the limping messenger

PEACE IS DELIVERED FROM THE AIR be it in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya by all the world and local power air forces and when it rains down on the ground and people, be they terrorists, or collateral victims, be they combatants or non-combatants, civilians or non-civilians, women and children, elderly or in their prime age, they will be left with destruction and death and from a safe distance this truth is calling us:

“You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb it into peace.”

It is a sentence from an academic study on aerial bombardment and how come that we fail to classify aerial bombardment as an act of state-terror:

“Strategic terror: the politics and ethics of aerial bombardment” by Beau Grosscup, published in the year 2006.

It is one of many studies on the failure of aerial bombardment as a means to bring peace. I selected a series of citations from this book and will spread it for weeks to come, to help raising a debate, where there hardly is one. A debate on the futile strategy of high technology thrown from the sky that is thought of puting an end to war and misery. It is a call to start thinking and overcome the lethargy of so many people who are citizens of countries that do participate in throwing even more bombs onto scenes of high conflict, like the actual bombardments in Syria and Iraq. We see demonstrations for or against the streams of refugees produced by this type of ‘peace settlements’ that come from these war zones. We have seen tens of thousands in our streets demonstrating against horrible terrorist attacks in our own cities, but we see no demonstrations against aerial bombardments, by whoever claiming to end violence by perpetrating it. May these citations lead to questioning and thinking and actions here:

This link shows in which libraries of the world this book can be found: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/317072114

Citations:

“‘You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb it into peace.’1 Perception and deception are two constants in the human endeavor. Everyone engages in both, it is to be hoped more in the former than the latter. While the former can be constructive, deception too often leads to disaster for oneself and others. In the political world, purposeful deception is done for self-aggrandizement and advantage, also often to the detriment of others. Indeed, when powerful people in possession of deadly weapons act on policies based on deception, they dramatically and dishonestly affect the lives and aspirations of millions of people. In the politicized world of terrorism, deception is rampant and to some degree accepted as part of the terrain. If the average citizen ‘knows’ anything about terrorism it is that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ In this apparently innocuous statement, often said in a matter-of-fact and resigned manner, there is an explicit expectation of deceit. Yet, in political practice there is only hysteria and indignation when our ‘freedom fighters’ are called terrorists or when others deem our designated ‘terrorists’ to be ‘freedom fighters.’ Both scenarios illustrate the ‘politically loaded’ essence of terrorism and the stake all have in somehow convincing themselves and others that they are on the ‘right’ or ‘righteous’ side of a terrorism/counter-terrorism divide.”

[Grosscup, Beau. 2006. Strategic terror: the politics and ethics of aerial bombardment. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: SIRD. ; p. 177. ]

“Theoretically, for strategic bombers of whatever stripe, the distinction between civilian and military targets does not ‘strategically’ exist since the Geneva Accords permit tactics deemed militarily necessary to win. Thus when the distinction is trumpeted it usually is at the start of a war and obviously done for political convenience and advantage. Yet, the longer a conflict persists, the pressure increases on the military command to produce a victory. The result has been a pattern in which over the course of any war, any pretense of a distinction between military and civilian targets is dropped. Direct bombing of civilians in their neighborhoods, villages, homes, schools, hospitals, shopping malls and religious sites occurs to the point where indiscriminate or wanton carpet bombing in ‘free fire zones’ ‘boxes’ or ‘areas’ containing entire villages has become the norm. The US military reportedly continued this tradition in Operation Matador, the bombing of Iraqi villages into rubble on the Iraq–Syria border in mid-May 2005.” [Ibid.; p. 180.]

“The second premise pertains to the issue of intent. Throughout the history of strategic bombing the mantra has been ‘Civilians become casualties because terrorists intend them to’ or ‘Conversely, civilians die from our bombs but it is not our intention.’ They are all ‘targeting mistakes’ or, as Ted Koppel likes to say, ‘the unfortunate accidents of war.’8 Yet, by the very strategy and weaponry they choose to prosecute war, the strategic bombers know they will kill and injure many civilians. For example, purposely targeting military targets in urban or congested areas is standard practice in contemporary bombing campaigns. Even doing so as precisely as possible, the imprecision of precision bombing, together with the level of dispersion and lethality of modern ordnance, guarantees that civilian casualties will occur.” [Ibid.; p. 180.]

“In the same breath with which they utter their ‘no intent’ disclaimer, bombing planners announce their intention to minimize civilian casualties. They repeatedly and proudly do so under the presumption that in war minimizing civilian deaths is the ‘best one can expect.’ Purportedly, this ‘truth’ sets them apart from terrorists, and is therefore a laudable goal. Yet, implicit in the intent to minimize civilian casualties is the intent to cause civilian casualties. If this were not so, announcing the intent to try and minimize civilian casualties would make no sense. It does become logical if the real intent behind the strategic bombers’ declaration is to seek political and moral advantage, particularly over those assumed to be intending to ‘maximize’ civilian casualties. It may be the distinction between those who say they intend to minimize civilian casualties and those who don’t say it that helps to separate terrorism from other forms of violence. But this is not a delineation the strategic bombers make.” [Ibid.; p. 181.1.]

“To say that the civilian deaths from aerial bombardment are unintentional is sophistry, because if there is a probability that the bombs will hit civilian targets, then ipso facto the civilian deaths are not unintentional. This is tantamount to saying that a drunk driver who did not intend to kill someone in an ‘accident’ should be set free for lacking of such intention … aerial bombardment always already intends to kill civilians, despite the best intentions of military planners.” [Ibid.; p. 181.2.]

“Since Vietnam, the bombing nations and the United States in particular have also been intent on obfuscating the numbers of enemy civilian casualties, as in ‘it is our intention not to do body counts.’ Invoking a multi-faceted system of rationales indicates a determined intent to escape the terrorism label. Finally, the strategic bombers have always intended to conduct ‘precision’ bombing, an intention not yet realized. Still, the intent remains and in the continuing experiment to determine if air power alone can win wars, it is intended and expected civilians will continue to die.” [Ibid.; p. 184.]

“In a climate in which terrorism is such a ‘politically loaded’ concept, so vulnerable to manipulation, and with great potential to separate self and other on moral terms, it make sense for those who dominate the discourse to seek advantage. Indeed, the great lengths to which the strategic bombers go to escape the terrorism label underscores the political nature of their mission. In this regard, the Bush Administration’s War on Terrorism is the latest example of a bombing nation seeking to monopolize the terrorism discourse in order to give political cover to its own terrorism. Other national leaders from across the political spectrum understand this and have raced to be on the ‘right’ side of President Bush’s constructed political divide between ‘us’ and the ‘terrorists.’ As always, in this ‘war’ being on the ‘right’ side means colluding with the powerful, seeking political shelter from their wrath until a shift in the power dynamics provides room for independent or oppositional positioning. Like the USA, the other members of the current ‘family of nations’ and their often troublesome ‘second cousins’ such as Pakistan, China, India and Indonesia also have a policy of state terror, one increasingly implemented through strategic bombing. They are the same nations who then cry ‘foul’ or ‘terrorism’ when others follow their example.” [Ibid.; p. 186.]

“Taking this approach is particularly useful when considering aspects of strategic bombing. First, it means understanding that anyone can dismiss civilian bombing deaths as ‘unintended loss of life,’ ‘accidents’ and ‘mistakes.’ It means knowing that anyone can claim the other side is terrorist while the bombing self is not. Most important, it means comprehending that the validity of both above claims does not necessarily depend on any factual basis. Nor does it depend on whether the results of the West’s ‘precision’ bombing are any different from the other side’s terrorism. In the end, what passes as ‘truth’ depends upon who can enforce their political agenda, their denials and claims in public discourse and public policy. Throughout the course of their strategic bombing, the Western ‘family of nations’ has been doggedly successful at doing just that. Second, it must be decided if the distinction between terrorism and strategic bombing that rests on direct versus indirect targeting is meaningful and to whom? If it is not meaningful to the thousands of bombing victims and millions more who are potential victims, then what is the point of insisting on a distinction that is fraudulent to a majority of fellow human beings just for short-term political advantage?” [Ibid.; p. 188.1.]

“Finally, the issue is not whether war causes civilian casualties. It does and with the lethality and dispersion effects of air power and the changing nature of war itself, civilian casualties are likely to increase rather than diminish.28 Indeed, it may be that ‘war is terrorism’ and any distinction between the two should be abandoned. This is unlikely to happen so long as the powerful, particularly the bombing nations, profit politically, morally and militarily from the distinction. Maybe the best that is possible at this time is to do what this book attempts, to chip away at the Western monopoly on the terrorism discourse, hoping to expose the dangerous deceptions upon which it is based.” [Ibid.; p. 188.2.]

“Too many citizens and powerful elites are wedded to the imperial and privileged mantra that ‘might makes right’ and view the world through the lens of the ‘good versus evil’ or ‘self/other’ divide. Unless their worldview is challenged with purpose and effect, the destiny of the human condition will remain firmly in the hands of strategic bombers who are under strict instruction from their political mentors to do ‘whatever it takes.’ For certain, that means a future in which more strategic terror will rain from the sky.” [Ibid.; p. 190.]