From The Sunday Times, Michael Smith reports today [link] on a new briefing that appears to show that pre-war bombings in Iraq did occur, and it is an American General who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war who is quoted.
The briefing outlines the time frame (beginning mid-2002) and strategy used (number of missions, type of bombs, and target selection).
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.
The nine months of allied raids “laid the foundations” for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
Smith states that if these air raids exceeded the response required (and allowed by UN) to maintain no-fly zones, then it shows that the US and UK have acted illegally.
Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17, 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.
This further strengthens the legitimacy of the DSM, which described the tactic of increased air raids to put pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime.
If true, the briefing shows that the US used these air raids not only to provoke Saddam, but to ease their way once the real or legitimate war began.
Also, the wording shows that the US was aware of the legalities of increased air raids, and so carried them out under the auspices of protection of ethic minorities.
Well, Bush is preparing for the same sort of thing with Iran, now that a fundamentalist version of himself has been elected President of Iran over the relatively moderate Rafsanjani (thanks in part to Bush’s denunciation of the Iranian election process). When will the US begin “secretly” bombing Iran? Not if, but when.
And the revelation of this information, years after it actually happened, brings up a further set of questions:
(1) Why didn’t the American or European media publicise this?
(2) How do you keep bombings of this scale a “secret” without the willing blindness of the press who are supposed to inform the public?
(3) What will the role of the media be in fabricating the pretence for the coming US attack on Iran? Will they report it honestly or be part of carrying out the plan?
(4) Will the Congress fulfill its consitutional obligation to demand an enquiry into this? If not, why not?
And by the way, it’s no wonder Bush didn’t want the United States to sign the treaty making US soldiers and officials subject to the International Criminal Court–these secret bombings, like Nixon’s secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia, are a war crime if I ever heard of one.
Regarding the media complicity in this war, there have been many questions as to why things have not been reported, if the US and allies were using media and in some cases threatening them, etc.
The World Tribunal on Iraq is currently underway in Istanbul Turkey, with numerous NGOs and concerned world citizens holding hearings in attempt to identify what is truly happening in Iraq. They are attempting to consolidate those stories that have been reported in non-mainstream media organizations or have been rumoured or word-of-mouth only.
One of the sessions is on “The Accountability of the Media,” and the presentation by David Miller on the media/journalistic coverage of Iraq was particularly eye-opening for myself.
He bluntly stated that the US used journalists and media outlets as a weapon of war – termed ‘information dominance’. Miller wrote, “Thus the media are not there to be manipulated or influenced but to be used or neutralised.”
He wrote further that the US used various ‘carrot and stick’ methods to either reward or threaten journalists/media orgs.
This is not the first time we’ve read of journalists being threatened or misused by US forces (Eason Jordan was the last to come out with such a statement.)
Miller’s is the only presentation I’ve had a chance to read. It’s very troubling. I’m not sure what this means for those outside the Tribunal, though. The US has already stated it does not consider anything that comes from these hearings valid.
Why didn’t the American or European media publicise this?
Well, they did. At least, the BBC, CBC, and probably the Guardian. There was a noticeable spike in belligerence going on in Iraq and some of the media did in fact report on these sorties. I know that at least one article i read suggested that these could very well be ‘softening up’ the air defences in preparation for an invasion.
like the DSM this is simply proof of what we knew was happening already. The question really is whether there are legal actions that can be taken now that the proof is available.
..this was happening during the run up to the Iraq war. The MSM was in bed with the administration big time and would report tiny snippets of bad news on page A14 and bury the bad bits in the 5th paragraph.
Also you would have had to get this news from the US Military as they were the ones doing the bombing. They would probably release this on a Friday at 7pm before a big holiday so the news would get overshadowed by some big anti-Iraq speech on Sunday.
The principle targets, as i recall, were radar hardware and communications infrastructure. Not exactly missions protecting the ethnic minorities, but exactly the right targeting in preparation for invasion and protection at invasion time of close air support, especially choppers.
None of these radar and comms targets would have been easy targets for bombardment at the time of invasion. Though they could have been probably taken out just prior to invasion.
One main tactic was provoking radar lock-ons from the ground – followed by the take-out of mobile radar. Missions were backed up by monitoring of comms traffic from the air during these provocations, whihc would have revealed the comms ‘hubs’ for later take-out.
The main strategy of the 21.000 sorties appears to have been a fairly complete degrading of Iraqi ground-air defence.
And lest we forget another Bush/Blair lie, the United Nations never mandated or authorized enforcement or the creation of a “No Fly Zone” in Iraq, or the subsequent bombings.
In fact the French were asked to participate in this and refused because of a lack of UN mandate or cover to do so.
Pax
How secret?
We discussed the bombings online. The discussions were
part of the pro-war argument. They complained that the Iraqis were hitting the US & British planes with
anti-aircraft fire. There were sorties over the no-fly zones and it was being reported.
There were interviews in Baghdad and citizens talked about
the bombings in late 2002 and early 2003.
It’s secret because it was not in the headlines or on
CNN.
It was no secret – like others have stated upthread, there was coverage of the bombings. But how many of us releazed the entire scope of the situation? And now that the memos have revealed what many of us theorized, as we’re learning more, the entire scope of the plan to go after Iraq that is now emerging appears to me to be the secret.
And regarding the media, what concerns me is how complicit they were in the entire affair. It seems, looking at it after the fact, that they failed massively in their duties. Whether this was due to methods of silence or negligence I’ve no idea (but expect it to be revealed). I do know that journalists have ethical and legal constraints as well during times of war. They may very well be in serious trouble if things progress along war crime lines.
These air attacks were illegal, a violation against a
sovereign state and they really were not played up
in the media. It was always, “Saddam Hussein is a
threat, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.” It would be interesting
to research the media coverage leading up to the
illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2005 to see just how
much coverage these bombings did get.
The MSM was awed by power, salivating over the bombing
of Baghdad, I remember it well.