Showing posts with label bombing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bombing. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Running down the clock on Iran



Via Chris Floyd we get a warning that things are definitely coming closer to "the moment" when the Bush administration pulls the pin on Iran.

On Friday, US Vice-President Dick Cheney was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia knocking back lamb and strawberry juice with his good buddies King Abdullah and Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi. The discussions were promoted as being ostensibly about oil, or more precisely, the price of it and how to get it down in a way meaningful enough to calm angry US voters.

There was, however, a shady side to Cheney's visit. (When isn't there a shady side to anything Cheney does?)

Cheney held other discussions. An accompanying aide said, "I can't tell you much about the conversations themselves, these are especially confidential and private conversations."

Especially confidential and private? What are the odds they weren't about the health Abdullah's large stable of horses?

After Cheney's visit the Saudi Sura council suddenly decided that at the top of their agenda should be a discussion about national plans to deal with the radioactive hazards after a possible attack on Iran.
The Saudi Shura council will secretly discuss national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors, media reports said Saturday. The Saudi-based King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology has prepared a proposal that encapsulates the probabilities of leaking nuclear and radiation hazards in case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran, the Okaz Saudi newspaper said.
Experts' warnings?! What experts? Someone from Cheney's entourage or perhaps Cheney himself?

Some dots:

1. Admiral William Fallon, who said Iran would never be attacked while he was the commander US Central Command, "resigned".

2. General David Petraeus makes an announcement that the recent attacks on Baghdad's green zone were the work of Iran. He doesn't produce any evidence. He just says he "knows".

3. Cheney visits the Saudis. Media-shy Cheney lets the words "oil" and "money" dominate the purpose of his talks and then goes into Cheney mode. Whatever was discussed is secret.

4. The Saudis go into session to discuss how best to defend against the radioactive fallout after "experts" warn of an impending attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

5. Republicans are inveterate bombers with less than a year left to lay waste to another country.

Connect them all up.


Hat tip reader Stewart

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Bush does a Guernica... and nobody notices


At 4:30 in the afternoon on April 26th, 1937, the first airplanes of the German Condor Legion arrived in the air over the Basque town of Guernica. For the next three hours they unleashed a ferocious aerial bombardment, dropping 45,000 kilograms of bombs on the unarmed civilian population of that town, reducing it to rubble. From PBS Online:
Those trying to escape were cut down by the strafing machine guns of fighter planes. "They kept just going back and forth, sometimes in a long line, sometimes in close formation. It was as if they were practicing new moves. They must have fired thousands of bullets." (eyewitness Juan Guezureya) The fires that engulfed the city burned for three days. Seventy percent of the town was destroyed. Sixteen hundred civilians - one third of the population - were killed or wounded.
Word is now emerging that the US military in Iraq may well have done exactly the same thing over a ten day period over the farming area of Arab Jabour, 16 kilometers south of Baghdad. There are no reports as to casualties, civilian or otherwise because there were no reporters anywhere in the vicinity of the bombing. Tom Engelhardt explains:
As far as we know, there were no reporters, Iraqi or Western, in Arab Jabour when the bombs fell and, Iraq being Iraq, no American reporters rushed there - in person or by satellite phone - to check out the damage. In Iraq and Afghanistan, when it comes to the mainstream media, bombing is generally only significant if it's of the roadside or suicide variety; if, that is, the "bombs" can be produced at approximately "the cost of a pizza", (as IEDs sometimes are), or if the vehicles delivering them are cars or simply fiendishly well-rigged human bodies. From the air, even 45,000 kilograms of bombs just doesn't have the ring of something that matters. Some of this, of course, comes from the Pentagon's success in creating a dismissive, sanitizing language in which to frame war from the air. "Collateral damage" stands in for the civilian dead - even though in much of modern war, the collateral damage could be considered the dead soldiers, not the ever-rising percentage of civilian casualties. And death is, of course, delivered "precisely" by "precision-guided" weaponry. All this makes air war seem sterile, even virginal. Army Colonel Terry Ferrell, for instance, described the air assaults in Arab Jabour in this disembodied way at a Baghdad news conference:
The purpose of these particular strikes was to shape the battlefield and take out known threats before our ground troops move in. Our aim was to neutralize any advantage the enemy could claim with the use of IEDs and other weapons.
Reports - often hard to assess for credibility - have nonetheless seeped out of the region indicating that there were civilian casualties, possibly significant numbers of them; that bridges and roads were "cut off" and undoubtedly damaged; that farms and farmlands were damaged or destroyed. According to Hamza Hendawi of the Associated Press, for instance, Iraqi and American troops were said to have advanced into Arab Jabour, already much damaged from years of fighting, through "smoldering citrus groves".
And there will be more of this to come. As the Bush administration starts to draw down its troops strength in Iraq, it will continue to maintain a similar level of power. In order to do that, expect the US to increase its air assault capability and to use it. The evidence is at Balad air base.
Radar traffic controllers at the base now commonly see "more than 550 aircraft operations in just one day". To the tune of billions of dollars, Balad's runways and other facilities have been, and continue to be, upgraded for years of further wear and tear. According to the military press, construction is to begin this month on a US$30 million "state-of-the-art battlefield command and control system [at Balad] that will integrate air traffic management throughout Iraq". [...] This gargantuan feat of construction is designed for the military long haul. As Josh White of the Washington Post reported recently in a relatively rare (and bland) summary piece on the use of air power in Iraq, there were five times as many US air strikes in 2007 as in 2006; and 2008 has, of course, started off with a literal bang from those 45,000 kilograms of explosives dropped southeast of Baghdad. That poundage assumedly includes the 18,000 kilograms of explosives, which got modest headlines for being delivered in a mere 10 minutes in the Arab Jabour area the previous week, but not the 7,200 kilograms of explosives that White reports being used north of Baghdad in approximately the same period; nor, evidently, another 6,800 kilograms of explosives dropped on Arab Jabour more recently.
The Bush administration is transforming Iraq from a ground war of grunts getting killed by IEDs to a techno-war of civilians being labeled "collateral damage". And the same military commanders who decry the behaviour of their opponents using Iraqi and Afghani civilians as human shields while they move among the general population will be doing something similar and perhaps much more repulsive in its sterility.
American military spokespeople and administration officials have, over the years, decried Iraqi and Afghan insurgents for "hiding" behind civilian populations - in essence, accusing them of both immorality and cowardice. When such spokespeople do admit to inflicting "collateral damage" on civilian populations, they regularly blame the guerrillas for making civilians into "shields". And all of this is regularly, dutifully reported in the US press. On the other hand, no one in our world considers drone warfare in a similar context, though armed UAVs like the Predators and the newer, even more heavily armed Reapers are generally "flown" by pilots stationed at computer consoles in places like Nellis Air Force Base outside Las Vegas. It is from there that they release their missiles against "anti-Iraqi forces" or the Taliban, causing civilian deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.


[...]


To American reporters, this seems neither cowardly, nor in any way barbaric, just plain old normal. Those pilots are not said to be "hiding" in distant deserts or among the civilian gamblers of Caesar's Palace.
As Rez Dog points out, this is the cult of Air Power taking over in Iraq. The problem is that even in theatres where complete dominance of the air reigned, the high-priests of Air Power were unable to secure a single objective and were unable to reconcile the massive numbers of civilian deaths wrought by simply raining ordnance from the air.
[H]ere's the simple calculus that goes with all this: militarily, overstretched American forces simply cannot sustain the ground part of the "surge" for much longer. Most, if not all, of those 30,000 troops who surged into Iraq in the first half of 2007 will soon be coming home. But air power won't be. Air force personnel are already on short, rotating tours of duty in the region. In Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as ground troops were withdrawn, air power ramped up. This seems once again to be the pattern. There is every reason to believe that it represents the American future in Iraq.
At some point some expect somebody to utter the words "Bomb them back to the stone age".