U.S. Rules of Engagement A Formula for Slaughter (of Iraqi Citizens)

[bigtree]

A Formula for Slaughter
On the American rules of engagement in the Iraqi air war.

Michael Schwartz
January 11 , 2006
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/01/formula_for_slaughter.html

Seymour Hersh's article made the new Bush administration policy of relying on air power public. It involves, in the near future, substituting Iraqi for U.S. foot patrols as often as possible (which means an instant drop in the quality of the soldiering involved); and, since the Iraqi military do not have tanks, artillery, or other heavy weaponry, the U.S. plans to compensate both for weaker fighting outfits and lack of on-the-ground firepower by increasing its use of air strikes. In other words, in the coming months those 3,000 encounters a month are likely to produce even more victims than the already staggering civilian casualty rates in Iraq. Each incident that previously might have killed a few civilians will now be likely to kill many more.

The Washington Post, along with other major American media outlets, has confirmed that a new military strategy is being put in place and implemented. Quoting military sources, the Post reported that the number of U.S. air strikes increased from an average of 25 per month during the Summer of 2005, to 62 in September, 122 in October, and 120 in November. The Sunday Times of London reports that, in the near future, these are expected to increase to at least 150 per month and that the numbers will continue to climb past that threshold.

Consider then this gruesome arithmetic: If the U.S. fulfills its expectation of surpassing 150 air attacks per month, and if the average air strike produces the (gruesomely) modest total of 10 fatalities, air power alone could kill well over 20,000 Iraqi civilians in 2006. Add the ongoing (but reduced) mortality due to other military causes on all sides, and the 1,000 civilian deaths per week rate recorded by the Hopkins study could be dwarfed in the coming year.

The new American strategy, billed as a way to de-escalate the war, is actually a formula for the slaughter of Iraqi civilians.

full article: http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/01/formula_for_slaughter.html

[wtmusic]

1. I keep waiting for an article like this

to show up in Time or Newsweek...I guess I shouldn't hold my breath :eyes:

[PDJane]

2. That's because this tactic

is a war crime. It will kill mainly civilians.

[Karenina]

3. It's called G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E

[bigtree]

4. shameful

can't imagine those who continue to support this occupation have a clue about the innocents that are killed by our bombs . . . or they know, but, don't care . . . shameful.

[bigtree]

5. US Airstrikes in Iraq Could Intensify- Knight Ridder

US Airstrikes in Iraq Could Intensify
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-01-12 01:14. Media

By Drew Brown, Knight Ridder Newspapers

Washington - US warplanes have carried out hundreds of air strikes in Iraq in the past two years, bombing and strafing insurgent fighters and targets almost daily. And the air war, which has gone largely unnoticed at home, could intensify once American ground forces start to withdraw.

>>>>Some analysts have raised questions about how effective air power can be in a counterinsurgency war. A key fear is that Iraq's mostly Shiite Muslim and Kurdish army will use American and allied bombing missions for revenge attacks on the Sunni Muslim Arab minority, which provides most of the insurgency's fighters.

"If we allow that to happen, then in essence we'll be doing the same thing we accused Saddam Hussein of doing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA and State Department official. "We'll just be substituting one tyranny for another."

>>>>It's already difficult for American troops to distinguish friend from foe in Iraq. To wage a counterinsurgency campaign solely from the air would be virtually impossible.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6685