just secondary, sort of side effects in the process of achieving that goal.