Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:09:59 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         This can not be considered a "nintendo" tactic, merely sane military
>> thinking.  The last think I'd want (as a military officer) is some fool
>> cameraperson flashing their lights on me as I land on the beach (witness
>> Somalia).
>
>Again, that was a brokered press event. WOM would not have spread
>a scoop that big to that many people.

        During the Gulf War there were journalists asking "When and where are
the Marines going to land?"

        Now, if one of them actually found out, do you think they'd restrain
themselves from hiring a boat/car and racing to that place for "exclusive"
pictures?

        All Saddam (or more likely, one of his generals) would have to do is
tune in to CNN to find out where to send the reinforcements.  (They did use CNN
as a source of information :)

        It was easy in WWII, since by the time the reporters story got home and
printed, the action was long over.  Even in Vietnam it took a few hours.  Now
we have live satellite feeds.  The risks are simply too great.
        This, of course, does not preclude *after the fact* reporting.  Which
is sufficient for the watchdog role the press seems to want to play.

>>         I think the CBS broadcaster (the one who was captured) learned why
>> journalists should not go tromping around on their own.
>
>I'm a journalism student, and a semi-pro journalist ($10 a story- big
>whoop) and if I was on deadline and in Saudi, I'd probably do something
>similar. It's the nature of the business.

        Would you hold the military liable?  Would your family?  There's a
difference between letting people roam "at their own risk" and letting them
broadcast troop movements and impending actions.
        The press does not have a right to know everything that is going on.

>> >muzzling of the press in the way that it occured was designed to dehumanise
 t
>> >suffering of the Iraqis and the fact that smart bombs were not that good and
>> >that they were not the majority of the munitions dropped over Iraq.
>
>>         The Iraqis suffering was only a little less apparent than the
 sufferin
>> of the Kuwaitis.  Nor was the suffering of the Iraqis our concern.  Nor was
 th
>> suffering of the Germans, Italians, or Japanese during WWII.
>>         In fact, the suffering of aggressors, is IMO, a good thing.
>
>Well, yes and no. Having the top brass of the Ba'athist party suffer?
>I'll sign up. Having the soldiers suffer? Except for German soldiers
>in Nuremburg, 1945, all soldiers are expected to follow orders to the
>best of their ability. Therefore, even though the invasion of Kuwait
>was not their idea, the soldiers of Iraq are due some suffering. Given
>the choice, I'd still rather nail a party official.

        Agreed.

>But when we get to the people of Iraq, whose only fault is following
>a totalitarian ruler who has bombs and guns and planes, when they
>only had shovels and rakes and implements of (minor) destruction -
>well, war is hell. However, a civilian population is not considered
>an allowable target by "gentleman's rules," and if we are trying to
>convince ourselves that this is a Just War, than we would have to
>play by gentleman's rules.

        We did.  War cannot be waged without civilian casualties.  We have
Napoleon to thank for that.

>We inflicted about 100,000 civilian casualties above and beyond
>those rules.

        The Iraqis themselves claim far fewer casualties, on the order of 7k.
And only 54k total for the war, including military.

>>         As far as smart bombs go, they were not a majority because B-52s do
 no
>> drop smart bombs.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that B-52s ran
>> bombing runs over Baghdad.
>
>Depends on how "Smart" you are dealing with. Even the "dumb bombs"
>the B-52 dropped in Vietnam to create an Arclight were dropped tight
>enough to rob you of oxygen, even if fire and shrapnel missed you.
>
>Even the dumb bombs had a fairly bad rating, considering what is> Brett'
>possible.

        I just want to dispel the images of WWII style bombing runs in
populated areas, with hundred-yard long paths of destruction to (try and) knock
out a factory.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU