Bombing them free
As the graph above illustrates, the U.S. has been making increasing use of air power in Iraq. It shows that the number of “close air support” (CAS) sorties that dropped munitions in 2007 (up to November) is almost five times the number carried out the previous year.
The same is true in Afghanistan, where the number of annual CAS sorties dropping major munitions in 2007 (again, up to November only) was some 34 times the number performed in 2004.
The graphs are derived from data published in a recent CSIS briefing (.pdf). As Anthony Cordesman notes, they “show a steady rise in air activity” and “reflect a dramatic increase in both the use of airpower and the intensity of combat in both wars”.
For more on the secret air war in Iraq and Afghanistan, see:
- ‘America’s Secret Air War in Iraq‘, Nick Turse
- ‘U.S. Secret Air War Pulverizes Afghanistan and Iraq‘, Conn Hallinan
- ‘The Secret Air War in Iraq‘, Nick Turse
Filed under: Iraq, News and politics, US | 3 Comments
Tags: "smart bombs", Afghanistan, occupation, Operation Iraqi Liberation, War
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Important stats – the more intense the air war, the greater the scale of destruction.
We should soon be hearing a correlated increase in reports using terms such as ‘collateral damage’ or about insurgents ‘hiding amongst civillians’, ‘using them as human shields’, etc. In fact, in Canada, CBC recently aired some NATO footage claiming evidence of Taliban fighters using ‘children to deter air strikes’. The footage consisted of grainy video – one showed two men with guns walking around a seemingly deserted area with some women and children (hell, they could have been their kids!), and another showed what looked like a young boy standing outside of a building in a town. That was their ‘evidence’. They even had a NATO spokesperson on to ‘corroborate’ these new ‘facts’. Pretty incredible.
It’s amazing this can even pass as news – it was the headline of the day!
Going back to the stats though, what do you think it means? The use of more destructive force to prevent occupation troop casualties and relieve domestic pressure? The present less troop casualties as ‘winning the war’ maybe?
Thanks for the info =O.
In the long term, I think that is definitely the goal – a greater redeployment of troops to the massive military bases that have been constructed in Iraq, with less active patrolling and thus less casualties and reduced political pressure to withdraw. I suspect the “surge” is also a significant factor in the increase (although that doesn’t really say much in itself – the “surge” is simply another name for escalation).
fyi, lenin has a useful take on it here.