Here are a few simple propositions on the matter of air war.

First, the farther away you are from the ground, the clearer things are likely to look, the more god-like you are likely to feel, the less human those you attack are likely to be to you. How much more so, of course, if you, the "pilot," are actually sitting at a consol at an air base near Las Vegas, identifying a "suspect" thousands of miles away via video monitor, "following" that suspect into a house, and then letting loose a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone cruising somewhere over Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Second, however "precise" your weaponry, however "surgical" your strike, however impressive the grainy snuff-film images you can put on television, war from the air is, and will remain, a most imprecise and destructive form of battle.

Third, in human terms, distance does not enhance accuracy. The farther away you are from a target, the more likely it is that you will have to guess who or what it is, based on spotty, difficult to interpret, or bad information, or even outright misinformation; whatever the theoretical accuracy of your weaponry, you are far more likely to miscalculate, make mistakes, mistarget, or target the misbegotten from the air.

Fourth, if you are conducting war this way and you are doing so in heavily populated urban neighborhoods, as is now the case almost every day in Iraq, then civilians will predictably die "by mistake" almost every day: the child who happens to be on the street just beyond camera range; the "terrorist suspect" or "insurgent" who looks, at a distance, like he's planting a roadside bomb, but is just scavenging; the neighbors who happen to be sitting down to dinner in the house next to the one you decide to hit.

Fifth, since World War II, air power has been the American way of war.

Sixth, since November 2001, the Bush administration has increasingly relied on air power in its Global War on Terror to "take out" the enemy, which has meant regular air strikes in cities and villages, and the no less regular, if largely unrecorded, deaths of civilians.

Seventh, in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq (as well as in the tribal areas along the Pakistani border), the use of air power has been "surging." You can essentially no longer read an account of a skirmish or battle in one of Iraq's cities in which air power is not called in. This means (see propositions 1-4) a war of constant "mistakes," and of regularly mentioned "investigations" into the deaths of "militants" and "insurgents" who, on the ground, seem to morph into children, women, and elderly men being pulled from the rubble.

Eighth, force creates counterforce. The application of force, especially from the air, is a reliable engine for the creation of enemies. It is a force multiplier (and not just for U.S. forces either). Every time an air strike is called in anywhere on the planet, anyone who orders it should automatically assume that left in its wake will be grieving, angry husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, relatives, friends -- people vowing revenge, a pool of potential candidates filled with the anger of genuine injustice. From the point of view of your actual enemies, you can't bomb, missile, and strafe often enough, because when you do so, you are more or less guaranteed to create their newest recruits.

Ninth, U.S. air power has, in the last six and a half years, been an effective force in a war for terror, not against it.

What does this mean in practice? It means something simple and relentless; it means dead people you might not have chosen to kill, but that you are responsible for killing nonetheless -- and even if you don't know -- or are unwilling to acknowledge -- that, others do know and will draw the logical conclusions..

Let's remember that, after 9/11, when horror and death arrived quite literally out of the blue, Americans, from the President on down, spent months in mourning, performing rites of remembrance, and swearing revenge. Do we not imagine that others, even when the spotlight isn't on them, react similarly? Do we not think that they, too, are capable of swearing revenge and acting accordingly?

The deaths of civilians are not some sideline result of the (air) War on Terror; they lie at its heart. If your care is safety--a subject brought up repeatedly by Senators who wanted to know from U.S. commander General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker this week whether we were now "safer"--then, the answer is: This does not make you safer.

[A longer version of this piece appeared at Tom Engelhardt's website Tomdispatch.com]

Comments (47)

1. Let's remember that, after 9/11, when horror and death arrived quite literally out of the blue, Americans, from the President on down, spent months in mourning, performing rites of remembrance, and swearing revenge. Do we not imagine that others, even when the spotlight isn't on them, react similarly? Do we not think that they, too, are capable of swearing revenge and acting accordingly?

   finally. thank you.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 10:29am

2. Well, if we get an ex-aviator President in November, with a penchant for a century of war and more pre-emptive ones as well...

   probably see more Hellfires and Predators launched.

   Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 11:11am

3. nothing personal, mr. mccain -- you seem like a nice dude, and the years you spent being tortured are truly an abomination of what the human spirit can achieve. however, i hope you don't become president.

   McCain's grandfather and father were the first pair of father/son Four-Star admirals in the United States Navy. McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying attack aircraft from carriers.

   •••••••• so, that's how he got the fancy pilot job.

   John McCain's pre-combat duty began when he was commissioned an ensign, and started two and a half years of training as a naval aviator at Pensacola.[18] There he also earned a reputation as a party man.

   •••••••• thatta boy, john. bet those skeletons have disintegrated (as well as the closets) by now.

   McCain was then stationed in A-1 Skyraider squadrons[20] on the aircraft carriers USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise,[21] in the Caribbean Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea.[22] He survived two airplane crashes and a collision with power lines.

   •••••••• hmmm. the power lines seem to be favouring him now.

   In summer 1967, Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[13][29] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington;[30] he would later write that "In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war."

   •••••••• uh oh!

   John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.

   •••••••• 23rd?

   from qwiki: john mccain

   ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº

   "There have been, however, no significant signs of a deline in popular morale nor any indication that the conditions of the people will force the regime to alter its war policy."

   •••••••• nope.

   "In addition, a 10-man North Vietnamese delegation went to France to discuss postwar economic restoration and development of chemical, metal, mechanical, electrical, and light industries.

   •••••••• damn french traitors!!!!

   Trade with Vietnam : 2008

   NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars. Month Exports Imports Balance January 2008 212.3 977.5 -765.2 February 2008 228.5 995.7 -767.2 TOTAL 440.8 1,973.2 -1,532.4

   •••••••• egad!

   Bad weather limited air activity over North Vietnam to a level substantially lower that the 10,700 sorties averaged monthly during the past three months

   well, those bombs weren't very smart, were they? and in monsoon season.

   Declassified CIA Documents on the Vietnam War

   http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/04111147009.pdf

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 12:09pm

4. what year was it when vietnam attacked?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 12:10pm

5. it's the PARENTS fault?!?!?!?!?!??????!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 12:11pm

6. Some children are bound to be collateral damage in our air war but the fault lies, MAINLY, with their parents. Be it via air war or ground war, as long as gurrila warfare has existed, its basic tactic of `hiding' among civilians will ALWAYS mean collateral damages.----Posted by HAPPY2 04/14/2008 @ 11:39am

   So the parents of those children...are all terrorists/insurgents?!?!?

   No...wait....read what you wrote again. You blame the "parents" for the "collateral damage" to the kids...then say that its a tactic of "guerrilla warfare"....

   ergo, the parents (whom you blame)...are "guerrillas"!

   Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 12:36pm

7. HAPPY

   Your argument presupposes that the target identification is, in fact, correct. It's somewhat harder to verify if a spot is a guerrilla base of some sort if you don't have boots on the ground asking questions and searching for weapons. With air strikes, you are more at the mercy of bad intel or target misidentification (Chinese Embassy in Belgrade anyone?). There, you are in fact hitting innocents entirely and probably generating insurgents.

   Morally, it is of course different from a 9/11-style terror attack which specifically targeted innocents; from a standpoint of counterinsurgency doctrine, you've still dug yourself roughly the same hole.

   Posted by brunowe at 04/14/2008 @ 2:03pm

8. While we should not be in Iraq, as a war, along with Afghanistan, it has never been properly fought. Because too few troops were deployed for these wars, there has been an increased reliance on firepower. While close air support was designed for precise bombing, it is more useful on the open battlefield or uninhabited areas. In built-up areas, civilians will be casualties. There should be, when possible, Forward Observers calling in the strike, so the right target is hit. Counter insurgency is labor intensive and requires a lot of troops on the ground. More troops reduces the need for excessive Firepower. These wars have been fought on the cheap!

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 04/14/2008 @ 3:12pm

9. Posted by FDR42 04/14/2008 @ 3:37pm

   Yeah, and that still left those snipers Hillary had to avoid!

   Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 4:06pm

10. FDR42

    I've read that Kosovar guerrillas helped with the air campaign. By keeping up an insurgent presence, they forced the Serb ground forces to stay closer together, making them better aerial targets.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/14/2008 @ 6:20pm

11. oh no! an "anti-war" statement!

    gosh, if only he had witnessed those incoming plans. i'm sure he would have been a big supporter of the Glorious invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    rio bravo = big time shit head

    Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 02:15am

12. just another Englehardt hate message. He hates America, he hates the troops...

    your hatred has become boring mr englehardt. perhaps there is a nice place for you in Teheran where you can join Imanutjob with your rantings.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/15/2008 @ 05:57am

13. "your hatred has become boring mr englehardt. perhaps there is a nice place for you in Teheran where you can join Imanutjob with your rantings."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/15/2008 @ 05:57am

    Unlike yourself, Mr. Englehardt was invited here by the Nation to share his views.

    Unlike yourself, he does not come here to rant.

    Why should he leave, and not the troll?

    Posted by drhammer at 04/15/2008 @ 08:09am

14. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/15/2008 @ 05:57am

    whoa!

    the tax man sure has got somebody all grumpy....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 08:18am

15. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/15/2008 @ 05:57am |

    Same ol' idiocy.

    Mr Englehardt hates the war...ergo he "hates the troops".

    He hates Bush's policies...ergo, he "hates Bush" and of course to "hate Bush" is to "hate America"...."The Iraq War equals The Troops who equal Bush who equals America"

    Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 11:17am

16. unfortunately, for many around the world the iraq war has come to equal america.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 1:32pm

17. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 1:32pm

    An unintended side-effect of the LVLIBERTY theory....it actually does create hate for America...not for who we are, but for what our leadership has DONE.

    Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 3:46pm

18. Posted by freeminded at 04/15/2008 @ 7:34pm

19. MARKCANYON: ARE we still fighting Baathists? I thought that was uh, kinda what we did at the beginning of the war.

    Also, the Baathists did terrible awful things to Iraqi civilians. That's what the U.S. military is doing too, in a wide-scale operation that's supposedly GOOD for the Iraqi people. Do you not see the irony in your half-baked comment?

    Posted by freeminded at 04/15/2008 @ 7:36pm

20. "This is a war against Islamists whose main tactic is exploding bombs amid civilian crowds."

    Well our main military tactic is apparently the exact same as the Islamists. So...that totally belies your post.

    Posted by freeminded at 04/15/2008 @ 7:38pm

21. How dare the parents of those children be citizens of a country at war! It is totally their fault their children are less a couple limbs and digits. How fucking ungrateful are these people that they aren't willing to give up some family members! Can't they see those bombs are bombs of liberation. They are all probably guilty of something.

    Posted by davefoley0 at 04/15/2008 @ 10:42pm

22. not for who we are, but for what our leadership has DONE.

    Posted by MASK 04/15/2008 @ 3:46pm

    and NOT done.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:42pm

23. "When you bomb a country ruled by a tyrant, you kill the victims of the tyrant." ~ Howard Zinn

    Posted by Radscal at 04/15/2008 @ 10:59pm

24. It appears that traditional conventions of war disallow a soldier harming a captive soldier because the prisoner is helpless and poses no risk to the captor. In ground combat, however, the same two soldiers are allowed to try to kill each other because each is armed and a danger to the other. In air attacks on people or facilities on the ground in recent conflicts, the rules change. It is almost certain that unarmed, totally helpless civilians will be killed "accidentally", but this is considered acceptable because the intent is to take out enemy military. Several aspects of this stand out. Killing anonymous people who can not be identified as enemy military is repugnant to anyone who witnesses it or can imagine the horror. In conflicts such as Iraq, the air power of the U.S. is overwhelming more powerful than the people on the ground, which removes any element of a "fair" fight. This is an outrage to the victims, although the distance from the killing may better enable Americans to deny the reality of what is going on. Mechanistic killing and maiming by such a powerful, unseen, distant military machine has a nightmarish quality that is totally dehumanizing, conveying an attitude of utter disregard for the affected humans, no matter how careful the planners say they are. This industrial approach to war seems to make sense to the war planners who may actually believe that their motives are noble and for the abstract good of the population, but as Tom says it is so outrageous to real people on the ground that it is easy to see why they would hate Americans and turn to whatever means of fighting are available to them. We are thoroughly propagandized to be blind to it all.

    Posted by DeanOR at 04/15/2008 @ 11:36pm

25. Posted by DEANOR...

    Well spoken!

    Posted by ttr at 04/16/2008 @ 12:30am

26. He hates America, he hates the troops...

    in the mind of an authoritarian, anyone who asks any questions, or points out any problems, is clearly full of hatred for his/her country and, of course, for the troops.

    and spoken so eloquently.....not

    Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 01:30am

27. deanor, indeed, well spoken.

    so, liberty, is deanor an "america-hater"?

    (chuckle)

    Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 01:31am

28. not only is what deanor says totally correct, but we are enabling it.......each and every day.

    we are, truly, sick people.

    i never thought i'd say this, but i hate my country.

    love the people, but hate the country.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2008 @ 01:35am

29. My generation remembers the famous photo of a burned, naked young Vietnamese girl running down a road screaming during an air attack. I think that one photo helped end the war. That is what we don't see in the sanitized war reporting from Iraq.

    Posted by DeanOR at 04/16/2008 @ 01:52am

30. Posted by DEANOR 04/15/2008 @ 11:36pm

    the other day, it was ¡¡¡opening day!!! at the local ballpark.

    overcast, low ceiling kinda sky.

    and then VVVVVVRRRRRHSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH my world filled up with this horrific unseen noise.

    jets. but where? and why? (i didn't know that it was baseball day and that the "big show" had come to town)

    i thought maybe wmds had been discovered in alberta.

    talk about terror. VVVVVVRRRRRHSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH

    how degrading the fear must be.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:51am

31. I think that one photo helped end the war. That is what we don't see in the sanitized war reporting from Iraq.

    Posted by DEANOR 04/16/2008 @ 01:52am

    That is WHY we see sanitized war reporting from Iraq.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:53am

32. That is WHY we see sanitized war reporting from Iraq.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/16/2008 @ 02:53am

    Every picture tells a story; however in Iraq the problem is that we have seen too many bloody impersonal detached human pieces scattered over a car, truck or suicide, bombsite, sometimes with bits and pieces stuck to adjacent buildings. Thus it requires a greater use of one's imagination to empathise with that sort of human debris, than it does to empathise with 9 year old Kim Phuc running down a road in Vietnam with her skin on fire from napalm.

    It seems, in Iraq, that the greater number of "impersonal" civilian-killer bombs don't fall from the sky but one way or another are planted on the ground before they do their bloody work.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 04/16/2008 @ 08:18am

33. Among the problems in America, I don't think that the lack of expertise in government and media can be overstated. We elect presidents to run militaries that they've never fought with (or, perhaps, even served in). We have pundits in the media who've also never fought or served in the military critiquing the execution of wars. We're being led by know-nothings, and informed by know-nothings, so is there any question why we're a nation of know-nothings? Regardless of the relative merits of Englehardt's views, they are views based on his own interpritation of what it must be like to pilot an attack plane, or control a drone, or be a target, or know someone who is any of those things. These are not interpritations based on experience and expertise, they are the products of Englehardt's imagination, not much different from the products of Bush's imagination that got us into the war in the first place (with the full complacency of media know-nothings).

    Posted by FaxMeBeer at 04/16/2008 @ 09:18am

34. Posted by FAXMEBEER 04/16/2008 @ 09:18am

    I think it prudent to point out that Mr. Englehardt's lack of seat/joystick time with the respective remote weapon is not the problem it would be were he advocating war, like the myriad chickenhawk assholes currently flushing our nation down the commode.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/16/2008 @ 11:43am

35. Speaking of the war, I guess this is what progress looks like: Operation Desert Debacle

    (NY Times page - may need to log in to read whole article)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/16/2008 @ 11:54am

36. It seems, in Iraq, that the greater number of "impersonal" civilian-killer bombs don't fall from the sky but one way or another are planted on the ground before they do their bloody work.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 04/16/2008 @ 08:18am

    if you had to choose, would you rather live, today, in non-liberated iran or in liberated iraq?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 12:49pm

37. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/16/2008 @ 12:49pm

    If I were an Iranian I would probably want to live in Iran. If on the other hand I were an Iraqi it's more likely I would want to live in Iraq.

    What is that based on?

    (i) I heard Petraeus state the other day that the Iraqi security forces have suffered about three times the casualty rate of our military. Which is an indicator that, given I were that sort of Iraqi, it would have to be Iraq for me. (And anyway if you were an Iraqi would you want to live next to a bloody Persian?).

    (ii) Were I the sort of Iraqi that cut and ran (for a while) then I would probably have joined those heading back home.

    (iii) If I were an Iraqi terrorist what better place to die and kill my fellow Iraqis than in Iraq?

    That's the short answer and that's nationalism for you.

    BTW if you had a choice wouldn't you rather live in the US?

    Posted by harvey 79 at 04/16/2008 @ 3:19pm

38. The fault lies mainly with the simple fact that we're waging war against people in Iraq who never did anything to harm us. In fact, they had trouble keeping up a supply of clean running water (thanks to our sanctions). So in essence we've been torturing the people of Iraq since the end of Gulf War I (with Saddam's help, of course, until we removed him and replaced his torture gulags with ours)

    Posted by masussman at 04/16/2008 @ 4:38pm

39. Posted by MASUSSMAN 04/16/2008 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person

    We are not waging a war against the people of Iraq as you characterize them. What idioitic nonsense. Thanks to OUR sanctions?????? I guess Saddam did not have ANYTHING to do with that......Is it any wonder you leftists are deranged?

    MASUSSMAN get a clue deluded foolish one

    Posted by CPT at 04/16/2008 @ 7:13pm

40. Posted by HAPPY2 04/14/2008 @ 11:39am

    Hold on you contend that every innocent person who has died must have somehow been tied to an insurgent? What about the group of women and children shot by blackwater members. Not every person over there is an insurgent Happy. It is just ignorant and down right misguided to think that because a child dies its the fault of their "insurgent" parents. That's a flat out lie to the fullest degree.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2008 @ 7:23pm

41. Posted by MARKCANYON 04/14/2008 @ 5:12pm

    So you are saying it's ok if it's unintentionally killing children?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2008 @ 7:28pm

42. Posted by HAPPY2 04/14/2008 @ 11:39am

    I thought you were a sane and logical person despite our differences but now I see you are as illogical as Rio Bravo.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2008 @ 7:39pm

43. Pardon the "multi-post" all, but am leaving a message for Frankgrits re: (but all are welcome to view) his good old "Dubya's Pre-war Fireside Chat" on my ISP at:DUBYA

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 8:19pm

44. Probably pointless to post this, but I am a glutton for punishment so here goes anyway:

    What you have here is the standard stuff - innocent people are being killed in this war - so it is of course our fault. (or at least George W. Bush's). We are supposed to just stop the war, and all the problems will go away.

    We have the moral equivalence mindset at work here by the Left that the terrorists are just fighting back and angry because we are attacking them, and it is reasonable for them to do so. As if the goals of terrorism are somehow legitimate, which of course many of the left think they are. (Such as Mr. Peanut Jimmy Carter, who meets with Hamas murderers)

    We are supposed to understand that we made the terrorists angry, and since everybody but American "imperialists" want world peace, if we just let the terrorists alone they won't be angry, and everthing will be OK.

    Well then, maybe the terrorists will no longer be angry. They will still attempt to kill us, however, because they want the world to be in sync with what they believe, and you either believe what they believe or you are to be dead.

    So the death and killing will continue once we capitulate and surrender. Once we have "peace" our lives will no longer be threatened by angry terrorists.

    We will just be killed by terrorists who are no longer filled with anger and rage. They will be filled with happy thoughts of fulfillment as they go about their mission of killing us.

    As for me, I would rather we fight the angry terrorists and kill them before they kill us, instead of us being killed by happy, contented terrorists.

    But, since modern day liberals start out with the automatic knee- jerk assumption that America is wrong, anybody that disagrees with us is right, and any complaint against us is legitimate - then modern day liberalism requires us to surrender, capitualte and stop making the terrorists angry. There is no end to the wrong America is believed to be guilty of, so the least we can do is understand that we need to be punished for our sins, in the form of being killed by terrorists that are happy and glad to do so.

    And this comment will bring scowls and fits of rage from leftists who think I am criticizing their right to free speech and saying that nobody should ever disagree with what America does. What these leftists do not see is that nobody is saying that - that is a figment of the left's imagination.

    What is being said, and what the left does not see and does not understand about their own behavior, is that the left has a knee- jerk assumption that America is always wrong, that other countries are blessed somehow with wisdom that we do not have, and if somebody (even terrorists who believe in murder and death) has a gripe against us, it of course is justified.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/18/2008 @ 12:26pm

45. By the way, those of you on the left:

    If the terrorist murders would stop trying to kill us and others and force their way upon people - then innocent adults and children would not die.

    Terrorists do not care if they die, so they engage in behavior that causes them to die, with the catch-22 applied by the left that we are not supposed to fight back - and that we are to blame for the death.

    But, guess what? If we do not fight back, everybody not in compliance with the terrorists agenda will die anyway.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/18/2008 @ 12:30pm

46. Posted by SJCHERMAK 04/18/2008 @ 12:30pm

    BOO!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:39pm

47. Except, SJChermak, we are talking about the war in Iraq. There was no al-Qaida there to speak of until we went in. Even the jihadis who are there now have turned most of the people against them so the idea that they would be doing anything but fighting for their lives against indigenous Iraqis is just hogwash.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 12:21am