The picture of war in Iraq as painted by Abdullah Al-Arian in the Feb. 10 Chronicle is truly chilling. Fortunately, it isn't realistic. A search of The New York Times web page and then the entire world wide web for the story Al-Arian cited, the one about the Pentagon's secret plans for bombing Iraq thousands of times a day for 60 days, turned up nothing.
The United States isn't trying to annihilate Iraq, but to oust Saddam's Baath party and help build a more stable nation. The U.S. has learned from past mistakes and intervention in Iraq means following through all the way. Many Americans will lead the rebuilding process after the war is over, and it wouldn't make much sense to expect the survivors of a 60,000-bomb hell to follow the lead of those responsible for their suffering. Could anyone really expect the Pentagon to be that thick-headed?
Al-Arian assumes that the United States can dismiss civilians deaths caused by such an attack as collateral damage. Collateral damage, however, is more than just a "convenient little government phrase," and it actually has its roots in this thing called the Geneva Convention. Geneva protocol, interestingly enough, prohibits "indiscriminate attacks," which are described (among other ways) as "employing a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be directed at a specific military objective." Needless to say, this includes bombing cities just for fun.
The United Stated does not run terror campaigns. Not only is it against U.S. interest to bomb villages in Iraq, it is against international laws of war. It may be naive to expect that the laws of war are never broken on lower levels, but do not expect to see our leaders disregard them on such a mass scale.
Nothing is to be gained from bombing Iraqi civilians, most of whom are praying for the U.S. to end the war that has been waged against them by the Baath party for the last 12 years.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.