Comments on: Obama Is Actually Right

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:42:22 +0000

I agree it is interesting, except Arkin doesn’t explain why he would discount the actual civilian death counts the UN and NATO use to determine collateral damage. He similarly doesn’t address the primary reason there are so many air strikes in Afghanistan, which was the deliberate decision that a pared-down ground force could be adequately protected by air cover. That is why many more bombs have been dropped on Afghanistan – a relatively low intensity conflict – than on Iraq – a relatively high intensity conflict.

Arkin also doesn’t address Sheffer’s justification for using smaller bombs — why would NATO make that decision, if no one actually knew or even had an idea of how many civilians were being killed?

I’m not unsympathetic to what he’s arguing, I just won’t buy it until he backs it up with some sort of proof beyond his “contacts” in the Air Force and the fact that he worked at Harvard once.

By: Pavel

Pavel — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:36:25 +0000

Here is an interesting take on the issue: from Bill Arkin.

By: W. Shedd

W. Shedd — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:48:06 +0000

There is a disconnect between on-ground recon, air command, and air strikes. You simply can not always have 100% perfect intel on a target or 100% perfect targetting or location of a bomb or missile. Those are simply the facts and once that is acknowledged it is easy to see that civilian casualties will result from military operations heavily reliant upon airstrikes.

That may be just the black lining to any military attack or invasion and something that must be accepted. However, in sustained military operations like Afghanistan, you are going to have increasing civilian resentment. Such a style of warfare just takes a toll on civilians over time. And by its very nature, it adds to the impression of the U.S. or West fighting in a faceless or soul-less manner, resulting in anti-occidental reactions.