'Here is the Times account of what happened in the small town of Baiji, 150 miles north of Baghdad, on January 3, based on interviews with various unidentified "American officials":
"A pilotless reconnaissance aircraft detected three men planting a roadside bomb about 9 p.m. The men ‘dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement,' the military said in a statement. ‘The individuals were assessed as posing a threat to Iraqi civilians and coalition forces, and the location of the three men was relayed to close air support pilots.'
"The men were tracked from the road site to a building nearby, which was then bombed with ‘precision guided munitions,' the military said. The statement did not say whether a roadside bomb was later found at the site. An additional military statement said Navy F-14's had ‘strafed the target with 100 cannon rounds' and dropped one bomb."
Crucial to this report is the phrase "precision guided munitions," an affirmation that U.S. forces used technology less likely than older munitions to accidentally hit the wrong target. It is this precision that allows us to glimpse the callous brutality of American military strategy in Iraq.
The target was a "building nearby," identified by a drone aircraft as an enemy hiding place. According to eyewitness reports given to the Washington Post, the attack effectively demolished the building, and damaged six surrounding buildings. While in a perfect world, the surrounding buildings would have been unharmed, the reported amount of human damage in them (two people injured) suggests that, in this case at least, the claims of "precision" were at least fairly accurate.
The problem arises with what happened inside the targeted building, a house inhabited by a large Iraqi family. Piecing together the testimony of local residents, the Times reporter concluded that fourteen members of the family were in the house at the time of the attack and nine were killed…
…We can gain some perspective on this military strategy by imagining similar rules of engagement for an American police force in some large city. Imagine, for example, a team of criminals in that city fleeing into a nearby apartment building after gunning down a policeman. It would be unthinkable for the police to simply call in airships to demolish the structure, killing any people -- helpless hostages, neighbors, or even friends of the perpetrators -- who were with or near them. In fact, the rules of engagement for the police, even in such a situation of extreme provocation, call for them to "hold their fire" -- if necessary allowing the perpetrators to escape -- if there is a risk of injuring civilians. And this is a reasonable rule... because we value the lives of innocent American citizens over our determination to capture a criminal, even a cop killer.
But in Iraqi cities, our values and priorities are quite differently arranged. The contrast derives from three important principles under which the Iraq war is being fought: that the war should be conducted to absolutely minimize the risk to American troops; that guerrilla fighters should not be allowed to escape if there is any way to capture or kill them; and that Iraqi civilians should not be allowed to harbor or encourage the resistance fighters…' The Real Rules of Engagement in Iraq
'Brig Aylwin-Foster says American officers displayed such cultural insensitivities that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have helped spur the insurgency.
While the army is "indisputably the master of conventional war fighting, it is notably less proficient in... what the US defence community often calls Operations Other Than War," the officer wrote.
Operations to win the peace in Iraq were "weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on", he added.' UK officer slams US Iraq tactics
To what degree is the nature of US involvement in Iraq currently part of the solution, and to what degree is it part of the problem?
'Other modes of operation must be developed. First of all, it is appropriate to destroy [terrorist] networks by patient police, secret service, and justice system action and to act against the central weakness of all clandestine networks, their logistics: safe harbors, training camps, arms caches, finance. But, above all, forces on the ground must approach the population progressively, with less visible and media-friendly action than the punctual missile strike - more in-depth. In those regions that give birth to terrorism, regions where it prospers, it's a question of cutting support from the population, of cleaning up situations so that they no longer constitute a favorable breeding ground for the development of [terrorist] networks.'General Marcel Valentin
Yet the US is doing just the opposite - increasing its reliance on air-strikes in Iraq.
"In addition to civilian deaths and injuries, collateral damage from a Sunday night aerial assault on an Afghan village may include goodwill toward Canadian troops.
Leaders of the American-led coalition trumpeted the late-night operation as a success, claiming 20 Taliban were killed in the attack on the village of Azizi in Kandahar province late Sunday and early Monday, while there were ''an unconfirmed 60 additional Taliban casualties.''
But rocket and machine-gun fire from American Apache helicopters also killed and wounded many civilians in an area where Canadian soldiers have employed medical teams and meetings with tribal leaders in an effort to win hearts and minds for the coalition.
Even though no Canadian soldiers were involved in the assault, to villagers, all western soldiers are considered the same and many feel they must share the blame.
The day after the battle, the intensive care unit in Kandahar's main hospital held seven civilians who had been severely wounded by American fire.
From his hospital bed, a father of eight said Canadian troops will share the blame for the onslaught that put him, his wife and two of his children in hospital..." www.canada.com
If guerillas shelter behind civilians, to provoke attacks which will kill civilians, isn't just a little bit stupid to go ahead and launch the attacks which kill civilians?
