From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Avoidance of Civilan Casualties (Re: SAM ultimatum )
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:24:42 GMT

In article <726747659.19268@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Don McGregor (mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
>: >If history is any guide, they won't be particularly shy about civilian
>: >casualties either.
>: >
>:  Direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War were one of the lower totals
>:  in recent wars.  The USAF was quite careful to avoid bombing civilian
>:  targets, and the army did not fight in any built-up civilian areas.
>
>But they did deliberately bomb civillian infrastructure (water
>distribution, sewage works, power supply) with a view to making conditions
>for civilians intolerable knowing full well that it would be likely
>to indirectly cause hundreds to thousands of deaths.

	The challenge is to distinguish between a civilian infrastructure
	and a military one.  No country, not even the Soviet Union, was
	able build completely independent infrastructures.  A road or a
	bridge capable of carrying military traffic also carries civilian
	traffic and vice versa.  The military and the civilian community
	use the same power generating stations, water purification plants
	and so on.  By forcing the military back on its independent short
	term systems and wearing them out, its ability to sustain battle
	is greatly eroded.

	We have to distinguish between civilians being affected and
	being deliberately targetted.  The theory of terror bombing
	developed by Douhet et al was largely discredited by bombing
	campaigns in Britain and Germany and it is generally considered
	a waste of ammunition.  It is doubtful that civilians were
	deliberately targetted but it is certain that they were affected.

	There were indeed mistakes in targetting, which, given the sortie
	rate and pressures on interpretation, are understandable but not
	excusable.  The same goes for equipment failures.
>
>A quote from a friend of mine who works for a defence analysis company
>which supplies much information to the UK press
>
>"There is a notable assessment which was done by the US census just
>after the war which tried to estimate how many Iraqi civilians died
>due to the US destruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure (through
>precision bombing of bridges, power stations, and water supplies, etc).
>This report was squashed and the author fired. I think the figure was
>in the order of hundreds of thousands dead.  I think a more recent
>report by an international agency said on the order of 50,000 may
>have died (oops thats 50 000 children) as a result of Iraq ( a food
>importer) being knocked from the twentieth century into the Middle
>Ages. "
>

	There is no denying that civilians have died as a result
	of the bombing campaign.  Much of the damage to the
	infrastructure could have been made good if the Ba'athists
	had stepped away from their claims, made peace and received
	international aid to save lives and rebuild the infrastructure.
	(Naive of me, I know.)

	As of now, the Ba'athists are still playing games with peoples lives,
	including their own civilians, to intoxicate themselves with
	power.  Remember, these are the people who delivered 3,000
	gas shells into Kurdish territory in a single barrage.  They
	are the people who have harassed the Red Cross out of the country
	and continue to harass Mennonite Relief and the American Friends
	Service Committee.

	Alec Chambers