Aggressive aerial bombardment
New Sy Hersh article lays out the next phase
US bombing of Southeast Asia, spring 1970 (from footage in the documentary film Hearts and Minds)
Damn, I wish I had more time to do more on this… Lately there has been an exchange of articles and postings between Alexander Cockburn and Juan Cole. Frankly, I’m troubled by the way Cole — a writer I usually admire and respect — has presented his vision for stepped American troop withdrawal from Iraq, first from urban areas. Cockburn has staked the anti-war position with which I agree. Where Juan Cole is coming from, on the other hand, should never be confused with an anti-war position.
The Cole vision in part calls…
…For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces . . . . With the agreement of the elected Iraqi government, the US would prevent any guerrilla force from fielding any large number of fighters for set piece battles.
Cockburn viewed this notion of “close air support” as tantamount to “saturation bombing”. Yes.
Now Seymour Hersh is weighing in with astonishing reporting of just how the US administration and the US military are planning — not necessarily harmoniously — to provide a stepped up air war as stepped withdrawals of ground forces occur over the next year. See this diary posted at Daily Kos for links and some sharp analysis.
Hersh will report in an upcoming New Yorker article just how the Bush Administration plans to “…increase the pace of air operations” with “more bombing in direct support of Iraqi units”.
The Vietnam parallel is deeply disconcerting.
Hersh (CNN, Nov. 27): …we can take out troops if we increase air. In other words, the temple of air bombing, bombing’s sort of the unknown story right now. We don’t know how many bombs are dropped, where. Nobody reports publicly as they did, Wolf, in Vietnam.
Juan Cole now should explain how what he is calling for is any different than what the administration is going to do. Like Alexander Cockburn, I see more potential for civilian death and destruction, that “nobody reports publicly”. Just like the latter years of the Vietnam War, where tonnage of bombs dropped became the rosy pr while the US ground its way through a disaster wrapped in an illusion.
November 28th, 2005 at 17:53
I too am somewhat bemused by Cole’s position on this. Air cover sounds all to clinical in his version of possible outcomes. But as Vietnam and other so-called defensive air covers have proven, the innocent join the piles of other innocents who have perished as a result of well-planned military operations. The more I think about it, the mroe I absolutely concur with Goff’s strategy of absolute withdrawal; and possibly following talks with the legitimate resistance movements beforehand so as to isolate the Salafists and to bring in errant Sunnis considering joining Jihadid groups. It is amazing how COle would resort to bombing instead of diplomacy. However, COle is complex and always open to new considerations; a quality I respect him for. Cockburn has been a little hard on him, but dontcha just love Cockburn.
November 28th, 2005 at 20:41
Hersh’s new article, “Up in the air”, has just posted.
November 28th, 2005 at 20:54
Yes, Wallsy. I’ve read every word Cockburn has written since “Beat the Devil” debuted 22 years ago. I try sometimes, but it’s futile. I’ll never be half the writer Cockburn is. Few are.
I’m a little puzzled by Cole’s indignation at Cockburn’s remarks. What does Cole think “close air support” would in reality actually mean? The US needs to be out entirely. Goff suggests that the result would very much less likely be civil war, as the typical argument goes. I don’t think. As you suggest, the inevitability of such “chaos” is far from proven. Goff says the opposite is true. US out = less chaos. I mean really out, off the throat of Iraqi politics, Iraqi oil, and the Iraqi economy. And it is about the oil! Check this out! And listen to an interview here. I’ve been meaning to post on this, but I’ve just been too busy.
November 29th, 2005 at 07:48
“I mean really out, off the throat of Iraqi politics, Iraqi oil, and the Iraqi economy. And it is about the oil! Check this out! And listen to an interview here. I’ve been meaning to post on this, but I’ve just been too busy.”
I totally concur: it is about being “really out” in every sense of the word. And of course it is about oil, how could it not have been. I was also extremely intrigued by Goff’s system theory perspective, in other words that previous US policies have, intentionally and unintentionally, kind of paved the way for current morasses. I think Goff has been reading a lot of Michael Schwarz, prof of Sociology, and naturally, being a Sociology major myslef, I am really into system theory à la Wallerstein. I’ll check your link out today mate, cheers and as the Swedes say “God Jul!”.
By the way, I might have an intersting piece about this morning’s discussion about the recent Swedish fatalities in Afghanistan, in which the so-called liberal party head referred to international law as a narrow principle. My translation is probably a little off here, so don’t take in too much yet. I’ll probably be back with something later.