Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

US Troop Deaths up over 2006
Air Strikes Rise Four Times
Iraqi Cities under Curfew



At Salon.com, my column on the collapse of Bush's Middle East police, with the troubles on the Turkish/Iraq border and the huge bomb that greeted Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan.

Edward Luce of FT argues that Iraq has faded as a campaign issue in the 08 presidential election. He attributes this lower profile for the issue to a drop in US military deaths in Iraq and to the rise of Iran as an issue instead.

I may have been the first to point to the new salience of Iran to the race, in my Salon column last week, so I do not disagree with that assertion.

But I think it is way too early to write Iraq off as an issue. In fact, given the current crisis at the northern border with Turkey, it is a little bit bizarre to suggest that things have all calmed down, either over there or domestically.

First of all, the assertion that US troop deaths have fallen is extremely misleading. In fact, It is only late October and already more US troops were killed in Iraq in 2007 than in all of 2006. Indeed, 2007 will almost certainly hold the record for the year of the most US military deaths since the war began.

According to the Iraq Casualties Site, these are the yearly numbers of death of US military personnel in Iraq:

Year       US Deaths
2003       486
2004       849
2005       846
2006       822
2007       832

It is true that October is on track to be the least deadly for US troops since March of 2006.

It is, however, not clear why exactly US troop deaths have fallen so much in October. It is possible that they are being given few military missions and spending more time on base.

Indeed, the sort of ground missions that might involve hand to hand fighting and high US casualties may have been replaced by air strikes against suspected insurgent targets. US air strikes on Iraq are up by a factor of four in 2007 over 2006, according to Newsay. The US launched 1,140 bombing missions in 2007 through the end of September, as opposed to 229 in all of 2006. The US has flown as many as 70 such air missions a day this October, more than at any time since the November, 2004, assault on the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah.

Obviously, for an Occupation military to bomb a densely-populated city that it already largely controls is a violation of human rights law. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq has just condemned the US for using this tactic, which inevitably kills children, women and other non-combatants. You can't drop a bomb on an urban apartment building without killing lots of people, not only inside the building but also all around it. The bomb turns bits of the building into deadly projectiles. I am told that the US Air Force takes no responsibility for these aerial strikes when they are called in by army troops on the ground, and makes no assessment as to whether proportional force was deployed or excessive civilian casualties were incurred. So you have a convoy of soldiers in humvees driving through deeply hostile Sadr City, and someone starts sniping at them from a building. Obviously, running into the building is dangerous; it could be booby-trapped, or snipers could have set up there. I wouldn't want to do it. So the tendency would obviously be to take out the snipers by taking out the building they are using. That makes military sense. It doesn't make sense in the international law of occupations.

The US military spokesmen are always going on about precision strikes and reducing civilian casualties. I know they are sincere in thinking they can do that, but they just aren't dealing with a simple reality. They are bombing apartment buildings in densely populated cities!

The US military, then, may be artificially keeping US military deaths down this fall by resorting to many more aerial bombings. These bombings have repeatedly drawn forth powerful condemnations from the elected Iraqi political authorities and are unlikely to be viable much longer.

Evidence that US troops are being extremely careful also comes from the new policy on checkpoints. All vehicles are going to be stopped from now on except those of a high-ranking Iraqi politician such as the prime minister. One reader observed to me in an email of this story, that apparently the US in Iraq has fallen on such hard times that it can't trust anyone below the rank of prime minister.

The use of curfews and bans on vehicle traffic also seems to have expanded. The large northern city of Mosul (pop. 1.5 million) was put under curfew after bombings in late September. Several neighborhoods of Diwaniya are under curfew after clashes between the Mahdi Army and local police.

The entire city of Falluja appears to continue to labor under a ban on the operation of private vehicles (i.e. you cannot drive your car there). This policy has produced 80% unemployment. Basically keeping an entire city under lockdown has allowed the drawdown of US Marines from the city, with only 250 left. But it is crazy to think that this policy can be kept in place forever, and when the cars start circulating again, won't there be trouble?

That US reporters put such a positive spin on stories like the vast increase in aerial bombardment or the lockdown in Falluja just boggles my mind. Have they all drunk the Kool-Aid?

Reuters reports civil war violence for Tuesday. Major incidents:


' SAMARRA - The U.S. military said six Iraqi civilians were among 11 people killed in an air strike by an attack helicopter near Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, after five men were seen planting a roadside bomb. Iraqi police said 16 civilians, including women and children, were killed and 14 wounded.

NEAR BAQUBA - A roadside bomb exploded near a minibus, killing three people, including one woman, and wounding 10, including five women, on the main road near the city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

NEAR FALLUJA - Police found 15 men shot, bound and blindfolded, in a deserted building on Monday in a town near Falluja, 50 km (35 miles) west of Baghdad, police Lieutenant Colonel Jubair al-Dulaimi said.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb wounded two people in the eastern Zayouna district of Baghdad, police said. .

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces killed one insurgent and detained 10 suspected insurgents during military operations on Oct. 20-22 in the areas of Baghdad, Mosul, Thar Thar and Rabiae, the U.S. military said. . .

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces killed one insurgent and wounded five in an air strike on Monday in northern Baghdad on men planting a roadside bomb, the U.S. military said.'

Labels:

11 Comments:

At 5:59 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Thanks for denouncing the airstrikes in urban areas.
One has to wonder why there are not more such denounciations of that kind of bombings in the US press and among the US citizen.
May be it's due to the embeded journalist policy of the US army and to the ban of such images from the US press and media.
Also the fact that the US has replaced the drafted troops by a professional army of voluntaries resulted in less critical troops.
The longer this war lasts, the more cruel it will get for civilians. It's time for the US to withdraw its troops.

 
At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In your great Salon article, you mentioned that the USA imagined Turkey and Pakistan as anchors to US conquered Iraq and Afghanistan (with a whole string of others to follow as I suspect.)

In 1955, the US and UK engineered the Baghdad Pact between Turkey; Iraq; Pakistan; Iran; and Britain to block Soviet ambitions. In 1958 Iraq left and became allied to the very same Soviet Union. Others in the region joined in later, and Iran's Shah was overthrown by the Islamic revolution.

History never repeats itself, in an exact way, but often comes close. One wonders, with Russia back in the area ....

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger Jeff Crook said...

I know a man who flew B-52 missions over Vietnam. Although he never set foot in country, he come home deeply scarred by his experience, because he knew that the bombs he was dropping were falling on innocent people.

The Air Force can stand there and wash their hands of this, but it isn't going to make any difference to the people in the plane pushing the button. They know as well as anyone that when they drop a bomb on an apartment building, especially one in a slum, lots of innocent people are going to die.

When you fight an insurgency that can take refuge among the general population, you have already lost the war. The only way to win is to commit genocide, and even then you lose. You would think smarter people than me would realize this. I think they do. I also think that a broken Iraq is exactly what they want.

 
At 9:37 AM, Blogger Samson said...

Well, it was 'US reporters' that repeated all the lies that got us into this war in the first place. My opinion would be that they aren't 'drinking the KoolAid'. They been involved in mixing up the KoolAid and serving it from the beginning.

 
At 11:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"unlikely to be viable much longer"

bet you a donut they keep it up for the next four years at least - Susan

 
At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The entire Bush "policy," such as it is, appears to be that absolutely everyone just natcherly wants to be like "us," ( just who Bush means by "us" is an interesting question ) and would do so if only certain obstacles - taxes, regulations, Islamofascism, etc., were scraped away.

If only these problems could be gotten rid of, then life would be like a Sunday brunch at the country club.

And it is extremely gratifying for one to think that everyone, just everyone, longs to be just like oneself.

Therefore, it followed that just to go into the Middle East and blast away the Muslim dictatorships would give rise to this happy vista.

Unfortunately, events have demonstrated that this gratifying belief is false. That Middle Easterners are not itching to be pleasant fellows at the country club. That they have different ideas.

And, obstructions cleared away, they are now manifesting some quite unclublike manners.

Very bad show.

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

ref : “That US reporters put such a positive spin on stories like the vast increase in aerial bombardment or the lockdown in Falluja just boggles my mind. Have they all drunk the Kool-Aid?

Justin Raimondo, How Did We Get Here? : “We keep hearing about the "liberal," "antiwar" media, which is supposedly spinning the "success" of the administration's "surge" in Iraq into a defeat. The stab-in-the-back thesis is being run up the flagpole by the neocons, in the hopes that at least some of their base – the most deluded of the Kool-Aid drinkers – will swallow it. Yet it was this supposedly liberal media that led us down the primrose path to war and occupation and immersed us in what Gen. William E. Odom calls the biggest strategic disaster in American military history – and they did it by instilling fear.

=> "Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for ‘Antiwar Remarks’"

 
At 1:52 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

>That US reporters put such a positive spin on stories like the vast increase in aerial bombardment or the lockdown in Falluja just boggles my mind. Have they all drunk the Kool-Aid?

They ARE the Kool-Aid.

 
At 4:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: "It is true that October is on track to be the least deadly for US troops since March of 2005".

Actually March 06 is the recent low month for KIA's (31), going back to 3/04 (21)

The reason that our minimal 3/06 casualties are worth noting is that was the period after the 2/22/06 Samara/Golden Dome bombing that unleashed an already growing Shiite militia murder campaign in Baghdad.

If you had not figured out that the US was 'throttling' our casualty rate, limiting operations to keep below 3/day on average, the March 06 decision to stay on the FOBS demonstrated how our casualties are controlled, according to command orders. It seems likely that our contingency plan, if the lid came off, was to stand back and let the Shiites clear Sunni fighters from Baghdad, possibly ending the civil war in the capitol in one swell foop.

When Spring 06 rapidly devolved to steady ethnic cleansing and Sadrist victories, fear of Iran and pressure from our Sunni allies forced us to try and put a lid on civil war 2.0. It took 18 months and a 30,000 troop surge to accomplish that, if it has.

Now we are back to tuning our Iraq ops, to make better KIA numbers for the US voters. Not surprisingly, the domestic news is less tuned to Iraqi deaths.

To US military logic, some collateral killing from our bombs, aimed at militia combatants, may seem preferable to hundreds of enemy car bombs that actually aim for crowds and destabilization. It's like an amputation to stop the gangrene and blood poisoning; good tissue gets cut away, and even then you may have to cut higher. Surgeons and military commanders have large egos.

It really sucks when families are 'amputated' by US bombs, to get at fighters in their homes and apartments. It happened that way in WW2 France, and in Manila. We're fighting a war in Iraq, and both sides kill civilians. Our fighting men know this, and I have to believe they hate it.

Whether we get out now, or however long we stay, Iraqi people will die in significant numbers, from violence and disease. Under the law of war, the occupying force has to stay and re-establish security. That is what Hillary will have to face.

Petraeus says he knows how to fix it, but it ill take years. Everyone running for President or congress claims to be competent to make judgements on waging limited war under our flag.

God help us, and them, because we are not in control over there. Not in 2003, not in 2008.

 
At 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107

 
At 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of interest concerning the drop in U.S. casualties is this Asia Times article, where soldiers state that they are faking their patrols. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak07.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home