U.S. military airstrikes significantly increased in Iraq

[ECH1969]

American forces have dramatically increased airstrikes in Iraq during the past five months, a change of tactics that may foreshadow how the United States plans to battle a still-strong insurgency while reducing the number of U.S. ground troops serving here.

A review of military data shows that daily bombing runs and jet-missile launches have increased by more than 50 percent in the past five months, compared with the same period last year. Knight Ridder's statistical findings were reviewed and confirmed by American Air Force officials in the region.

The numbers also show that U.S. forces dropped bombs on more cities during the last five months than they did during the same period a year ago. Air strikes a year ago struck at least nine cities, but were mostly concentrated in and around the western city of Fallujah. This year, U.S. warplanes have struck at least 18 cities.

The spike in bombings comes at a crucial time for American diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Officials in Washington have said that the situation in Iraq is improving, creating expectations that at least some American troops might be able to withdraw over the next year.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/world/14098080.htm

[lovuian]

1. Target practice for Iran...

the bombing will be right on the borders too...

[arcane1]

2. presumably, innocent Iraqi deaths increased accordingly

but hey, at least we're not "sending the wrong message to the Arab world" :puke:

[Roland99]

3. Military Confirms Surge in Airstrikes (WaPo from Dec. 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122301473.html


And even moving to more airstrikes and the US taking somewhat more of a backseat to Iraqi troops, US soldiers are still dying at an average of >2/day.

[central scrutinizer]

4. taking a page from the Clinton/Yugoslavia playbook

i.e. long distance bombing and killing of civilians while keeping US troops thousands of feet in the air to minimize the US casualties. Zero danger of being shot down since Iraq has no airforce or anti-aircraft weapons.

[rodeodance]

5. Irag will be rubble soon. But keeps the US troops dieing down. Hate

to say this-- but it is true.

[Inland]

13. Sure. Short run, fewer US dead. Long run, a ruined country that hates us

I can't imagine any other result.

[chelsea0011]

6. Keep bombing. Look how it worked in Vietnam.

[mom cat]

10. Bingo.

[NYC]

7. Does this have to do with AC 130s being sent to Iraq?

There was an article about a week ago.

This article didn't mention AC 130s.

[HereSince1628]

8. It's not common practice to bomb cities/facilities you control

there is a message there.

Even in close air support you drop bombs on enemy position where the risk is too high to use ground troops to take positions.


This is really an admission of having lost the control in detail that the word occupation implies.

Rummy and the US military have lost either or both the ability or willingness to control geography with ground forces, and the enemy has grown in profile to the point where they are worth the cost of a smart bomb.

[leftchick]

9. more dead innocents

:cry:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. America has officially listed everyone in Iraq a terrorist... and if some

of them aren't fighting us now, they will be fighting us tomorrow.

[bigdarryl]

12. Air strikes

Who are we bombing?