Death From Above

Use of airstrikes way up in Iraq. Colin Kahl forecasts even more in the future:

"Part of this is announcing our presence to the adversary," said Kahl, who recently returned from a trip to the air operations center. "Across this calendar year you will see a reduction in U.S. forces, so there will be fewer troops to support Iraqi forces. One would expect a continued level of airstrikes because of offensive operations, and as U.S. forces begin to draw down you may see even more airstrikes."

Increased reliance on firepower as a substitute for adequate manpower strikes me as a classic COIN no-no, but Kahl seems to approve and even told USA Today last week that due to increased carefulness, the civil toll is being reduced: "You saw a lot more damage to the civilian population in 2004 than you're seeing now. Even though you have a huge uptick in offensive operations, it looks like the military is taking greater care not to harm civilians." Obviously, I hope that's right. It's my understanding, however, that the Defense Department still doesn't count civilian casualties so I don't really understand how they would know whether or not you're seeing a reduction in damage to the civilian population. In my book, the first step in "taking greater care" to avoid something is to measure what's happening.

Comments

IOW, the Admin has abandoned counter-insurgency.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 17, 2008 2:36 PM

The military said in 2004 they were taking great care to avoid civilian casualties. So, like, was that a lie? Or does the "greater" mean they are trying twice as hard now? If so, why weren't they trying that hard in 2004? Why should we, or the Iraqis who will live in and around the areas of bombing, believe them?

Posted by Joshua | January 17, 2008 2:44 PM

Still wondering who the hell our adversary is....

Posted by john o. | January 17, 2008 2:48 PM

Sounds like Nixon's way of getting US troops out of Vietnam: the locals supply the ground forces, we supply the air-support.

Hopefully this time the Democrats won't pull the plug on the continuing air support part and guarantee our allies' defeat. Which I think is the point of Bush's trying to get a permanent agreement with the Iraqu government in place before he leaves office.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Kind of makes you wonder if the surge is working out and peace is breaking out all over, why are dropping more ordnance?

Posted by Helter | January 17, 2008 2:54 PM

From my understanding the intel and manpower are coming from the Iraqis: the sorties are a supplement, not a substitute. The raw number of boots on the ground should stay relatively level, even as we draw down.

I don't know about the civilian casualties, though taking greater care accords with the COIN strategy of Petraeus (which is distinct from the search and destroy attrition strategy of 2004).

Posted by JA | January 17, 2008 2:56 PM

Ralph beat me to it.

Posted by JA | January 17, 2008 2:57 PM

How do you go about defining civilian deaths when there is no uniformed opposition?

Posted by jayackroyd | January 17, 2008 3:06 PM

When bombs go boom, even if they go where we want them to, the people around them get hurt, including those whom we wouldn't want to hurt. Including someone's son, daughter, husband, wife, etc., inducing the someone to get mad and do something about it. Which is why it makes little sense in COIN terms. Goddamn "precision air power" mystics are killing us.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 3:14 PM

"You saw a lot more damage to the civilian population in 2004 than you're seeing now."

We should probably just take him at his word. They would never ever ever mislead the American public about Iraq policy, right?

Posted by ed | January 17, 2008 3:20 PM

"Part of this is announcing our presence to the adversary,"

If we just keep reminding Iraqis that there are Americans in their country doing whatever the hell we want to do, enventually they will get used to us.

Posted by Njorl | January 17, 2008 3:28 PM

this point will fall on deaf ears to this crowd, but there are technological differences between now and 2004.

1. the small diameter bomb reached IOC (i.e. they started using it) in October 2006. basically, due to more precise targeting, you can drop ordnance with much less explosive power...thus drastically lowering collateral damage (to both structures and personnel).

2. vastly more targeting pods etc. in theater. in other words, our targeting capability is much more precise than it was in 2004.

it's not that they weren't taking measures in 2004...it's that (literally) technology has advanced since then significantly, combined with an influx of existing technology (lantirn pods and the like) in much greater numbers.

so, yeah, an increase in ordnance combined with a reduction in civilian casualties is both possible and even probable.

(it would really help if people commenting on military matters kept up with the simple basics)

Posted by Nathan | January 17, 2008 3:44 PM

"Announcing our presence," huh? Reminds me of Bull Durham. Wasn't that what Nuke LaLouche said to Crash Davis he wanted to do by throwing a first-pitch fastball to a fastball hitter (which then got crushed)? Jesus, these he-man militarist types parody themselves.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 3:44 PM

Kind of makes you wonder if the surge is working out and peace is breaking out all over, why are dropping more ordnance?

Actually, it kind of makes you wonder, if we are dropping more ordinance, why is the surge working and peace breaking out all over? Maybe airstrikes aren't such the "COIN no-no" Matthew makes them out to be.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 3:45 PM

Why is the title not "Death From Above 2008?" Is it because this is a "serious" post?

Posted by James Gary | January 17, 2008 3:47 PM

Nathan: Thanks for the info. It is somewhat reassuring to hear from some guy in blog comments that the Iraq War may not actually be quite as horrific a disaster as we may have thought.

But Matt's essential point still holds: you gots to measure. And the official policy is not to measure. Ergo...well, kind of obvious isn't it?

Posted by ed | January 17, 2008 4:01 PM

With new and better bombs, if those perfidious Democrats don't interfere, we'll get Vietnam right this time, dammit! Funny how it's all about us and not about whether the Iraqis or the Vietnamese before them actually wanted us running their countries. But it never is. I guess our political message for the year to Iraqis is: We're still occupying your country for the foreseeable future, but we'll be killing fewer of you with our many airstrikes. Sounds like a winner.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 4:03 PM

Ralph Phelan - Excellent post. It is a return to Nixon-Abrams COIN. Except now we can drop a bomb on a safehouse and kill all the Al Qaeda Islamoid operatives inside it rather than spackle a NVA-occupied village with cluster bombs. Far nicer for the civilians.
And it does set up a situation where a Dem pulls the plug on our allies, it will look remarkably similar to how they lost S Vietnam.

**************
Kind of makes you wonder if the surge is working out and peace is breaking out all over, why are dropping more ordnance?
Posted by Helter

It's called finishing Al Qaeda off. Locals point them out, work with US ground troops to force them from cover, they run to a house or into the desert. Where US Air power whacks them while ground troops and Iraqis look on by safely..

Far safer for us, in particular, than trying to capture them or offering an opportunity to surrender - given the risk of AQ faking surrender to get close with bombs, RPGs as they have in aother engagements. Or the risk of terrorist rights lovers in the US, trying to keep violent fanatics as prisoners, risk the Democrats will pull the funding with 2,000 AQ fighters and leaders already in jail.

*******************
Scott - When bombs go boom...people around them get hurt.... Including someone's son, daughter, husband, wife, etc., inducing the someone to get mad and do something about it. Which is why it makes little sense in COIN terms.

Not really a problem if the locals are doing what the tribal leaders wish and pointing targets out to us. As long as they have control who gets whacked, they are happy. Milblogs say the Iraqi tribes try to get any kids of AQ, AQ collaborators out of a house before they have us zero the target - but don't care if teenaged males or wives of terrorists get made into hamburger. They are with the local's enemy, aiding him. And if the kids stay in, well, In'sha'allah! They say they tried, then they are square with the Koran and we are square with Geneva, we laze the house and a bomb falls..

And the locals don't get mad at us because we are working with them about any stray non-terorists caught up with the terrorists because, that is Allah's will!

Posted by chris ford | January 17, 2008 4:06 PM

OT:

Hmm, scott is reminded of Bull Durham by the actual post ("... a live rooster to take the hex off his glove... We're dealing with a lot of [stuff] here!")

Whereas I am reminded of Top Gun by the photo.
"I feel the need....the need for speed!"

Posted by ajw_93 | January 17, 2008 4:08 PM

njorl said:

"If we just keep reminding Iraqis that there are Americans in their country doing whatever the hell we want to do, enventually they will get used to us."

Americans performing airstrikes called in by Iraqi soldiers is not exactly them "doing whatever the hell they want to."

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 17, 2008 4:11 PM

Re Chris Ford's post, I guess we should feel good that we're turning people into hamburger as long as our new-found allies are OK with it, even if they are wives or teenaged kids. Interesting moral point of view.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 4:12 PM

There won't be any serious concern for these bombings because Americans aren't at all concerned about the killings of innocent Iraqis.

I'll accept Nathan's premise, but it leaves me wondering exactly who they'll target. Can anyone argue that intelligence is working as it would need to?

Now, there is no ally. Just an American occupation desperately trying to create one.

Posted by asl | January 17, 2008 4:15 PM

This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle -- you know who you're killing.

-- John Paul Vann

Posted by croatoan | January 17, 2008 4:22 PM

I'll note that I was making no statement regarding the success or lack of success of our counter-insurgency strategy, etc.

my point is limited to an explanation of why air operations could be increasing while simultaneously decreasing collateral damage.

Posted by Nathan | January 17, 2008 4:24 PM

"It's called finishing Al Qaeda off. Locals point them out, work with US ground troops to force them from cover, they run to a house or into the desert. Where US Air power whacks them while ground troops and Iraqis look on by safely.."

Could be, but after four years of reading the same kind of copy from the military leadership in Iraq I'm going to keep betting the under.

Posted by Helter | January 17, 2008 4:24 PM

Hopefully this time the Democrats won't pull the plug on the continuing air support part and guarantee our allies' defeat.

"Our allies" being a sectarian regime which does not enjoy legitimacy across the country's major factions and which would not exist without US troops, bombs and economic support.

Give me an Iraqi government which does enjoy broad legitimacy, and let it freely request that we bomb its territory or send troops or whatever, and I'll consider supporting it. Until then, we're just helping one sect bomb another sect.

If the bombing is killing fewer civilians (and we've been given no credible evidence of this), great. We still shouldn't be doing it.

'Keeping faith with allies' is not a national interest in and of itself. They have to be worth keeping faith with, or at least there has to be something in it for us that's not outweighed by the moral and material costs to us. I don't see that here.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 4:29 PM

The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle -- you know who you're killing.

Due to changes in technology the process of killing people with airplanes has changed quite a bit since then:

"See that guy crouching just to the left of the window? ... Yeah, that's right, the one with the green sweater ... [Boom] ... Thanks a bunch!"

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 17, 2008 4:32 PM

Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't be an issue if we'd never invaded Iraq in the first place. Ounce of prevention and all that...

...Btw, where are Iraq's WMDs? And where's Osama bin Laden? Any progress in finding him yet?

Bueler?

Bueler???

Posted by Joe | January 17, 2008 4:37 PM

"'Keeping faith with allies' is not a national interest in and of itself."

'Breaking faith with allies' directly harms the national interest, as it makes all the other allies nervous and they start demanding more "quid pro" from us per unit of "quo" from them.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 17, 2008 4:38 PM

Due to changes in technology the process of killing people with airplanes has changed quite a bit since then

Accidents will happen, like bombing wedding parties.

Posted by croatoan | January 17, 2008 4:40 PM

Croaton zeroes in on the essential point, which is that airpower (even if it is more precise than it used to be) is still quite deadly to large numbers of innocent civilians. And when we do that in the service of first one side, then another, then another in a many-sided sectarian civil war, the moral costs of our actions are high. Glorying in our amazing technology is just an excuse for looking the other way when confronted by dead, dying, and maimed people who are that way because of what we did.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 5:03 PM

"See that wedding party with all the musicians and food and people dancing around . . . yeah, that one . . . Man, that was so cool!"

Posted by SqueakyRat | January 17, 2008 5:12 PM

'Breaking faith with allies' directly harms the national interest, as it makes all the other allies nervous and they start demanding more "quid pro" from us per unit of "quo" from them.

... and so we're back to waging wars for the sake of credibility, rather than for the intrinsic interests at stake. Waging war to show our friends that we're willing to wage war.

It's a neat trick, really. Invade a country, depose its government, pick some dude out of the rubble and call him your 'ally', and then insist that you can never withdraw your forces because your 'ally' is too weak to survive on his own, and what would the other allies think if you abandoned him? And just by happenstance -- a by-product, you understand, this was never the objective -- while you stick around protecting your ally, you've got a new place to plant military bases.

War becomes its own justification -- once you start you mustn't stop, because to stop (you claim) would look weak to our allies. Although in a real pinch, it's OK to stop so long as you can pin the weakness on Democrats.

Seems to me we've been down this road before.

Maybe our allies don't want endless, pointless killing from us. Maybe *that* makes them nervous. Maybe they want us to show sober judgment, a capacity to weigh the costs and benefits of our policies, and likelihoods of success. Maybe they won't be upset if we show ourselves to be less than omnipotent because they never wanted us to *be* omnipotent. Don't forget, most of our allies opposed this war in the first place -- so you can hardly claim that leaving would make them "nervous".

Meanwhile, if allies like Egypt or Israel or Saudi Arabia were a little more nervous about the openendedness of our commitments, that might be a good thing. It would give us leverage.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 5:31 PM

Even if we were to miraculously defeat all the bad guys and usher in an eternal age of peace in the Middle East, that wouldn't go to show that Vietnam was anything other than a cluster fuck that chewed up American GI's and spit out commies.

Posted by gerontion | January 17, 2008 7:39 PM

There is really no substance to the Yglesias critique. Airstrikes are up because offensive operations are up. The number of civilian deaths caused by U.S. forces is up from 2006, including those from airstrikes, but they have not increased at the same proportion that the offensive operations have. Moreover, they are much lower than the were in 2004, the last time the tempo of operations neared the current level. Yglesias is correct the military does not release figures on civilians killed by coalition forces, but others do. For 2007 as a whole, Iraq Body Count calculates as many as 756 deaths directly attributable to U.S. forces compared to 2,029 for all of 2004-- an average of 63 per month in 2007, compared to an average for 169 per month during 2004 as a whole. That is a big difference. This comparison is not intended to "excuse" these deaths, but the comparison is meaningful and suggests that, on net, the U.S. military has gotten better at conducting large-scale operations while reducing risks to the civilian population.

The number of airstrikes in 2007 was five times the number in 2006, but even these numbers need to be kept in perspective. The number of airstrikes in all of 2007 was about the number of two days worth of strikes during the invasion. Furthermore, the total number of airstrikes is ameaningless. The key metrics are: what types of weapons are being and where were they dropped. The "massive" airstrikes launched last week provides a perfect example. On January 10, the U.S. military launched a wave of airstrikes south of Baghdad. Within a 10-minute span, there were 38 airstrikes totaling 40,000 tons of munitions in three main areas near Arab Jabour (a rural area along the Tigris river on the southern outskirts of Baghdad that has been a major focus during the surge). All told, over a half-hour period, around four dozen munitions were dropped totaling 45,000 pounds by two B-1 bombers and four F-16s. The targets were not homes -- they were deeply buried IED emplacements and weapons caches, with the goal of clearing roads for U.S. and Iraqi ground forces moving into the area. All 42 strikes were what the military calls "deliberate" (or pre-planned) targets. This means each was vetted for days or weeks, and each had a formal "collateral damage estimate" done. It involves integrating intelligence/imagery with inputs from weapons specialists and judge advocates to minimize risks to civilians. Even with the extensive preplanning, there was constant UAV surveillance of the target areas and final authorization for the strikes rested with the ground commander. A number of strikes were delayed or called off after UAV feeds showed some civilians in the area. The military reported no civilian fatalities as a result of the strikes. Iraq Body Count, which surveys media accounts (including Arab media in translation), thus far has not reported any civilian deaths either.

Overall, based on Iraq Body Count data, the average airstrike in 2007 produced about 0.5 deaths. Every death is terrible and, again, I'm not excusing the behavior. But the numbers do not suggest Dresden-style assaults on the civilian population.

Also, the notion that airstrikes are not consistent with counterinsurgency is more complicated than Yglesias suggests. The new counterinsurgency manual put forward a clear-hold-build model. The "clear" portion includes offensive operations, and airstrikes may play a role here. During these operations, determining the counterinsurgency implications of airstrikes requires an assessment of whether the military advantages from the strikes are, or are not, outweighed by the alienation it may produce among civilians. The counterinsurgency manual encourages just such calculations. As the phase of an operations shifts to "hold" (law enforcement) and "build" (reconstruction), the role of combat air power goes down dramatically.

Lastly, we should not draw the conclusion from the 1,400 airstrikes in 2007 that the majority of combat or counterinsurgency operations in Iraq involve air power. They do not. Most involve ground forces. Air power provides support for these operations, but of the 19,500 close air support missions in support of ground movements (e.g., providing route surveillance), only about 7 percent of these involved strikes.

Posted by Colin Kahl | January 17, 2008 7:51 PM

Just getting in some practice for the coming bombing campaign against Iran.

Posted by SLC | January 17, 2008 7:54 PM

Managed to locate one of the missing front page news headlines that have been deliberately blacked out by corporate media executives, over at The Nation, courtesy of Robert Dreyfuss:

On January 13 an emerging Sunni-Shiite nationalist bloc in Iraq signed a groundbreaking agreement aimed at ending Iraq's civil war, blocking the privatization of Iraq's oil industry and checkmating the breakaway Kurdish state. It's a big step forward, and it could change the face of Iraqi politics in 2008.

For the past two years, Iraqi nationalists--opposed to the US occupation, opposed to Al Qaeda and opposed to Iran's heavyhanded influence in Iraqi affairs--have struggled to assert themselves. The nascent coalition contains the seeds of true national reconciliation in Iraq, but it has emerged independently of the United States. Unrelated to the constant American pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to meet various reconciliation "benchmarks," the new coalition is designed either to sweep Maliki out of office or force him to join it.

Enormous obstacles stand in the way of the Sunni-Shiite coalition, and Iraq is just as likely to descend into a new round of intense civil war as it is to stabilize under a new ruling bloc. Still, it could work, but there's a big if--if the United States steps back and gets out of the way.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/dreyfuss

I highly recommend reading Dreyfuss's whole, hopeful, and enlightening article.

The Iraqi people are mostly nationalists. The American occupying powers representing our government (which has been effectively reduced to the leadership of a single branch, the Executive) are corporate raiders hunting oil, using our Armed Forces as enforcers and our national credit card to cover the costs and privatize the profits.

Score one for the Iraqi Nationalists in this David vs. Goliath fight. They're calling our bluff.

Posted by pow wow | January 17, 2008 8:42 PM

I'm curious how Colin Kahl knows civilian casualties from airstrikes are down, since the US military doesn't even bother to measure them.

Wait, don't tell me - IBC? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Using IBC logic, it didn't fall at all...

Or, to put it another way: how many burglaries were there in the US last year? Except that only those reported in two or more newspapers count. Now, do you think you'll get an accurate count?

I didn't think so either...

Posted by McKingford | January 17, 2008 8:48 PM

"(it would really help if people commenting on military matters kept up with the simple basics)"

It would really help if the military - and their shills like Kahl - wasn't such consistent liars in these matters.

Fine - your bombs are smaller, your targeting is more precise, and your targets are selected so they don't involve civilians.

First of all, you're still going to fuck up frequently - as Kahl admits. That's bad enough.

More importantly, this doesn't change a goddamn thing about WHY THE INSURGENT IS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU MORONS.

An "insurgent" today in Iraq is not some Al Qaeda clown from Pakistan - he's an Iraqi with relatives and tribal affiliations. By definition, he is an Iraqi CIVILIAN who is also an INSURGENT.

If you kill him, you enrage his relatives who are that part of the EIGHTY FUCKING PERCENT of the Iraqi population WHO DO NOT WANT YOU IN-COUNTRY.

Get a fucking clue, morons.

You've lost the war. Killing ANYBODY in Iraq now just means you've lost it MORE.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 17, 2008 10:40 PM

Pow wow has it correct.

The only part of Dreyfuss' article that might be wrong is whether Iran is part of this. I believe it was Iran who influenced Hakim of SIIC to engage al-Sadr who in turn wishes to engage the Sunni block.

This coalition of nationalists, as I've been saying for the last week or so, is going to dump Maliki, form a coalition government, then order the US out.

And when the US doesn't leave, the Sunni and Shia factions - with the help of Iran - will unite in driving the US out.

Iran will benefit from this as will the Iraqi nationalists, because it is in all their interests (except possibly the Kurds) to drive the US out. And even the Kurds dislike Maliki now, because he is holding up their drive for becoming independent and also he is cooperating with the US and Turkey in targeting the PKK.

So, the right wing nuts are correct - "reconciliation" may be happening - long enough to drive the US out. Then they can resolve the issues between themselves. Iran will be the winner.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 17, 2008 10:46 PM

Colin Kahl:

re Abu Jabour, you wrote: "The military reported no civilian fatalities as a result of the strikes. Iraq Body Count, which surveys media accounts (including Arab media in translation), thus far has not reported any civilian deaths either".

As it happens A reporter for the mass-circulation newspaper Al-Hayat talked to residents who said many were killed who didn't leave the area in time. I guess judging from what you say, Iraq Body Count didn't look into this because there wasn't a translation into English, and consequently you don't know anything about it either. Is that the way your "expertise" works?

Also, contrary to your assertion that "The targets were not homes -- they were deeply buried IED emplacements and weapons caches, with the goal of clearing roads for U.S. and Iraqi ground forces moving into the area": Al-Hayat quotes a local Awakening official who said the targets were "nests of terrorists and AlQaeda groups only." Not the same thing at all.

Local people say many residents were killed and this is in a mass-circulation paper, but you you don't know anything about that. And your excuse is that the report was in Arabic?

Posted by Badger | January 17, 2008 11:07 PM

Badger: I think you're probably right on a macro level, but no one is going to accept your uncredentialed translation on an unknown blog of an Arabic newspaper that we don't know anything about. Even "reputable" Arab news sources are pretty unreliable - heck, even the NYT is wrong about stuff all the time (WMDs, everything by Maureen Dowd, etc). I could put up a website that says no one was killed by the bombs in 5 minutes.

As mentioned above, IBC is crap too. There's no way anyone has remotely accurate data about how many Iraqis are dying - the Iraqis have various motives to distort, the USM has a clear motive to distort and an expressed plan to ignore, and no civilians can travel around the entire country and accurately track this sort of data in such an unsafe and propaganda-ridden environment.

Here's all you need to know: as long as we have 100,000+ heavily armed troops and a lot of active air power in Iraq, we're going to be killing lots of Iraqis of all descriptions. Don't expect much to change until we leave. Then things will still be bad, but it will be easier for us to ignore them.

Posted by cgaros | January 18, 2008 12:25 AM

Americans performing airstrikes called in by Iraqi soldiers is not exactly them "doing whatever the hell they want to." Posted by Ralph Phelan

Your contending these airstrikes were called in by Iraqis?

Posted by Njorl | January 18, 2008 12:41 AM

this point will fall on deaf ears to this crowd, but there are technological differences between now and 2004.

1. the small diameter bomb reached IOC (i.e. they started using it) in October 2006. basically, due to more precise targeting, you can drop ordnance with much less explosive power...thus drastically lowering collateral damage (to both structures and personnel).

Even the heralded small diameter bomb is 50 pounds of high explosive. We're talking about dense urban areas here. Try going into any downtown area and setting off 50 pounds of TNT in a building without incurring significant collateral damage. Sure it's "better" than the old 2000 pounders, but jesus.

Posted by gswift | January 18, 2008 12:55 AM

Les Roberts find several reasons to think the WHO study - which is really an Iraqi government study which was organized by WHO - is likely under counting.

Charles Goyette Interviews Les Roberts
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/01/17/les-roberts/

MP3 download link:
http://dissentradio.com/charles/awlesroberts011508.mp3

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 18, 2008 12:57 AM

Badger,

Thanks for the link to your commentary on the Al-Hayat story. I had not seen that before. The story suggests that the outcome of the strikes is "murky." Since the story is from Jan 12th, I was curious whether, in your reading of the Arab press, there has been an update in the last 5 days as to the number of Arab Jabour residents caught up in the attacks? I ask not because I reject the accounts--they may be right. But, as you well know, in this war intitial accounts by both sides often turn out to be wrong.

There are a few other things to note from your story. First, the Al Qaeda "nests" do not imply homes. The bombing concentrated on roads and palm groves (where weapons caches were located). The purpose was to open the way for ground forces to move in to confront insurgents directly and secure the area. Second, it is interesting that the U.S. military provided 10 days of warning to local residents, and kept UAVs overhead to provide real-time surveillance as the strikes emerged (which, I noted, resulted in some of the strikes beign cancelled and others delayed because civilians were spotted in the area). These steps are important under international law to comply with obligations for military strikes to be "discriminate."

This is war and all wars are terrible. Counterinsurgencies, historically, are particularly terrible because the "fog of war" is thick and it is impossible to prevent large numbers of civilians from being caught up in the violence even when steps are taken to minimize risks. My comments should not be interpreted as endorsing the war. But it is important to look closely at how the war is fought even if one is a strong opponent of the war.

Posted by Colin Kahl | January 18, 2008 8:22 AM

Mr. Kahl, let's look closely at how the war is fought, using your numbers. Every airstrike yields 0.5 civilian casualties. Every one of those civilians has a father, and let's assume for the sake of argument an average of 3 brothers/sons/friends/husbands/lovers (clearly a WAG, but I think a reasonable one). That means every airstrike yields an average of 2 males honor bound to kill an American. 1400 airstrikes in 2007 equals 2800 new jihadis. BDA must prove that airstrikes have killed more than that number, or saved more Americans than those jihadis would kill, in order to show ANY military utility. If you factor in the cost of those airstrikes vs that military utility, the equation becomes even more hostile to the use of airpower. I love the USAF, but they need to realize adding a smaller hammer to your toolbox still doesn't make all your problems into nails.

Posted by Pode | January 18, 2008 10:09 AM

But it is important to look closely at how the war is fought even if one is a strong opponent of the war.

Not really. If one is a strong opponent of the war, it is important to oppose the war. Getting sidetracked into arguments about how carefully one is doing the wrong thing risks losing focus on the main point.

Our presence in Iraq is both morally wrong and strategically counterproductive. Our tactical choices may make it slightly less damaging for civilians, but they don't address the larger strategic problem. Spending time arguing about those tactical choices is an implicit concession that they can rescue us from the largest strategic error, which they can't.

Posted by mq | January 18, 2008 11:34 AM

Re: "Not really. If one is a strong opponent of the war, it is important to oppose the war. Getting sidetracked into arguments about how carefully one is doing the wrong thing risks losing focus on the main point."

It wasn't Kahl who introduced the discussion about tactics and their results it was Yglesias so presumably discussion about them is relevant. If the war is so irredeemably wrong in your eyes why don't you stick to threads that oppose it hook, line, and sinker. Stop wasting bandwidth on this one.

Posted by JMW | January 18, 2008 12:49 PM

I thought our troops in Iraq were defending my right to free speech somehow? So I can post on blog threads and stuff?

Posted by mq | January 18, 2008 4:03 PM

MQ,

Yes, speaking as one of those doing, you can of course say what you like.

We, of course, also have the option of assessing your commentary in a B. Franklin-like way. (you perhaps recall the line, it ends in "and remove all doubt")

We do not choose the wars mq. You do. You choose the civilians who decide to send us. Be that Wilson or FDR, Truman, or Kennedy, Johnson or Carter, Clinton or either of the Bush presidents. And the Congresses as well, of course. So yelling at us for upholding our end of our constitutional bargain is, to be blunt, counterproductive.

You dislike war, and in particular, this President. Got it. Your opposition to that guy is all yours, and you're welcome to it. And your academic opposition to all conflict is nice to know, and we all appreciate that you in your happy little quasi-intellectual way, don't like war. Fine. But we, who lose friends, both American and Iraqi, hate it.

We hate it in the mornings, when we wake up, sweating from a dream in which our 'terp and her kids were still together, though even in our dreams we cannot forget that Ansar Al Sunna put a drill bit to her temple after raping her.

We hate it in the afternoons, when we see the back and profile of another soldier we knew well, and for an instant we think, "Hey, X, hey, wait up!" but then we remember that X went home in an aluminum box, missing most of the back of his skull.

We hate it in the evening when we're walking home past a construction site and there is a loud goddamned boom from some asshat dropping a load from a crane which immediately collapses our knees in the first reaction that people like us now have to loud goddamned booms before our brains tell us we're stateside.

We hate it when we open the paper and we see that you civilians have only let in 770 Iraqis into our precious country, many of whom put their asses, and their families, on the line for something better for their country by working with us. And we remember long nights and whole packs of bad cigarettes drifting off over the Tigris talking with them about how someday we will bring our families together, so they can meet, and we will picnic in Karada by the river and watch our grandchildren play near the spot where we watched a truck-bomb go off.

In short, MQ, we hate war in a way and with a depth that you only pretend to understand.

We hate death, because we know it.

We hate suffering, because we know it.

We hate religious extremism and violent extremism, because we know it.

We hate waste, in and by all of these, because we know it.

So perhaps, you might consider these things in your next, oh-so-cogent posting. Perhaps you might learn to differentiate between the wars and acts of violence of choice which so many civilian presidents (Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) have directed us to, and the actions, intents, and behaviors of your imperfect military.

With disdain,

Robert Bateman

Posted by Robert Bateman | January 18, 2008 7:23 PM

mq,

Robert Bateman put the matter in much clearer terms than I could or have a right to do. I will only observe that if you think that directing you back OT is questioning your free speech rights then you are compounding irrelevancy with irrationality.

Posted by JMW | January 19, 2008 1:09 PM

mq,

Robert Bateman put the matter in much clearer terms than I could or have a right to do. I will only observe that if you think that directing you back OT is questioning your free speech rights then you are compounding irrelevancy with irrationality.

Posted by JMW | January 19, 2008 1:10 PM

Bateman and Kahl speak truths. The rest of you, not so much. Wedding parties? You know those were used as propaganda responses in more than one recent war, right? Just 'cause they were debunked years ago and multiple times (more than once per event, and there were many) is no reason to bring it up, though.

Me, I will continue to ignore Yglesias' ignorant post and listen to stuff like Lex's report instead.

But good luck in the echo chamber, y'all.

Posted by Chap | January 21, 2008 2:12 AM

"But Matt's essential point still holds: you gots to measure. And the official policy is not to measure. Ergo...well, kind of obvious isn't it?"

Anyone who believes the DOD isn't attempting to measuring casualties is probably living in LaLa Land.

The problem with the measurements has always been the same thruout history. All militaries have a policy of "not leaving bodies" on the battlefield.

While return of remains to the family, proper burial etc are the reasons most publicly stated...the primary military reason is to deny the enemy an accurate body count and any measure of relative combat effectiveness.

All thru Vietnam...virtually everyone claimed that the Army was vastly "overcounting" enemy casualties...when all was said and done...and the NVA opened their records...the reality is that the Army had actually vastly undercounted enemy KIA

Whatever statistic the Army could actually release would be wrong...the enemy does not publish it's casualty figures and deliberately attempts to obfuscate the numbers.

For example...how many of the daily "Bodies Found" in Baghdad are actually terrorists killed in Diyala or AlAnbar? There was a dramatic decrease in violence in AlAnbar...and surprisingly...a dramatic decrease in "Bodies Found" in Baghdad. Were the Bodies killed in AlAnbar and dumped in Baghdad? I don't think anyone knows with any degree of certainty.

Posted by Soldier's Dad | January 21, 2008 9:04 AM

Well spoken Mr. Bateman! Unfortunatly, we are long past the point where reason or logic hold sway on the topic of Iraq. In short, your pearls are wasted in the swine pen.

Posted by Robert S | January 21, 2008 9:25 AM

But they need to be stated nonetheless, Robert S.

Posted by molon labe | January 21, 2008 1:39 PM

The reasons for the bombings now: It appears as stated by The Long War Journal and others that this is mop up work. There is control of the govt now in Arab Jabour by the local people themselves and they know who is where and who they are. THEY are the ones calling for the bombings, the Concerned Local Citizens. They know where the staches of muntions have been placed and have agreed that it is much safer simply to leave them in place and blow them up. Same as it is much safer simply to blow up certain houses, garages, buildings where AQI are or were ensconced. The situation is thoroughly in hand and the proper people have been notified, i.e., get out and stay away for the hours of ---. No one with any reason can think it safer to use troops to go into a house which will undoubtedly be booby trapped - and risk his life -and find AQI has already left. Sure, you could bulldoze the house with a Buffalo -and 2 weeks later as a crew of 50 is rebuilding, THEN set off the bombs buried under the house, as the CLCs were trying to say might be the case. Geez guys, I realize you have religious scruples about war and all that, but get out of the way and just stick to not eating pork, or only wash in running water or some other less noxious nostrum, but let the Iraqi people decide how they think things are done more safely, and step aside as we help rebuild a vibrant, educated, constructive and contributing society, devoted to peace and human dignity and help our new allies, the Iraqis, join with us in building vibrant new outlooks of cooperation among us all as we did with the Germans and Japanese. What an image of decency and accomplishment they will bring to the Near and Middle East over the next generation as they pursue their democracy and reconstruction and bring their part of the world slowly along with them as they progress. This is not a pipe dream; this is what is happening, but you won't look at it.

Wahington lost very few men attacking Trenton and the Hessians, but the first kid we lost froze to death because all he had on was one shirt when he was sent out on the periphery as a guard for the landings after crossing the Delaware. Here you guys are all screaming at Washington that war isn't worth it, ever, and the United States is just a worthless mirage. I could love you guys a lot more if you would protest some of the particulars that matter and make sure that guy had a coat.

Posted by Dick Matern | January 21, 2008 8:34 PM

Increased airstrikes are probably a sign of increased intelligence. The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraq is miniscule compared to Vietnam which was larger then WWII.

The Iraqis have suffered a lot civilian casulaties in the past four years but the amoutn from our side is miniscule. The Iraqis know this, that is why we are winning.

Posted by Buck Smith | January 21, 2008 11:33 PM

Give me an Iraqi government which does enjoy broad legitimacy

The US Congress is at 11%. Bush at 28%.

So would 11% be enough legitimacy? Or would it have to get to 28% to make it Jake?

Where do yoyu people get your ideas? Three boxtops and a SASE?

Posted by M. Simon | January 22, 2008 11:09 AM

Bear in mind that we, the coalition fighting terrorism in Iraq have 400,000 Iraqi soldiers who know the local lanquage, know the local people, and are likely related to the people where they patrol.

That means Al Queda in Iraq hiding behind the locals doesn't work any more. It means that the Terrorists don't have anywhere to hide. The US provides added firepower in support of the Iraqi Army, our Coalition ally.

As for providing the manpower, it is Iraq. The Iraqis will still be there after we leave, or after we withdraw to a small military base like we did in Cuba. So long as we both continue to support freedom, democracy, and progress in Iraq, the terrorists have no choice but to fight or run, and no chance if they fight. That is certainly to the benefit of the Iraqi people, who have suffered much by the hands of terrorists like Al Queda, and before that suffered much at the hands of terrorists in the employ of Saddam Husayne. There is another way, that leads to freedom, for a moral and educated people, the greatest good that can be gained in this world.

Posted by Don Meaker | January 22, 2008 10:30 PM