« Very Good News | Main | A Betting Man »

More On Falluja

Spencer has some concerns. Even if you assume the military is operating with 100 percent accurate intelligence as to its targets, and 100 percent accuracy as to munitions delivery, the notion that you could launch a large series of "precision" air strikes into an urban area strikes me as something that only a group of people raised in West Texas and Wyoming could come up with. There's a dude who lives a couple doors down from me whom I strongly suspect of being a drug dealer of some sort. Say the government were to fly a helicopter over to the corner of 10th and U and launch a cruise missile into his abode. What are the chances, realistically, that I would just walk away from this with my life and property unscathed. What if it starts a fire? Or if my roommate couldn't find parking right in front of our house and left the car in front of his instead? Or what if he put the car in the alley behind the block on the rubble from the demolished house blocks it? The attack pulls down the power lines? His house collapses into the building next door (and there are buildings on either side, so it's hard to see how this could be avoided) fucking up everyone's walls?

Now try doing this over and over again. Factor in the fact that the intelligence is not, in fact, 100 percent accurate and neither is the targeting. Consider that though I might prefer not to have a drug dealer living down the block, it's a situation our household can cope with much more easily than the loss of our electricity or our car. And what about the Chinese guys who are supposed to be opening a restaurant next door on Tuesday and have probably invested some huge proportion of their savings in the endeavor. How are they going to feel if it turns out that the targeted house was full of ammo, which blows up, setting their kitchen on fire, wrecking the equipment and massively delaying their opening date? Meanwhile, who wants to go to the restaurant next to the pile of rubble in the neighborhood targeted by cruise missiles every so often? Some liberation....

UPDATE: Pink Flamingo Bar Grill comments with some disparaging remarks. He's right -- helicopters don't fire cruise missiles. His substantive point is that anyone hanging around in the Falluja area nowadays is probably a bad guy who hates America (possibly his hatred of America is sufficient reason to think he's a bad guy) so we don't need to worry. My friends on the right ought to think through the logic of this position better. If our attitude is "Fallujans are bad -- kill them all" then why bother with precision strikes? Let's just load up some heavy ordinance on the airplanes and level the whole city, Grozny-style. But if this is what things have come to, then what's the point of the mission in Iraq? It's hard to see how you're going to build a democracy that way.

October 15, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834218c0653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More On Falluja:

» http://mccord.ourmemorybox.com/archives/2004/10/matthew_yglesia.php from McCord
Matthew Yglesias shows where thinking about Falluja gets you: Even if you assume the military is operating with 100 percent accurate intelligence as to its targets, and 100 percent accuracy as to munitions delivery, the notion that you could launch a l... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 15, 2004 1:45:30 PM

» More On Iraq from T.J. Lang
Part of the problem with Iraq is that it is practically an impossible situation for reporters. The green zone that was the coalition stronghold in Baghdad is no longer secure. Reporters have little access, foremost because they would probably be... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 15, 2004 1:48:31 PM

» Now we know why Kerry compared Terrorism to Drugs. from The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
Matthew Yglesias is supposed to be one of the shining lights of the left wing of the Democratic party. He illuminates this by giving his opinion on what is wrong with military strikes in Fallujah. Here is a bit of this "wisdom". There's a dude who li... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 15, 2004 3:50:31 PM

» A response to Matthews lame defense from The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
Matthew now claims that I am advocating murdering everyone in Fallujah when in fact I simply expanded on his very own scenario of living down the hall from a precision strike. It is one thing to live down the hall from Drug Dealers and quite another ... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 15, 2004 4:57:39 PM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:28:07 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:30:15 AM

Comments

Uhoh, you might incur the wrath of a 10,000-word Steven den Beste essay on how the notion of a helicopter-launched cruise missile shows how unfit the decadent transnational Left is to fight the war on terror.

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Oct 15, 2004 12:39:06 PM

And what if the Drug Dealer down the block has a crack addict girlfriend and 4 kids under the age of 10

Posted by: Mark Gason | Oct 15, 2004 12:39:48 PM

I can see your point, but if they are going to harbor terrorist, they are against us. And these Arabs and Jordanians are terrorist.

Posted by: Chad | Oct 15, 2004 12:41:54 PM

"I can see your point, but if they are going to harbor terrorist, they are against us. And these Arabs and Jordanians are terrorist."

And if they are going to harbor terrorists, they have no business being under the age of 10. The little bastards. They deserve to die.

Or, as one of my more charming students recently put it, "Kill them all: let Allah sort them out."

Posted by: delagar | Oct 15, 2004 12:44:35 PM

In reality, the bigger problem is that the government doesn't seem to care how specific the intelligence is. For instance, the recent strike on a public restaurant on the basis not that Zarqawi supporters were believed to be there at the time, but that they were believed to sometimes meet there.

Imagine if Hamas had defended, say, the Sbarro Pizzeria bombing by saying it was a legitimate military target because occasionally IDF members were believed to meet there. Would anyone have thought that made it not terrorism? Of course not.

Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 15, 2004 12:45:18 PM

It has been a long, long time since Americans were the innocent bystanders to a large military operation. We literally have no idea what it's like, and I do think this colors our debate on military strikes.


On the other hand, a recent NY Review of Books article mentioned that at least 8,000 innocent French and Belgians were killed in the preparatory bombing for the Normandy invasion. And overall that was probably worth it; certainly it isn't a source of continued Continental hatred for the Brits and Americans. So sometimes people do understand the larger "liberation" going on.

Posted by: Mithras | Oct 15, 2004 12:57:38 PM

The real problem is that since the terrorists and/or insurgents don't wear uniforms, sending troops on the ground isn't going to help your problem at all so long as the terrorists and/or insurgents aren't shooting at the troops at the moment in question.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Oct 15, 2004 12:58:40 PM

Consider also that the decision to target a house is likely based to information provided by informants who, like informants generally, are motivated by a variety of interests including: (a) avoiding punishment themselves by giving up somebody...anybody...(b) monetary or other kinds of material gain (c) the subversive aim of fomenting further resistance by tricking the occupiers into attacking innocents, and (d) personal vendettas. I think (a) is especially relevant here. If you are an ordinary Iraqi and you've been hauled in by the US-Allawi government, I imagine there is a great incentive to just make something up if that's what it takes - in your own mind at least -to avoid the Abu Ghraib tratment you've seen and heard so much about.

Of course, many Iraqis (including the President) believe that the civilian casualties may not be entirely unintentional, but are a form of collective punishment, or at least an intentionally manufactured "incentive" for action. What the US wants is for the majority of residents in the no-go cities to take matters into their own hands, and reject and spit out the nastiest insurgents, so they don't have to go in and do it themselves. What better way to convince them than to make it clear that as long as those guys have the run of your town, there is a chance a US bomb may land on your house?

It sounds harsh. But if people like Chad, in the above reply, think this way, then you can bet some people in the military think the same way. If you are under pressure to generate kills and show progress against the insurgency, then it is easy to find all sorts of rationalizations for your action. There is obviously the danger of a slippery slope, where collective punishment becomes not official policy, but the unofficicial practice. So long as you can claim that you have some "intelligence" that justified the attack, who will be the wiser?

This is just another of the many wonderful "lessons" the US is proud to have learned from the Israelis. It's right up there with the famous "Arab males only respond to brutality and humiliation - so use nakedness and forced sodomy in your interrogations" lesson.

Chad thinks these Fallujans are guilty of harboring terrorists. That's the same thing the israelis say about missile strikes in the occupied territories. But "harboring terrorists" then includes the sin of failing to confront a bunch of thugs who make use your house, apartment building or neighborhood rather than reporting them to the occupying authorities and getting your throat slit, and children whacked, by the thugs later.

The other classic defense of bombing civilians is moral dissociation - "it's not *our* fault, it's the terrorists' fault for using the population as human shields." That one's been around for a long time.

Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 15, 2004 1:27:54 PM

Bush doesn't seem to care much about collateral damage, or at least views destroying possible military targets as of so much higher value than not destroying civilians and their property that he opts for the high collateral option.

"Before he went to war, Bush was briefed by General Tommy Franks about 24 “high- collateral” targets that could each result in the killing of 30 or more civilians if struck. Bush declined the implicit invitation to instruct the general not to hit those targets, or to be the one to select which ones should be hit. He told Franks to go ahead and destroy the targets he felt necessary to secure victory and protect his troops." -- Peter Singer. The President of Good and Evil.

Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 15, 2004 1:33:40 PM

Does your suspicious neighbor live within a 100 meters? How about within 1000 meters?

Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem says that you would be too close if your suspicious neighbor was the target of a 2000 pound JDAM (at least when your are calculating for friendly forces -- I don't know what the calculation is for civilians).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011206-attack02.htm

Posted by: nwoknu | Oct 15, 2004 1:39:29 PM

Nice citation from Julian.

Bush - an AWOL, buck-passing, lying worm - is the worst and most dangerous type of coward: the kind who is terrified of showing human concern lest others around him think he is weak.

Based on some of his comments on the executions he presided over as Governor of Texas, and his bizarre emotional response to those executions, I honestly don't think Bush gives a shit about human life at all - except perhaps for those humans that are still fetuses. Even in that case the concern is probably entirely politically motivated. Bush is a familiar sort of political psycopath - the kind of person who knows how to achieve power by inflecting his voice and using the rights words to feign compassion when necessary, but is actually a narcissistic monster, bereft of cosnscience.

Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 15, 2004 1:52:32 PM

Dude! I am NOT a drug dealer!

Posted by: couple doors down | Oct 15, 2004 1:54:02 PM

Dan Kervick -

I want to know what your military background is that you can make your assertions with such authority. As a matter of fact it was incredible the volume of collateral damage that was not committed during the original assault through Baghdad. There were tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, and defensive positions destroyed between homes where the homes were virtually untouched. It is not military policy to inflict civilian casualties, ever. It is not a military mission to inflict mass punishment on a population. There are risks with every mission, those in charge must weigh the risks, and decide on the best course of action. All things are weighted, civilian casualties vs weighting. Moving fast vs the chance of overextending logistics train. Everything. The one thing I have never seen go into a decision matrix while conducting a mission analysis is which political party this course of action will favor.

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 15, 2004 1:55:39 PM

Not to mention that the 1920 revolt against the British, which was put down by air power (and, I might add, poison gas at the behest of Winston Churchill and TE Lawrence), has a lot of resonance in Iraq. A lot. So this doesn't tend to go over too well.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 15, 2004 2:02:45 PM

If political calculations don't play a role in military decisionmaking (that is, civilian decisions that instruct military action) then why did the Marines attack Falluja and then stop attacking?

Posted by: Handle | Oct 15, 2004 2:06:18 PM

drug dealers = terroristms. I would say that is an excellent association. Excuse me while I take a minute and catch my breath my breath from laughing.

Posted by: cash27 | Oct 15, 2004 2:07:19 PM

About time they targetted Fallujah, I say. The cost of inaction seems greater in the medium and long run. Allowing terrorists to think they've beaten the superpower and can merrily continue their nefarious activities in a culture that respects strength above all is lunacy. If the Arab droks really think what the Bush admin has done in Iraq is 'war' they're terribly mistaken. Besides, the elections ought to proceed peacefully in those 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces that've seen minimal violence. The schmucks who fight the coalition troops, who behead blindfolded, bound people with merry cries of Allahu akbar, who claim 2 love death more than we love life etc etc don't quite get my sympathy any.

Posted by: voletti | Oct 15, 2004 2:09:38 PM

There's a dude who lives a couple doors down from me whom I strongly suspect of being a drug dealer of some sort. Say the government were to fly a helicopter over to the corner of 10th and U and launch a cruise missile into his abode.

MattY, that's a completely ridiculous scenario that the United States would never, EVER resort to.

Not to mention the problem that MattY (or an iraqi informant) might not necessarily think the guy next to him is dealing drugs (or engaging in terrorism), merely have a problem with the loud parties he throws (or his political leanings), but knows that telling the authorities that his neighbor is using drugs (or engaging in terrorism) is a better and faster way to get the problem taken care of.

Posted by: Constantine | Oct 15, 2004 2:24:50 PM

I think it's pretty impressive work on the part of our intelligence services that we've managed to go from a state three weeks ago when we didn't know how many *legs* the guy had, to having full knowledge of the location of his safehouses and ammo dumps.

Posted by: dsquared | Oct 15, 2004 3:00:41 PM

I've read from a few sources that Zarqawi is probably in Mosul. Saddam's 2 sons were killed in this area and there is a great deal of sympathy for the insurgent cause.

Posted by: conrad | Oct 15, 2004 3:07:42 PM

I agree with Dan; these bombing campaigns, which kill large numbers of civilians are a form of collective punishment. Not only that, they are an ineffective way to fight an insurgancy, since they create more hatred and resentment toward the US presence.

Posted by: sofia | Oct 15, 2004 3:16:42 PM

If you believe this: "The one thing I have never seen go into a decision matrix while conducting a mission analysis is which political party this course of action will favor."

Then you have not seen this:

"[Colonel Sam] Gardner worries that the White House is micromanaging military decisions in Fallujah and other Iraqi cities.

http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/chairman/040928interview_NPR.html

"More telling is the fact that senior commanders universally said in interviews -- all of them on condition of anonymity -- if they were making the decision, they would not have gone into Fallujah at that time under those conditions."

"A senior Marine official told Marines just rotating into Iraq in July that U.S. forces were ordered into and out of Fallujah for political reasons, but it was "nothing to gnash your teeth about." Marines are there to follow the orders of civilian authorities."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_choice_091404,00.html

There are enough similar comments out there from MILITARY commanders alone that I could probably crash the comment system posting them all.

Please read a paper. From Gen. Abizaid and Paul Bremer to various commanders on the ground in Iraq, this administration's own appointees and the military have complained of the White House seeking political gain by manipulating strategy in Iraq, regardless of the consequences. Then read former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's book, which is basically a confessional that virtually all the White House did in Vietnam was tailor military tactics to keep up support for the presidency.

Posted by: Windhorse | Oct 15, 2004 3:41:33 PM

This post represents exactly why folks ought to vote to re-elect. Democrats will not wage war.

Posted by: j.scott barnard | Oct 15, 2004 3:53:33 PM

J. Scott Barnard:

WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam.

I think that what you mean, with the exception of Vietnam, is that the Democrats won't wage wars based on bogus intelligence.

Posted by: Randy Paul | Oct 15, 2004 4:18:15 PM

There have been a number of comments about military strategy, how targeting is done, and the distinction between "terrorist" and civilian and collateral damage.

Perhaps a deep breath and a bit of reflection on how silly wars of agression are would be in order...

Can anyone explain what the people of Fallujah (including insurgents/"terrorists"/etc.) have done to deserve bombing by the US military? At what point did they people of Fallujah (again, I include the insurgents/"terrorists") attack the people of the United States?

International law has long recognized the right of an occupied people to resist with arms. We are on the wrong side of this battle, and the wrong side of history.

In your heart, you know that if the roles were reversed, and a foreign army was occupying the United States, you would be fighting back as well.

Posted by: netwerk01 | Oct 15, 2004 4:34:26 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.