Sunday, October 17, 2004
Collective Punishment
The inhabitants of Faluja have been subjected to bombardment, siege, and now what looks like an assault by US ground forces. There are at least two ways of viewing these events.
If you believe the US to be a benevolent, or at least benign occupier, you can convince yourself that the recalicitrant Sunni Muslim city must be retaken for strategic reasons. Surely free elections cannot be held in Iraq with major population centers under insurgent control.
If however, you believe that the US occupation is starting to rot, -- in the way of all occupations -- events might seem more sinister. You might notice, for example, that the 'precision strikes' on the city have killed an awful lot of Iraqis. Indeed, you might ask yourself what the concept of a 'precision strike' on a densily populated area really means. No matter how precise, a five hundred pound bomb dropped from 5000 feet (I am guessing the pilots are staying high to avoid possible SA-7 fire) from an aircraft travelling at 300 knots is going to cause a hell of a lot of damage even if it doesn't explode. If it does function properly, it is going to kill some innocent people. No two ways about it.
Moreover, the strikes seem to keep missing their putative mark. To the Iraqi in Faluja, the who airstrike thing must seem pretty random. The US is pounding the city, because of the presence of 'foreign fighters', but the actual pounding has very little relation to where the foreign fighters actually are. The Iraqi has got to be thinking, 'this is pounding for pounding's sake, not strikes on tactical or strategy targets'.
So what? Well, from the Iraqi's point of view, the airstrikes must seem an awful lot like collective punishment. He is being made to dodge and dive because some insurgents decided to stand up to the occupation, and chose his town to make their stand. He, the average Falujan, justs wants peace. The pounding from the US won't stop until the fighters are gone. His logical course is to turn against the fighters.
This is probably the strategy the US is following. It seems to be working. The only problem with it is that collective punishment is illegal under the rules of war. But those are for other regimes, aren't they?
If you believe the US to be a benevolent, or at least benign occupier, you can convince yourself that the recalicitrant Sunni Muslim city must be retaken for strategic reasons. Surely free elections cannot be held in Iraq with major population centers under insurgent control.
If however, you believe that the US occupation is starting to rot, -- in the way of all occupations -- events might seem more sinister. You might notice, for example, that the 'precision strikes' on the city have killed an awful lot of Iraqis. Indeed, you might ask yourself what the concept of a 'precision strike' on a densily populated area really means. No matter how precise, a five hundred pound bomb dropped from 5000 feet (I am guessing the pilots are staying high to avoid possible SA-7 fire) from an aircraft travelling at 300 knots is going to cause a hell of a lot of damage even if it doesn't explode. If it does function properly, it is going to kill some innocent people. No two ways about it.
Moreover, the strikes seem to keep missing their putative mark. To the Iraqi in Faluja, the who airstrike thing must seem pretty random. The US is pounding the city, because of the presence of 'foreign fighters', but the actual pounding has very little relation to where the foreign fighters actually are. The Iraqi has got to be thinking, 'this is pounding for pounding's sake, not strikes on tactical or strategy targets'.
So what? Well, from the Iraqi's point of view, the airstrikes must seem an awful lot like collective punishment. He is being made to dodge and dive because some insurgents decided to stand up to the occupation, and chose his town to make their stand. He, the average Falujan, justs wants peace. The pounding from the US won't stop until the fighters are gone. His logical course is to turn against the fighters.
This is probably the strategy the US is following. It seems to be working. The only problem with it is that collective punishment is illegal under the rules of war. But those are for other regimes, aren't they?
