In These Times's The ITT List was recently named one of the top 5 campaign blogs for its coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > July 17, 2007

Death from Above

For the Iraqi people, the surge in U.S. troops has meant more bombs dropping from the sky and a surge in deaths

By Brian Cook

On June 22, the Operation Iraqi Freedom website issued a press release that hyped a devastating blow against 17 al-Qaeda terrorists, who were gunned down by coalition attack helicopters at Khalis, Iraq, a small town outside of Baqouba. But when the BBC visited the town days later, the villagers told a different story. The men attacked by coalition forces were not al-Qaeda members, but local village guards, who only minutes earlier had been helping Iraqi police raid a suspect’s house. (It turned out to be a false alarm.) Eleven of the men were killed when U.S. helicopters suddenly appeared, raining missiles and heavy machine gunfire upon them. “It was like a battlefront, but with the fire going only in one direction,” one local witness said. “There was no return fire.”

These tragic deaths represent more than another sad chapter in the Pentagon’s Tolstoyan-length Book of Lies. At the same time Iraq has undergone a “surge” of an extra 28,000 U.S. troops, the country has experienced a surge in the number of U.S. bombs dropped on it. On June 11, the Associated Press’ Charles J. Hanley reported that in the first four and a half months of 2007, the U.S. Air Force dropped 237 bombs and missiles on Iraq, eight more than in all of 2006. (Those totals don’t include cannon rounds or rocket fire, nor any weaponry fired by Marine Corps aircraft.) It’s no surprise the number of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces has surged as well.

According to Iraq Body Count (IBC), a British anti war group that tabulates Iraqi civilian deaths reported by the media, civilian deaths by air strikes rose steadily toward the end of 2006, before increasing by 25 percent this year, to an average of more than 50 a month. Due to its passive methodology, IBC’s numbers—while valuable in capturing trends—are likely conservative. Johns Hopkins University epidemiologists, writing in the Lancet last October, reported that coalition air strikes caused 13 percent of all violent civilian deaths between March 2003 and June 2006. At the time the survey ended, which was before the escalation of air strikes in late 2006, and the even greater escalation in 2007, the estimate stood at more than 78,000 Iraqis killed by coalition aircraft.

The situation in Afghanistan might be worse. As Hanley noted, the 237 munitions dropped in Iraq pale to the 929 bombs and missiles dropped in Afghanistan in the first four and a half months of this year. That number does not include the bombs dropped on June 18 on a madrassa—claimed by the military to be an “al-Qaeda hideout”—that killed seven Afghan children. Nor does it include the bombs dropped four days later on the village of Kunjakak that claimed the lives of at least 25 civilians, including nine women and three babies.

That last attack, the coup de grace of a 10-day period that saw coalition forces kill 90 civilians, prompted the normally pliant Afghan President Hamid Karzai to hold a press conference in which he castigated NATO and U.S. forces for treating Afghan civilian lives as “cheap.” In response, a NATO spokesman promised the coalition would “do better.”

The promise held for five days, until coalition forces responded to a Taliban ambush outside the southern town of Hyderabad by bombing several compounds in the village, resulting in 45 civilian deaths. That raised the number of Afghan civilians killed by coalition forces this year, mostly through airstrikes, to more than 300, which the Afghan government, the AP and aid organizations all report is higher than the number of civilians ruthlessly killed by the Taliban.

If it wasn’t clear before, it is shamefully obvious now that using massive air power to combat guerilla insurgencies isn’t merely ineffective or counterproductive in fighting terrorism. It is terrorism and, like all its forms, it must be opposed.

Brian Cook is an associate editor at In These Times.

More information about Brian Cook
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    This article was billed as a response to a “hyped” Operation Iraqi Freedom press release.

    Jumping to the conclusion: “These tragic deaths represent more than another sad chapter in the Pentagon’s Tolstoyan-length Book of Lies.”

    Kind of makes me suspect the truth may lie somewhere between this view and the press release.

    The “evidence” presented here?

    • The BBC — Hardly an unbiased source for news relating to either the war or the US.

    • The villagers — Telling the truth? Were they really villagers? Where do their sympathies lie?  As we should have known before taking on this adventure you can’t tell the players…

    • “According to Iraq Body Count (IBC), a British anti war group...” — No comment needed on this one.
    --------------------------

    So we have third hand info from both sides on this event.

    Ah, yes. What is Truth?

    Why wait to convict if it fits what you wish to “prove”?

    Posted by whattheheck on Jul 17, 2007 at 8:31 AM

    Not only are the statements and sources reported in this article quite dubious, as WTH has pointed out, there is a quite simple solution to the problem. 

    The Geneva Conventions prescribe rules for conducting warfare.  If the terrorists would follow these rules, such as wearing uniforms and avoiding civilians during conduct of military operations, they, the terrorists, could virtually eliminate any confusion leading to civilian deaths.

    Perhaps Cook and ITT could use their influence with their friends, the terrorists, to follow existing international rules?  Convincing President Bush to lay-off of the head-hunters and practitioners of human sacrifice is obviously not going to work.

    Posted by scorp on Jul 18, 2007 at 1:18 PM

    No proof? They identified what was left of the men as local village guards. Not Al Qaeda..  It’s amazing the USA can murder thousands of civillians and it’s the Iraqi’s fault… They don’t want the USA there. Leave. Duh.

    Posted by realityhurts on Jul 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM

    Just more lies from the USA. Almost NO Al Qaeda in Iraq. Just a pathetic oil theft by the Bush Oil Regime.

    Posted by realityhurts on Jul 18, 2007 at 5:03 PM

    realityhurts,

    ...and you know this is the reality because....(?)

    • “They identified....”

    Who are they? Are “They” reliable?

    • This was “murder” because… What?

    Are you saying our troops killed they for the sheer joy of it?

    • “...more lies from the USA. Almost NO Al Qaeda in Iraq,”

    And you know this by your inside info?

    You “know” no more than what you choose to believe.

    I hope you are never on a jury.

    Posted by whattheheck on Jul 19, 2007 at 7:17 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 10 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Brian Cook
Popular Discussions