Airstrikes alone are known to accomplish very little in terms of prompting the enemy to capitulate. A British former foreign minister whom I interviewed a few months ago, did underscore what most military historians agree on: “The bombing against Germany [by the Allies during WWII] was far less effective [than imagined]; not many people understand that to this day. The use of air power is greatly boosted by the Air Forces trying to push their role, their budgets—and incredibly so in America. “[The NATO bombing of] Bosnia [in 1999] was half-hearted and was barely a success. “[People still] believe we can have painless wars; wars without casualties. The politicians love air power, as they think that’s what they can get. They have had a lot of interventions with practically no bloody casualties. But there is a price for that” (interview carried out on 03-Apr-14). Indeed, in 1999, strategic airpower alone was not what coerced the Serbs into submission. Russia, which had been Yugoslavia’s key ally, switched sides in early June and exerted significant pressure on Milosevic to end the conflict immediately. In Dec. 2001, a seeming American victory in Afghanistan turned out to be a “mirage” and a trap. The Taliban simply hid out, then resurged more resilient than ever. In Jul. 2006, the U.S./Israeli air-bombing of Lebanon was a defeat. A long list of other examples exists. Just recently, on 14-Sep-14, the WSJ wrote that the U.S.’ airstrike strategy in Yemen is used by Washington “as a model for the campaign against the extremist group Islamic State” and Khorosan in Iraq and Syria “although Yemeni officials said al Qaeda’s strength in Yemen is [in fact] growing”. The same ineffectiveness is also conceded by the NYT on 22-Sep-14: “Weeks of U.S. Strikes Fail to Dislodge ISIS in Iraq”. Airstrikes alone, the historical record shows without any ambiguity by now, don’t cause the enemy to capitulate. From there, one can safely deduce that Washington’s aim in Iraq—and now Syria—is NOT to annihilate the professed enemy, the so-called Islamic State. Moreover, the conservative media have clearly reported that the many close U.S. allies that have been supporting Sunni violence in those countries have no intention of altering their existing behavior on the ground. And Washington is not taking retaliatory measures against those allies like it did against France in 2003, for instance. That, too, indicates that the United States is not attempting to “defeat” or eliminate ISIS. So the stated objective can’t be the actual objective. A rational observer must look elsewhere.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:40:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015