FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

What War Looks Like

 

As preparations for the invasion of Iraq continue, the talk is all about morality, strategy, evidence, and costs. We are told that we are going to have a just war, to liberate the people of Iraq, to bring democracy and freedom to the repressed people of that nation. We watch military ‘experts’ on TV share their immense knowledge of weapons and warfare, and we marvel at the advanced technology of the armed forces.

What is curiously absent from all the discussion is any visceral sense of what the attack will be like in real terms, from the point of view of the people who will actually be there. Instead, the language is soothing, referring to surgical strikes and collateral damage. Take for example, this January 26th report (by Andrew West of the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia):

“The US intends to shatter Iraq “physically, emotionally and psychologically” by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as “Shock and Awe”, conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War. “There will not be a safe place in Baghdad,” a Pentagon official told America’s CBS News after a briefing on the plan. “The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before.” ”

Later reports suggest that the number of missiles could be as much as 3,000. This is part of the attempt to win support for the war by assuring us that that the war will be ‘quick’ and ‘surgical’, with minimal American casualties. Most of us are fortunate to have never lived in the midst of a war or to have been at the receiving end of bombing attacks so we have no real sense of what such an attack will actually look like.

But let us reflect for a moment. Baghdad is a densely populated city of four million people, more than half of whom are children under the age of 14. What would such an attack look like through their eyes? We can get some idea because there are journalists who have witnessed similar events and have shared their first-hand accounts.

John Pilger is an Australian war correspondent who has witnessed violent battles from as far back as Vietnam. Here is his description (in the British newspaper The Daily Mirror on January 29th, 2003)of what he has seen and what we can expect.

“Waves of B52 bombers will be used in the attack on Iraq. In Vietnam, where more than a million people were killed in the American invasion of the 1960s, I once watched three ladders of bombs curve in the sky, falling from B52s flying in formation, unseen above the clouds.

They dropped about 70 tons of explosives that day in what was known as the “long box” pattern, the military term for carpet bombing. Everything inside a “box” was presumed destroyed.

When I reached a village within the “box”, the street had been replaced by a crater.

I slipped on the severed shank of a buffalo and fell hard into a ditch filled with pieces of limbs and the intact bodies of children thrown into the air by the blast.

The children’s skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. A small leg had been so contorted by the blast that the foot seemed to be growing from a shoulder.”

This was too much for even such a hardened reporter, because he adds: “I vomited.”

Is this what we envision and condone for the children of Baghdad because of operation “Shock and Awe” or its variants currently being planned?

Or take the account of British journalist Robert Fisk who reports for the London newspaper The Independent. Fisk, who has also seen the horror of war in many places, describes what he saw during the first Gulf war in 1991.

“On the road to Basra, ITV was filming wild dogs as they tore at the corpses of the Iraqi dead. Every few seconds a ravenous beast would rip off a decaying arm and make off with it over the desert in front of us, dead fingers trailing through the sand, the remains of the burned military sleeve flapping in the wind.”

But we are not shown this, we are not told this. Because if people saw for themselves the kinds of things that reporters on the scene see (in Fisk’s words “the filth and obscenity of corpses”) no one would ever again agree to support a war unless a far, far higher humanitarian standard was met than the vague justifications currently in circulation.

Despite all the antiseptic language about surgical strikes and collateral damage, this is what war looks like up close. This is what will be done in our names. However quick the actual fighting might be, the ghastly effects of the devastation will remain for at least a lifetime. I don’t know how to end this better than to quote Fisk again: “No one says sorry after war. No one acknowledges the truth of it. No one shows you what we see. Which is how our leaders and our betters persuade us–still–to go to war.”

MANO SINGHAM is a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Email: msingham@cwru.edu

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
January 17, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: No Woman, No Cry
Kathleen Wallace
Hijacking the Struggles of Others, Elizabeth Warren Style
Robert Hunziker
The Rumbling Methane Enigma
Frank Joyce
Will the Constitution Fail Again?
Andrew Levine
Biden Daze
Pete Dolack
Claims that the ‘NAFTA 2’ Agreement is Better are a Macabre Joke
Vijay Prashad
Not an Inch: Indian Students Stand Against the Far Right
Ramzy Baroud
Sealed Off and Forgotten: What You Should Know about Israel’s ‘Firing Zones’ in the West Bank
Norman Solomon
Not Bernie, Us. Not Warren, Us. Their Clash Underscores the Need for Grassroots Wisdom
Ted Rall
America’s Long History of Meddling in Russia
David Rosen
The Irregulators vs. FCC: the Trial Begins
Jennifer Matsui
The Krown
Joseph Natoli
Resolutions and Obstacles/2020
Sarah Anderson
War Profiteering is Real
James McFadden
The Business Party Syndicate
Ajamu Baraka
Trump Prosecutors Make Move to Ensure that Embassy Protectors are Convicted
David Swanson
CNN is Trash
Rev. William Alberts
Finally a Christian Call for Trump’s Removal
Dave Lindorff
The ERA Just Got Ratified by Virginia, the Needed 38th State!
W. T. Whitney
Mexico Takes Action on Coup in Bolivia and on CELAC
Steve Early
How General Strike Rhetoric Became a Reality in Seattle 
Jessicah Pierre
Learning From King’s Last Campaign
Mark Dickman
Saint Greta and the Dragon
Jared Bernstein - Dean Baker
Reducing the Health Care Tax
Clark T. Scott
Uniting “Progressives” Instead of Democrats
Nilofar Suhrawardy
Trump & Johnson: What a Contrast, Image-wise!
Ron Jacobs
Abusing America’s Children—Free Market Policy
George Wuerthner
Mills Are Being Closed by National Economic Trends, Not Environmental Regulations
Basav Sen
Nearly All Americans Want Off of Fossil Fuels
Mark Ashwill
Playing Geopolitical Whack-a-Mole: The Viet Nam Flag Issue Revisited
Jesse Jackson
New Hope for One of America’s Poorest Communities
Binoy Kampmark
Harry and Meghan Exit: The Royal Family Propaganda Machine
Ralph Nader
Trump: Making America Dread Again!
Rob Okun
A Call to Men to join Women’s March
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
We All Need to Be Tree Huggers Now
Tom Stephens
The New York Times’ Delusions of Empire
Jill Richardson
Why Do We Have School Lunch Debt at All?
Julian Rose
Fake-Green Zero Carbon Fraud
Louis Proyect
The Best Films of 2019
Graham Peebles
Education: Expanding Purpose
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: Into Kosovo
Colin Todhunter
Gone Fishing? No Fish but Plenty of Pesticides and a Public Health Crisis
Julian Vigo
Can New Tech Replace In-Class Learning?
Wim Laven
Message to Trump Supporters: Sorry
Gaither Stewart
The Bench: the Life of Things
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail