Are airstrikes in Iraq reducing U.S. fatalities?

[ProSense]

Are airstrikes in Iraq reducing U.S. fatalities?

Posted October 25th, 2007 at 10:10 am

<...>

It’s tempting to think this approach is the answer we’ve been looking for. We bomb the bad guys from the air, the bad guys die, and the U.S. troops come home safely. Piece of cake.

Except, it doesn’t quite work that way. In an urban environment, dropping a bomb from the air inevitably leads to civilians — innocent bystanders — dying, too. As Kaplan noted, “This makes some of the bystanders’ relatives yearn for vengeance. And it makes many Iraqis — relatives, neighbors, and others watching the news of the attack on television — less trusting of the American troops who are supposedly protecting them.”

In a conventional war, these consequences might be deemed unavoidable side-effects. But in a counterinsurgency campaign, where the point is to sway the hearts and minds of the population, wreaking such damage is self-defeating.

The U.S. Army’s field manual on counterinsurgency, which Gen. Petraeus supervised shortly before he returned to Iraq, makes the point explicitly: “An air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory. Even when justified under the law of war, bombings that result in civilian casualties can bring media coverage that works to the insurgents’ benefits. … For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully during operations, neither disregarding them outright nor employing them excessively.”

Kaplan concluded, “The old adage about warfare — that it’s easy to kill people, hard to kill a particular person — is doubly true of aerial warfare. And in counterinsurgency warfare, the consequences are counterproductive.”

In other words, it’s certainly good news that U.S. fatalities are dropping, but if the trend is a result of a policy that will simply prolong the war, we’re not getting any closer to our goal.

Bombing the hell out of a country doesn't work.


How to reduce the civilian death toll in Iraq: increase bombing, call dead militants

The AP tally is compiled from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths are not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.

[ShortnFiery]

1. No but they are doing a heck-of-a-job at "winning Iraqi's hearts and minds"

in favor of the insurgents.

Newsflash: Our "smart bombs" are not all that ... well smart! :eyes:

[Zywiec]

2. "Bombing the hell out of a country doesn't work."

Only two bombs dropped on Japan ended war in the Pacific.

[ShortnFiery]

3. That's one of the big political "lies" - Japan was already trying to surrender before the first bomb

was dropped.

I'm amazed that the Japanese people are of a such laudable and humble nature to have forgiven us for slaughtering all those innocent people. :(

[ShortnFiery]

4. Here's what Eisenhower had to say about these acts of State Sponsored TERRORISM.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Was+it+necessary+to+drop+the+atom+bomb+on+Japan%3F+Sixty+years+later,...-a0132709822

Was it necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan? Sixty years later, scholars still argue about the decision to use atom bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a way to hasten the end of World War II.

When General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then the Supreme Allied Commander, was informed by the Secretary of War that the atomic bomb was going to be used, he later recalled saying it was unnecessary because Japan was already largely defeated. Eisenhower said the bomb was "no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." At one point after the war he said bluntly, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

snip

Most top World War II military leaders are all on record agreeing with Eisenhower. Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's Chief" of Staff, later called the bomb a "barbarous weapon" that was unnecessary. Leahy wrote, "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... In being the first to use it, we ... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark AgesDark Ages: see Middle Ages.
..... Click the link for more information.."

--Gar Alperovitz

Professor of Political Economy University of Maryland

[Zywiec]

5. Why then didn't they just lay down their arms and surrender?

Didn't Admiral Doenitz announce an unconditional surrender of the German people over the radio? Why didn't the emperor do the same thing if they were so intent on surrendering?

[ShortnFiery]

8. Because, just like Bush, Truman was chomping at the bit to use this horrific weapon.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Was+it+necessary+to+drop+the+atom+bomb+on+Japan%3F+Sixty+years+later,...-a0132709822

Before the bomb was used, U.S. intelligence officials believed the war would likely end when two things happened: When the U.S. let Japan know their Emperor could stay on as a figurehead figurehead, carved decoration usually representing a head or figure placed under the bowsprit of a ship. The art is of extreme antiquity. Ancient galleys and triremes carried rostrums, or beaks, on the bow to ram enemy vessels. These beaks were often surmounted by figureheads representing national or religious emblems. Roman vessels were sometimes embellished with large heads of the gods in bronze., and when the Soviet army attacked. The U.S. did tell Japan the Emperor could remain, and the Soviets declared war, as agreed, on August 8.

But U.S. officials chose not to test whether this intelligence was correct. Instead, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9. Because of logistics, an invasion of Japan could not begin for another three months, so the U.S. could have waited to see if Japan would surrender before dropping the atomic bombs.

Most top World War II military leaders are all on record agreeing with Eisenhower. Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's Chief" of Staff, later called the bomb a "barbarous weapon" that was unnecessary. Leahy wrote, "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... In being the first to use it, we ... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages Dark Ages: see Middle Ages. --Gar Alperovitz, Professor of Political Economy University of Maryland

[ProSense]

10. Are you suggesting the Iraqis surrender?

Why is Bush fighting the Iraqis?

[Zywiec]

13. You're trying to put words in my mouth

instead of reading what I wrote.

"You said bombing the hell out of a country never works". I mentioned that two bombs on one country ended the war in the pacific. That's all. Did that bombing not work?

Since we are not engaged in battle with the Iraqi government, who would you suggest would even be available to surrender?

[ProSense]

18. That's why context is important. Your response to the OP took the statement out of context.

"Since we are not engaged in battle with the Iraqi government," why would an analogy to the bombing of Japan apply?

[ShortnFiery]

12. Hello? We didn't give any time to work out the specifics & address these issues - we had the TIME!

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hiroshima+1945.+(moral+aspects+of+dropping+atomic+bombs+on+Hiroshima...-a017210221

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are are names for American guilt and shame.

The war against Japan was nearly won. Our fleet and Britain's fleet stood off Japan's coast and shelled Japan's cities. There was no opposition. Our planes, the greatest bombers in the world, flew from hard won, gailantly won bases and bombed Japanese shipping, Japanese industry and, already, Japanese women and children. Each day they announced to the Japanese where the blows would fall, and the Japanese were unable to prevent anything they chose to do.

Then, without warning, an American plane dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

snip

For our war, for our purposes, to save American lives we have reached the point where we say that anything goes. That is what the Germans said at the beginning of the war. Once we have won our war we say that there must be international law. Undoubtedly.

When it is created, Germans, Japanese, and Americans will remember with horror the days of their shame.

[Zywiec]

15. What issues need to be worked out in an unconditional surrender?

As I said, nothing would have stopped the emperor from getting on the radio and surrendering at anytime as he did after the bombs fell.

[ShortnFiery]

19. You really need to read the JOURNAL articles cited above fully and stop spinning.

The war against Japan was nearly won. Our fleet and Britain's fleet stood off Japan's coast and shelled Japan's cities. There was no opposition. Our planes, the greatest bombers in the world, flew from hard won, gailantly won bases and bombed Japanese shipping, Japanese industry and, already, Japanese women and children. Each day they announced to the Japanese where the blows would fall, and the Japanese were unable to prevent anything they chose to do.

In many General Officers and Political Scholar's minds, "we crossed the line." :thumbsdown:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hiroshima+%26+Nagasaki%3a+one+necessary+evil%2c+one+tragic+mistake.-a017210233

It is because of the enormous consequences of the decision to use the bomb in the way it was used that controversy has continued for five decades; it may be that there will never be a consensus about either the facts of the case or the morality of the decision.

The main questions still debated include the following:

* Was using the bomb on civilian-inhabited Japanese targets necessary to compel Japan's surrender?

* If the atomic bomb had not been used, would the Allies have launched an invasion of the Japanese homeland? If so, how costly, in terms of Allied and Japanese casualties, would the operation have been?

* By making clear that the Allies would allow Japan to retain its emperor, could President Truman have negotiated a surrender without dropping even the first bomb?

* Was the bomb used primarily as a diplomatic device for dealing with the postwar Soviet Union or primarily as a weapon to end the war?

* Having dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, should the United States have dropped the second on Nagasaki? This issue has been largely neglected in the debate, even though, in my judgment, an account of the decision to use both bombs throws needed light on all the other unsettled questions.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Here's the intelligence on the specific issues you requested:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hiroshima+1945.+(moral+aspects+of+dropping+atomic+bombs+on+Hiroshima...-a017210221

Before the bomb was used, U.S. intelligence officials believed the war would likely end when two things happened: When the U.S. let Japan know their Emperor could stay on as a figurehead, and when the Soviet army attacked. The U.S. did tell Japan the Emperor could remain, and the Soviets declared war, as agreed, on August 8.

But U.S. officials chose not to test whether this intelligence was correct. Instead, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9. Because of logistics, an invasion of Japan could not begin for another three months, so the U.S. could have waited to see if Japan would surrender before dropping the atomic bombs.

snip

Most top World War II military leaders are all on record agreeing with Eisenhower. Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's Chief" of Staff, later called the bomb a "barbarous weapon" that was unnecessary. Leahy wrote, "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... In being the first to use it, we ... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Because "unconditional surrender" entailed the prosecution of

the emperor as a war criminal. The emperor was largely a figurehead, and the negotiators wanted to be sure that the war crimes trials would stop at the emperor's door because of him being a symbol, not in the military command structure which held power.

The US refused that point, and dropped the bombs, and THEN said "ok, we won't prosecute the emperor".

The bombs would NOT have stopped the war if we had not conceded that point. Since we could have conceded that before the bombs were dropped, and Japan would have surrendered then, the bombs were totally unnecessary.

[tuckessee]

14. You're absolutely correct.

The exact same surrender terms that came about after the bomb were the exact same terms the Japanese were desperately trying to get the US to accept before the bomb.

[ProSense]

7. So you agree with Bush that this is WWIII?

Is the idea to add another 200,000 to 300,000 Iraqis to the nearly one million already killed as a result of this war?

[Zywiec]

9. Absolutely not, I was only commented on the statement about bombing

Throughout the history of the world until the Geneva Convention of 1948, complete destruction of an enemy is how wars were won.

[ProSense]

11. "Doesn't work" was attached to an objective. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

17. Yeah, we shamelessly tried to bomb them back to The Stone Age in Vietnam,

but those little yellow people :sarcasm: would not surrender, no matter how many of their countrymen died, they would NOT lie down. :grr: :(

I would suggest that the Japanese surrendered because they were already trying to work out the details of surrender when ole' Harry dropped the atomic bomb on their two cities. WE had the time we had the small bombs, we held all the cards, yet we had to test this pretty new weapon. Shameful. :(

So sure, it's the American Way to show we're truly f**king insane and DO IT AGAIN? :eyes:

Whatever country an Empire occupies, the natives are patient but they will eventually ALWAYS kick the invaders out. No matter how many Iraqis we kill, there will be more who will NOT SURRENDER. It's called "nationalism" and it's not an exclusive ideology to Americans.

[leftchick]

6. um, prolonging the war IS their policy

same as Vietnam.

[gratuitous]

16. Well, spraying a crowd with machine gun fire keeps you safe, too

That is, until you run out of bullets. And if you didn't kill every last person in that crowd, the chances are very good that the encounter will end badly for you.

Do we have enough bombs and enough will to wipe out every last "enemy," real or perceived, on the planet? Because if we don't it seems that now, rather than later when we've run out of bombs, is a good time to sue for peace.