Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bombs Away Over Iraq

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 4, 2008.


The U.S. recently dropped 100,000 pounds of bombs on a small village in Iraq to combat 'al-Qaeda' -- part of the growing air war in Iraq.
Advertisement

A January 21st Los Angeles Times Iraq piece by Ned Parker and Saif Rasheed led with an inter-tribal suicide bombing at a gathering in Fallujah in which members of the pro-American Anbar Awakening Council were killed. ("Asked why one member of his Albu Issa tribe would kill another, Aftan compared it to school shootings that happen in the United States.") Twenty-six paragraphs later, the story ended this way:

"The U.S. military also said in a statement that it had dropped 19,000 pounds of explosives on the farmland of Arab Jabour south of Baghdad. The strikes targeted buried bombs and weapons caches.

"In the last 10 days, the military has dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of explosives on the area, which has been a gateway for Sunni militants into Baghdad."

And here's paragraph 22 of a 34-paragraph January 22nd story by Stephen Farrell of the New York Times:

"The threat from buried bombs was well known before the [Arab Jabour] operation. To help clear the ground, the military had dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of bombs to destroy weapons caches and I.E.D.'s."

Farrell led his piece with news that an American soldier had died in Arab Jabour from an IED that blew up "an MRAP, the new Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected armored vehicle that the American military is counting on to reduce casualties from roadside bombs in Iraq."

Note that both pieces started with bombing news -- in one case a suicide bombing that killed several Iraqis; in another a roadside bombing that killed an American soldier and wounded others. But the major bombing story of these last days -- those 100,000 pounds of explosives that U.S. planes dropped in a small area south of Baghdad -- simply dangled unexplained off the far end of the Los Angeles Times piece; while, in the New York Times, it was buried inside a single sentence.

Neither paper has (as far as I know) returned to the subject, though this is undoubtedly the most extensive use of air power in Iraq since the Bush administration's invasion of 2003 and probably represents a genuine shifting of American military strategy in that country. Despite a few humdrum wire service pieces, no place else in the mainstream has bothered to cover the story adequately either.

For those who know something about the history of air power, which, since World War II, has been lodged at the heart of the American Way of War, that 100,000 figure might have rung a small bell.

On April 27, 1937, in the midst of the Spanish Civil War (a prelude to World War II), the planes of the German Condor Legion attacked the ancient Basque town of Guernica. They came in waves, first carpet bombing, then dropping thermite incendiaries. It was a market day and there may have been as many as 7,000-10,000 people, including refugees, in the town which was largely destroyed in the ensuing fire storm. More than 1,600 people may have died there (though some estimates are lower). The Germans reputedly dropped about 50 tons or 100,000 pounds of explosives on the town. In the seven decades between those two 100,000 figures lies a sad history of our age.

Arab Jabour, the Sunni farming community about 10 miles south of the Iraqi capital that was the target of the latest 100,000-pound barrage has recently been largely off-limits to American troops and their Iraqi allies. The American military now refers generically to all Sunni insurgents who resist them as "al Qaeda," so in situations like this it's hard to tell exactly who has held this territory.

At Guernica, as in Arab Jabour 71 years later, no reporters were present when the explosives rained down. In the Spanish situation, however, four reporters in the nearby city of Bilbao, including George Steer of the Times of London, promptly rushed to the scene of destruction. Steer's first piece for the Times (also printed in the New York Times) was headlined "The Tragedy of Guernica" and called the assault "unparalleled in military history." (Obviously, no such claims could be made for Arab Jabour today.) Steer made clear in his report that this had been an attack on a civilian population, essentially a terror bombing.

The self-evident barbarism of the event -- the first massively publicized bombing of a civilian population -- caused international horror. It was news across the planet. From it came perhaps the most famous painting of the last century, Picasso's Guernica, as well as innumerable novels, plays, poems, and other works of art.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: air war, iraq, guernica

Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fluff and Drivel
Posted by: ot on Feb 4, 2008 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is little more than gratuitous verbage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fluff and Drivel Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Fluff and Drivel Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: Fluff and Drivel Posted by: tiredangry
» RE: Fluff and Drivel Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Fluff and Drivel Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Fluff and Drivel Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Airpower
Posted by: Squarehead on Feb 4, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Airpower is such a shitty and inept way to fight a war. I know troops who are on the receiving end of attack just love it, because of course the opposition gets seriously shat upon, but examination of most (or all?) of wars since 1945 shows that what wins war is presence on the ground.

Of course, for the dishonest shysters who are both the administration and a very significant part of both the Pentagon bureaucracy and the US Army itself, that probably is no longer the point. They really could not care, when you look at their record.

Napoleon Bonaparte pointed out that what wins wars is both materiel and the moral position, (by which he meant what we now call morale). This significance of morale is not simply how happy the troops are; it is impacted upon by their behaviour and interaction with civilian position, and much more so in the case of the war that the US is now fighting, than the one they had functionally won when they entered Baghad.

You (the USA) have screwed up so systematically that it beggars belief. But it was obvious to some of us (in Europe) that this would happen, because the Bush clan, the Cheney connection, the military industrial complex that 'owns' USA are the greatest bunch of CROOKS that you have ever "elected"

Dishonesty doesn't cut it. And dropping ordnance in the way this article indicates is grossly dishonest.

YOU (the US Army) SHOULD RUN OUT OF THIS CONFLICT;

ANY DELAY WILL ONLY DIS-IMPROVE THE SITUATION.

1973, Helicopter evacs from the embassy, Saigon; Any bets on how long until that scene is repeated?

And where is Vietnam now? Edging its way towards democracy and prosperity.

I wish you all well in reclaiming your country, but it's one hell of a mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes Posted by: walldodger1969
» RE: KIA Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Not enough KIA? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Take it easy Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Airpower Posted by: foreverhope
I want the media back!
Posted by: motamanx on Feb 4, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good reporting! I.F. Stone would have done the same. The media just cannot bring itself to report how stupidly brutal this country has become. (Please, no rebuttals that mention 9/11).

We dropped the bombs simply so rayethon could make new ones and thus make more $$$.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHEN WILL THE IRAQIS CAVE IN ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 4, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oil deal has yet to be signed. Thousands of pounds of bombs could change their minds. Even if that happens they still don't want us in their country. So in some form or another, the war will still go on. The young people are coming out in droves to vote. They feel a draft and don't like it. Neither do I. No one should go to war for the sake of a few egos. That's what Iraq is about. Bush 41 and son along with close family friends. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Draft ? Posted by: Dboy
This is all about liberating Iraqis ... not!
Posted by: harryf200 on Feb 4, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, this article illustrates very well what most of us knew already - that this war has nothing to do with liberating Iraq from a tyrant king! None of this is about serving the best interests of the Iraqi nation. It's about the interests of the - not even their allies, who have receive a paupers share of the reconstruction projects! It's all about serving the economic interests of the USA, USA and the USA. Preserving US sovereignty in the World. If it were otherwise, there would be a lot LESS spent on the US military infrastructure and a lot MORE on the Iraqi infrastructure! More on providing this now impoverished nation with schools, hospitals, drugs and equipment for the hospitals, new and independent broadcasting stations, ditto newspapers, reliable gas, petrol and electricity supplies, clean water for everyone, etc. The irony of the 24 hour a day blazing lights of that new airport contrasting with the 10 hours a day of power for the nearby villages says it all! The occupying force cannot even extend their charity beyond their doorstep!

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I just wish those dishonourable folk in the White House would be honest enough to admit it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Will a Democrat REALLY END the war Posted by: JackieGiles
» RE: This is all about liberating Iraqis ... not! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Fairy tales
Posted by: willymack on Feb 4, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems Washington is running out of good lies to rationalize the brutalization of Iraq (for its oil, of course). Most of us who haven't been lobotomized know by now that bin Laden (dead or alive) is our man in the Middle East, and who, of course, will NEVER BE CAUGHT, unless a really good body double can be found to take the fall. The very name Al Queda is one WE made up, and is routinely trotted out as a monster under the bed for us to FEAR, while the REAL terrorists are in Washington. John Lennon had it right in his song:"Working class hero", when he sang: "Keep you doped up on sex, and religion, and TV; And you think you're so clever and classless and free; But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see. A working class hero is something to be". True, John was a genius, but if this was so apparent to him in HIS day, why isn't it to us NOW? Are the fairy tales really THAT good?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You cant measure barbarism in pounds of bombs: War is babarabism
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Feb 4, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought about this a lot. Who is better? The combatant who looks you in the eye before they blows you up or the combatant in the air conditioned jet who pushes a button and is three miles away before the bomb blows you up. They both spent a long time preparing for that moment. They both dont care anything about you other than you body count means something. You are better dead then alive. A few less hands to wage war or a few more hands ready to fight. Eventually, huge numbers of people must die for a war to be won. I always think about the South in the USA's civil. The Federal troops lead by Lincoln had to basically obliterate the south before they surrendered. Same basic idea with Germany and Japan in WWII. Everybody knows civilians pay the highest price in terms of lives lost for war. Its required to win without question. The civilians are the war machine. They build the bombs and bake the bread that keeps the war moving. I am sure some guys at war colleges know how much of a population must be killed to pacify an area. I bet its a very high number. Hopefully they are smart enough to go after the right regions first to end it fast.

Somebody mentioned something about morale in a post. Its a combination of morale and desire. Some populations will fight to the death no matter what. Some will stop after you kill 70% of them others 50%. Sometimes give them a reasonable agreement and nobody dies.

War is barbarism. There are no exceptions. Weather its death raining form planes or your next door neighbors AK-47. You cant measure barbarism in pounds of bombs. Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Air Bombing
Posted by: Ghoulman on Feb 4, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the great evil of the 20th Century.

Remember Guernica.

When Gen. Coliin Powell presented the White Houses baloney about Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons program Picasso's painting "Guernica" was covered over with a drape. Why? I guess because the White House doesn't like to remind people that aerial bombing kills people.

Interesting this new bombing campaign comes just before the State Of The Union Speech, where Bush painted yet another rosy picture of the progress in Iraq.

Pure evil. Really, it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People were better then
Posted by: Hans B on Feb 4, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The outrage that greeted the bombing of Guernica fits inside a historical perspective where countries tried to avoid civilian casualties, not military ones. During the First World War the main protagonists (Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the UK) lost something like three times more soldiers than civilians. In the Second World War more civilians than soldiers died, and not just because of the Holocaust: many military operations explicitly targeted civilians (including many by the US and its allies, such as the bombings of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). In Vietnam it was much worse. And in Iraq there are probably well over twenty civilian dead for every dead insurgent or soldier.

Civilians used to matter more than soldiers, but they don't matter at all now, not to the deciders at least, and the US leads in giving the (bad) example.

Thanks for the excellent reporting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: People were better then Posted by: harryf200
Unfortunately, some in the Military Actually ENJOY Killing Civilians
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 4, 2008 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you bomb them, then you can just bull doze away what's left and put in place whatever you want. Perhaps a new oil refinery or power plant. Sorry to say it, and from the Army I know, some in the military actually enjoy killing civilians. In Vietnam, it was considered "good fun" to "light up the gooks." Some in the military actually relish killing, it provides a sense of perverse enjoyment. So, yes, it's about "pacifying" the civilians but, it's more then that. For real heroes, they cannot even "feel alive" unless they are involved with killing. Then they come back to America, and to suicide, prison or death themselves. As for saying these people are psychopaths, that is a stretch. These people are your leaders in war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Megadeath at a Distance...Extreme Immorality!
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Feb 5, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American military spokespeople and administration officials have, over the years, decried Iraqi and Afghan insurgents for "hiding" behind civilian populations -- in essence, accusing them of both immorality and cowardice. When such spokespeople do admit to inflicting "collateral damage" on civilian populations, they regularly blame the guerrillas for turning civilians into "shields." And all of this is regularly, dutifully reported in our press.

Oh Gosh yes. Absolutely immoral and cowardly Iraqis hiding behind civilians...that's what's causing all those thousands of Iraqi deaths and maimings. They're getting in the way of our bombs!

"I go from the gym and step inside Afghanistan, or Iraq... It takes some getting used to it. At Nellis AFB you have to remind yourself, 'I'm not at the Nellis Air Force Base. Whatever issues I had 30 minutes ago, like talking to my bank, aren't important anymore.'"

This, of course, is neither cowardly or barbaric. This is just our really brave airman fighting with all his "courage", a really "tough" war. He's not "hiding" in a distant modern building or among the civilian gamblers of Caesar's Palace. He's bravely fighting our war on those stupid imbecilic ragheads.

I can see him respond to his wife at the end of his shift. She asks.."Did everything go OK at the office?" "Yes, sweetie. I blew to bloody bits a couple thousand Iraqis in the 'sandbox! Just another day at the office!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]