US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq

[seafan]

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Monday November 28, 2005
The Guardian


The Bush administration is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.

According to an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh, the possibility of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused unease in the military, with air force commanders objecting to the possibility that Iraqis will eventually be responsible for target selection.

"Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?" a senior military planner told the magazine. "Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of al-Qaida, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?"

--snip

However, there remains scepticism about the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from the 160,000 US troops in the country. Under the plans reported in the New Yorker, air power will be used to try to fill the gap left by troop reductions. But with the insurgency operating mostly within urban environments, and planes relying on laser-guided bombs directed from the ground to try to avoid collateral damage, there are fears that turning the process over the Iraqis could lead to increased civilian casualties.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1652244,00.html

[PSPS]

1. Just PULL THE FUCKING PLUG on this fiasco!

[DBoon]

2. Didn't Nixon do this in Vietnam?

nt

[wakeme2008]

3. tried there and failed there

But Bush can not read history... :grr:

[kineneb]

11. oh boy, here we go again...

and yup, we tried this in Vietnam...didn't work then, won't work now...aarrgh- these cretins are incompetent!

[sofa king]

29. Yes, but it has sort-of worked in Afghanistan.

Aside from the debateable success of that venture, there is a critical difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan makes much of its income from a renewable resource--heroin--and the U.S. isn't particularly interested in maximizing its profits in that commodity.

In Iraq, we're looking for low-bid criminals who are willing to sell off their nation's non-renewable future at the lowest possible price. If we do support those people, you can kiss those bullshit ideals of freedom and democracy goodbye.

But that's not why we're there anyway, is it?

[grytpype]

4. This is just another step toward failure.

This can't possibly work.

Sy Hersh says senior AF generals are extremely concerned about this. I doubt that they have been consulted.

Keep your eyes open for Hersh's article in the New Yorker.

[MADem]

8. Of COURSE they are concerned--USAF and USN will be doing the

lion's share of the work, now--boy oh, boy--not what they thought they would be getting when they signed up for a 'safe' service.

Napalm, anyone?

[Captain Hilts]

5. Isn't this what they criticized Bubba for doing? nt

[MADem]

9. Why yes, it is!! No fly zones! Containment!!!

How are they gonna contain an insurgency? Call Drones-R-Us and have eyes in the sky everywhere?

It's un-DO-able!

[old blue]

6. So after all this, the answer is to adopt Clinton's strategy n/t

[MADem]

10. Clinton was only trying to contain one asshole--Saddam!

This is gonna be a lead balloon if they ever try it...how can you contain individuals, everywhere, on an Arab street?

Even with napalm, they couldn't manage it in a Vietnamese jungle, what makes them think it will work over there in URBAN settings or border scenarios? And HOW might it work? Bomb everyone coming over the Syrian border? Oooops, pardon me, Mr. Ambassador...

Foolish, foolish, FOOLISH idea!

[DeepModem Mom]

35. Yeah, isn't this where we came in -- before thousands of lives...

lost and billions of dollars down the drain?

[MichiganVote]

7. Sure what the hell, its only millions and millions of dollars for this

hardware that WE fools pay for. Why not just give them our right arm instead?

[uppityperson]

12. Give them the planes? OK, let's arm them and hope they stay our "friends"?

um, isn't this how Osama got his backing? and Saddam? Don't these guys look at history? Oh dear. Just when I thought it couldn't get any stupider.

[Crayson]

34. Back to square one..!

Arm one asshole to the teeth and it will keep all the other ones in check.

Been done many times before and it worked great!.. so far...

[autorank]

13. Guardian: US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq.

OK, it’s now time to lead Bush, Cheney and the Neocons from the WH to a "spa" where they can get some serious "rest." They want to remove US ground troops but leave US air power in Iraq AT THE DISPOSAL OF Iraqi commanders. Completely nuts, desperate. What will they do next, turn the country over to the UN?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1652244,00.html
Linked at Raw Story also http://rawstory.com/

US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Monday November 28, 2005
The Guardian

The Bush administration is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.

According to an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh, the possibility of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused unease in the military, with air force commanders objecting to the possibility that Iraqis will eventually be responsible for target selection.

"Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?" a senior military planner told the magazine. "Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of al-Qaida, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?"

With the White House under increasing pressure over its handling of the war in Iraq, senior administration figures are for the first time signalling the possibility of significant troop reductions. In a departure from previous statements the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said last week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of US troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.



Sy Hersh, a smart, honest reporter.

[MADem]

14. At the disposal of IRAQI COMMANDERS? Smells like NATION BUILDING

to me!!! Smells like a military for hire, too!! Will we get discount oil in exchange for serving as their proxy Air Force?

This is ASININE...but asinine plans usually come out of chickenhawks who have never served.

[Greeby]

15. Sy mentioned this in his talk session with Scott Ritter

"He (Bush) is going to replace American troops with American bombs"

[autorank]

24. Hersh is entirely too damn smart. Glad he's in the USA working hard. n/t

[tritsofme]

16. See: Carpet bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia...

worked really well then, didn't it?

[bluestateguy]

17. US troops under foreign command?

Paying attention, neo-con keyboard peckers?

Because I just remember the bellows with rage that we heard when US soldiers had to wear a UN insignia on their uniforms during the Bosnia peacekeeping mission.

That was peacekeeping. This is a war.

[Barrett808]

21. Yes, any minute now we should hear the Freepers howling...

...I don't expect this plan will fly...

[amber dog democrat]

18. Airpower didn't save Vietnam, did it ?

we can run but we can't hide. Its just a matter time before we call this thing what it is , declare victory and bring evreyone stateside.
Meanwile, yeah, lets rely on airpower to turn the tide as Vietnamization II ramps up.

[autorank]

22. This is like giving "The Godfather" air power. Sad day. They won't get

away with it but it's instructive as to their thinking, or better yet, their ability to think. Dumb and dumber and really fucking stupid!

[bemildred]

19. Trying to find a way to prop up the stooge army. nt

[leesa]

20. Ah yes, terrorist bombings from thousands of feet up...much more ethical

than strapping a bomb on yourself and walking into a building.

[Crayson]

33. Yep

Since you'll never know what you hit you can always say it was a terrorist school, a terrorist kindergarden, a terrorist wedding...

[daleo]

23. Wasn't this tried in Viet Nam?

As VietNamization went forward, wasn't U.S. air support still heavily involved, at least for the first while? It didn't seem to turn the trick that time.

[1932]

25. Yep. Nixon reduced troops from over 500k to 168k and stepped up bombing

and it was an expensive and bloody disaster.

[Voltaire99]

26. You want black humor? Here's its epitome...

"Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?" a senior military planner told the magazine. "Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of al-Qaida, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?"

The Strangeloves who have killed 100,000 Iraqis and who can't miss a wedding party are worried about whether the Iraqis will kill innocent people?

[Ms. Clio]

27. Actually, this is almost exactly what Professor Juan Cole recommends

in his own detailed plan for U.S. withdrawal, published on his blog sometime last week or so. Very interesting.

[Barrett808]

37. But with air power under command of US officers

It's madness to hand over US air power to Iraqi militias.

Madness.

[Ms. Clio]

41. Yes, of course

I'm not sure I believe it's much different, anyway.

[Barrett808]

42. I'm thankful for the good Dr. Cole's thoughts, but...

...I read him every day, and my view leans more toward that of his guest commentator Gilbert Achcar. Here, in particular: http://www.juancole.com/2005/09/achcar-replies-gilbert-achcar-replies.html

[Ms. Clio]

43. Thanks for the link

I respect Prof Cole's opinions, but I think I lean more toward Achcar's views, as well.

[autorank]

28. Starting a new string of consecutive dupes, unintentional, in LBN

Geez, this one lasted for at least 2 hours before I got merged.

Back to the drawing board. I'm overconfident after one successful post (the last one) to LBN

:spank:

[Divernan]

30. Bush would turn US Air Force into whoring mercenaries.

As the article details, the US pilots would have no way to verify or in any manner control targets. The Iraqi guy with the laser would be directing them to targets. As was also detailed, the US military's concerns (voiced off the record, of course - so they don't get pushed into early retirement), is that the US would have no idea who was targeting or the purpose of the targeting. The US pilots, planes and weapons could be used to snuff out rivals or other warlords, or to snuff out "good" Iraqis and blame it on rivals; targeting could be done on behalf of Al Quaida, or the insurgency or Iran.

And this at a time when we learn that the Iraqis are so far into civil war that they are running torture prisons as bad as Saddam's against their rival sects.

And who gets prosecuted as war criminals at the Hague for the white phosporous, or indiscriminate bombing of civilians? The "I was just following orders" defense didn't work after World War II for the Nazis, and it won't work for US pilots/military.

[Nihil]

36. Why not? That's what he did with the US Army.

(And the British Army and the Australian Army and the ...)

[Divernan]

31. Please recommend this important story to greatest page.

so it gets the exposure it deserves on
DU.

[Crayson]

32. Why not give them a Nuke?

[thebigidea]

38. Bush to Use Bullshit as Substitute for Plan

[localroger]

39. ...what could possibly go wrong? /nt

[DemoTex]

40. I watched Arc-Light bombing runs in Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia.

We enjoyed air superiority in Viet Nam. The carpet bombing of the Ho Chi Mihn Trail was supposed to bring the NVA to its knees. Instead, we killed hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of innocent civilians. We left a landscape that is reminiscent of the surface of the moon.
The Arc-Light B-52 attacks were awesome to behold. The sheer volume of high explosives and their attendant shock waves left me speechless. Anyone watching the indiscriminate B-52 bombing runs knew, with a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach, who was bearing the brunt of that insanity.
Meanwhile, the NVA - like so many ants - kept inching down the Ho Chi Mihn Trail, with Katyusha rockets strapped to elephants' backs, rice bags loading down bicycles, and trucks full of highly-trained, well-equipped, and highly motivated troops of the Peoples' Army of Viet Nam (PAVN). Look how that cluster-fuck turned out.
Air superiority is good for three things, basically. Naval air must protect the fleet. Other air assets must keep enemy aircraft on the ground. Both can be done with minimum collateral damage. Close air support, when directed by well-trained FACs (airborne forward air controllers) and FOs (forward observers on the ground) is highly desirable for troops in contact, but CAS carries a higher risk of collateral damage and friendly fire accidents. Strategic bombing in an insurgency or guerrilla war is never a good idea. The downside of civilian casualties, which will occur, far outweighs any perceived advantages.


B-52 Arc Light bombing in Viet Nam


B-52 Arc Light bomb craters pock-mark the Laotian countryside near Tchepone.