An AP story by Charles J. Hanley, dated June 5, reported that:
“U.S. warplanes have again stepped up attacks in Iraq, dropping bombs at more than twice the rate of a year ago. ”¦ And it appears to be accomplished by a rise in Iraqi civilian casualties.
“In the first 4 1/2 months of 2007, American aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press.”
According to William Lind, this is a sure sign that the US are losing and clueless:
“Nothing could testify more powerfully to the failure of U.S. efforts on the ground in Iraq than a ramp-up in airstrikes. Calling in air is the last, desperate, and usually futile action of an army that is losing. If anyone still wonders whether the ‘surge’ is working, the increase in air strikes offers a definitive answer: it isn’t.”
Worse, the growing number of air strikes shows that, despite what the Marines have accomplished in Anbar province and Gen. Petraeus’ best efforts, our high command remains as incapable as ever of grasping Fourth Generation war. To put it bluntly, there is no surer or faster way to lose in 4GW than by calling in airstrikes. It is a disaster on every level. Physically, it inevitably kills far more civilians than enemies, enraging the population against us and driving them into the arms of our opponents. Mentally, it tells the insurgents we are cowards who only dare fight them from 20,000 feet in the air. Morally, it turns us into Goliath, a monster every real man has to fight. So negative are the results of air strikes in this kind of war that there is only one possible good number of them: zero (unless we are employing the “Hama model,” which we are not).
Doesn’t this sound a tad familiar?
Seven kids, who were massacred in an air strike, managed to make the news. But note the following pleas of ignorance:
“We are saddened by the innocent lives that were lost as a result of militants’ cowardice,” said Major Chris Belcher.
“This is another example of al-Qaida using the protective status of a mosque, as well as innocent civilians, to shield themselves.”
Major Belcher said troops had watched the compound all day “and saw no indications there were children inside the building”.
Which Al Qaeda might that be? The good Al Qaeda that the US are supporting against Iran and Hezbollah, or the bad Al Qaeda?
Right. We’ve been here before. Awe shucks, we didn’t know, and the turrrsts used them children as shields. Yeah, but you blew up a mosque and a religious school: what are the odds? And since when, by the way, can two such buildings be seriously described as a fucking ‘compound’? Oh, right, I forgot: “Yes, it is a civilian village, mud hut, like everything else in this country. But don’t say that. Say it’s a military compound. It’s a built-up area, barracks, command and control. Just like with the convoys: If it really was a convoy with civilian vehicles they were using for transport, we would just say hey, military convoy, troop transport.”
Awe, but they didn’t mean to kill the ickle childwen. ‘Al Qaida’ forced them to do it cuz thur cowards (whereas those who actually blow up schoolchildren from twenty thousand feet are known for their devout bravery).