Home

Comment by Larry Ross, January 6, 2006

Prof. Schwart reports U.S. air strikes in Iraq have increased from 25 per month to 120 per month. They "have inflicted incredible destruction and carnage on the cities under attack." The US target is the population of Iraq. This strategy makes more opposition or 'terrorists'. Any baby, child, man or woman killed or maimed by Bush Administration mass bombings is automatically called a "terrorist". People are being conditioned to believe that any amount of destruction is justified so long as the victims are called a suitable name - such as "insurgent" or "terrorist" . His article shows how the U.S. is promoting civil war in Iraq between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

In spite of the poor, overstretched state of the US military in Iraq, Bushites are actively planning a war on Iran. Iran is much bigger and better prepared than Iraq. As stated in other articles, if the US experiences significant resistance,
they are likely to use nuclear weapons. Bush has prepared the U.S. for this with his new nuclear doctrines allowing him to wage pre-emptive nuclear war and also use nuclear weapons as a part of conventional military operations. Also, as a protection against prosecution for this crime, Bush has decreed that no American can be prosecuted by The International Criminal Court.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The New Iraq War Strategy: More Bombings,
More Civilian Deaths, Less Likelihood of Success

Commentary on Seymour Hersh's 'Up in the Air'
by Michael Schwartz, January 3, 2006

Seymour Hersh’s latest article in the New Yorker is over a month old by now, and therefore would seem a little like old news. But, like so much of his reporting, Hersh’s article contains at least a few nuggets that ripen with time and take on more importance as events play out in Iraq. Two of his key points – one central to the article, the other almost an afterthought – are of particular importance, and worth reviewing as the Iraqis endure yet another chapter in the American effort to crush the resistance.

The first of these key themes is the one that was most prominently commented upon. Hersh broke the story – which is now all over the mainstream press – that the U.S. is going to try a new military strategy in Iraq: more intensive air power and less intensive foot patrols. This will involve fewer U.S. offensive operations (like those in western Anbar that involved evacuating whole cities), increased use of Iraqi armed forces in high-resistance areas, and a massive increase in the use of aerial attacks. In the short time since Hersh wrote the article, this new policy has been aggressively enacted. The Washington Post, quoting U.S. military sources, reported that the number of U.S. air strikes increased from an average of 25 per month during the Summer, to 62 in September, 122 in October, and 120 in November.

There are several aspects to this new strategy that we need to keep in mind.

First, this is an attempt to lessen the strain on U.S. troops – the U.S. military in Iraq is in grave danger of collapsing, as it did in Vietnam. So the new strategy seeks to reduce the number of patrols (which are the most grueling and dangerous missions American soldiers undertake) and compensate with more air raids. The hope is that this switch in emphasis will make it possible for U.S. troops to endure more tours of duty in Iraq. But probably this won’t work. Here is what one military officer told Hersh: "if the President decides to stay the present course in Iraq some troops would be compelled to serve fourth and fifth tours of combat by 2007 and 2008, which could have serious consequences for morale and competency levels."

Continue....