Juan Cole covered this too.

Might I call your attention to some of my finer work...posted in JUNE!!!

Fred Kaplan: "This leads to the critical question: How, in recent months, are the Iraqi people perceiving the U.S. military presence? How are they gauging the chance of success? Do they welcome the troops, or do they want them to leave?"

C'mon, Fred. Please don't make us wait. I need someone of your rare abilities to state the painfully obvious right now.

And, by the way -- that was three "critical" questions, not just one.

The more likely explanation, Kaplan thinks, is that airstrikes are being used to keep U.S. casualties down despite the fact that standard counterinsurgency doctrine recommends against operations that result in large number of civilian casualties

How come the answer can't be a combination of both? Prior to the Surge, America didn't use airstrikes because the goal of American troops in Iraq wasn't counterinsurgency. But now that General Petraeus is leading the Surge with counterinsurgency as the goal, we're using airstrike support of the troops because precision attacks from the air have gotten so precise, we don't need a large ground attack anymore. We can achieve our same goals with a small ground force attack combined with a large air support. This is a validation of Rumsfeld's view that a large army in Iraq is not needed due to our superior technology.
Since General Petraeus himself wrote the counterinsurgency manual, he understands this and that's why he's supporting the large use of air strikes. This also refutes Kaplan's adage "that it's easy to kill people, hard to kill a particular person." Our precision air attacks have made the adage obsolete.

Al the chickenhawk is a military expert. hahaha

Mmm, I smell roasting chicken!

Ok, I give up. "Al" isn't a spoof, and he isn't a bot. He's clearly a professional commenter, paid to work from home and so relaxed about his job pushing boilerplate right wing positions that he's actually bored with it.

Have you ever seen a heated post? A response, at all? No, like it's *policy*. This - person - is stamping out posts like a factory worker 7 hours into his shift. Paid flunkie, who doesn't even care.

Airstrikes are being used because the Air Force is under tremendous budgetary pressure to remain relevant in the current operational environment. How do you justify spending your entire budget on the F-22 and the F-35 if they can't be used right now? See this discussion over at Defense Tech:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003807.html#comments

Bush and the GOP will make-up and say anything about this damn war. I mean, suddenly we find out there are more private security troops in Iraq than US military - American has no idea what Bush and Cheney are doing over there.

The ugliest, most corrupt war in history. The US has done much to help Bush keep the war of the frontpages - and for helping Bush - they get a shield law. Miller was not a "for public" advocate, she was a "FOR BUSH" how now gets a sheild law to tell laws.

I can see why congress's poll numbers are lower then Bush's. Is anyone going to turn out for Hillary - cause you can't trust the Clinton's any more the Bush.

She could win the nomination, but still lose because there is STILL all that lying she did about the Marc Rich scandal, the cherry-pick of the Iraq war, same as Bush and Sandy Berger.

Hillary WON'T leave Iraq untill 2013?
Is she really going to end this war - it doesn't look like it to me.

The end of communism in Cuba would reveal "horrors still unknown to the rest of the world," Bush said[.]

Where have we seen this type of rhetoric before . . . let me see . . . oh, yeah, 'the invasion of Iraq will reveal massive stockpiles of WMDs and active nuclear programs still unknown to the rest of the world.'

Speaking of bombing, apparently Bush is considering bombing the one group that has emerged from the mess in Iraq with something like a civil society intact: the Kurds

(via Eschaton)

airstrikes are being used to keep U.S. casualties down — despite the fact that standard counterinsurgency doctrine recommends against operations that result in large number of civilian casualties

Thing is, Petreus isn't really using the airstrikes directly in his counterinsurgency campaign--he's using them on the Iraqis.

Petreus is proving himself to be a true master of counterinsurgency tactics in his thus-far successful campaign against American opposition to the war.

Use of airstrikes directly in the counterinsurgency campaign would probably be counterproductive under the conditions presently prevailing.

It appears the US military is finally "taking the gloves off", a tactic long advocated by proponents of the war. I believe they expect to intimidate the general populace into witholding support and cover from insurgents. I can't imagine how this could go wrong.

I have no opinion overall on this, but one technical point is that it's not necessary that bombs get 10X more accurate to have a 10X increase in the number of bombings. First, there is the question of how you measure accuracy. Let's use radius, for example. It's certainly possible that halving the error radius (a 2X factor) increases the number of opportunities to bomb at acceptable risk of collateral damage by tenfold.

I'm not saying that this is what happened, just that the relationship between accuracy and bombing opportunities is likely to be non-linear.

Mr. Giuliani wrote in an article in Foreign Affairs, the policy journal: “Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors.�

No better description of Bush's ascendency and administration could be constructed.

rea: . . . his thus-far successful campaign against American opposition to the war.

Hmmmmm, Americans are increasingly against the war with each passing month, but Petraeus is being "successful" in his campaign against that growing opposition?

I do not think that the term "successful" means what you think it means.

rea: Petreus is proving himself to be a true master of counterinsurgency tactics . . .\

Presumably this "mastery" is why sniper attacks against US soldiers have quadrupled.

Wonder if Petraeus and the military are counting that increase in their analysis of violence levels or are, as usual, cooking the books to make Petraeus and Bush look slightly less incompetent.

Looks like the only thing Petraeus and Bush have mastered, with respect to combatting American opposition to the war, is the big lie.

No one can blame them for protecting themselves.

Just as no one can blame the Soviet forces from protecting themselves against Hungarian partisans during the 1956 uprising....

"How, in recent months, are the Iraqi people perceiving the U.S. military presence? How are they gauging the chance of success? Do they welcome the troops, or do they want them to leave?"

For fuck's sake, this is no longer a question.

– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).

The Iraqis hate our guts, and with good reason. If China invaded the US out of sheer greed, and leveled entire cities, how would YOU feel about it?

Of course, the precision of bombing has improved dramatically - Why, if they were to bomb here in this country, all Fox News viewers would be protected.

In Iraq, they merely "pinpoint" al-Jazeera.

I was very skeptical that Clinton could achieve his political goals in Bosnia and Kosovo solely by using air power. I thought at the time that air strikes cause so much collateral damage, and so little real military damage, that they are generally counterproductive. I was wrong.

It seems that air power really has gotten precise enough that it can be used to good effect even when there are lots of civilians around. Of course, there will be some collateral damage, as there was in the Balkans. But in the end, we achieved our goals there pretty much solely by using air power.

It seems that air power really has gotten precise enough that it can be used to good effect even when there are lots of civilians around. Of course, there will be some collateral damage, as there was in the Balkans. But in the end, we achieved our goals there pretty much solely by using air power.

That's a complete apples to oranges comparison. Our airstrikes in Bosnia/Kosovo were (i) not part of a counter-insurgency campaign, (ii) conducted largely against military forces and military/government installations, (iii) not in support of ground combat forces operating in densely populated urban neighborhoods and (iv) had an entirely different strategic aim (i.e., convincing the Milosevic government to back off, rather than subduing a native population resisting our aggressive occupation of their homeland).

There are volumes written about American over-reliance on air power which is, after all, only as good as your intelligence. The quality of intelligence depends on your people getting out of the Green Zone and figuring out what is going on. Air power without good intelligence is often cited as one of the key strategic flaws of the war in southeast Asia. It is no way to fight an insurgency or a guerrilla army that is hiding in the population. And the enemy in Iraq is much more complicated than in Vietnam.

No doubt we will find out the bombing of Iraq after the fall of Saddam was as strategically useful as the bombing of Vietnam. There are grown men and women playing games over there with no strategic end point.

If China invaded the US out of sheer greed, and leveled entire cities, how would YOU feel about it?

Amen. It's almost as if none of the wingnuts have ever watched their fav movie, /Red Dawn/.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22636940-663,00.html
Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 25, 2007 at 9:28 AM
"Bush offers to bomb Kurds"

Interesting title for a news story. If this mindset controls the White House for another four years we probably would see private "Contract Bombing Services" startups. It would be Blackwater flying F-16s. Milo Minderbinder would be proud.

If China invaded the US out of sheer greed, and leveled entire cities, how would YOU feel about it?

Well, I would hope that Americans wouldn't respond by killing each other.

As Al pointed out, one reason for more air strikes is more counter-insurgency operations. That's a key part of Petraeus' surge strategy.

I'm unclear on why Kaplan and Kevin Drum criticize airstrikes being used to keep U.S. casualties down. We should all be happy to keep US casualties down, particularly since the surge is also keeping Iraqi casualties down. That's right. Reports show a dramatic drop in Iraqi casualties. Of course, the drop in US and Iraqi casualties is related to an upswing in insurgent and al Qaeda casualties.

For all I know, Petraeus' strategy may be flawed. But, it's working so well at the moment, that those who carp sound unserious.

If only I had been able to use this tactic in the Bronx. After '09, no more Mr Nice Guy.

Well, I would hope that Americans wouldn't respond by killing each other.

Really? Should the collaborators just be allowed to live after helping the occupiers kill resisters?

You seem not to understand how occupation works.

It seems that air power really has gotten precise enough that it can be used to good effect even when there are lots of civilians around. Of course, there will be some collateral damage, as there was in the Balkans. But in the end, we achieved our goals there pretty much solely by using air power.

This is a completely irrelevant point. We weren't doing counterinsurgency in Kosovo, we were trying to force the Serbians to withdraw from the province and end their ethnic cleansing campaign. Precision air power was intended to allow bombers to take out critical dual-use infrastructure (power plants, telecommunications buildings, railroad depots, etc.)with minimal damage to surrounding civilian structures. What Petraeus is doing in Iraq is using it as a blunt-force tactical weapon to avoid having to put individual troops in harm's way.(BTW, this has been an ongoing issue in Afghanistan as well.) A squadron is taking fire from a couple of dudes in some apartment building? Bomb the building, count the bodies and claim you killed 30 insurgents. What you have in that case is not 30 dead insurgents, but 30 live new ones as friends, family and neighbors of the dead people vow vengeance against the US for their crime.

Now that's strategery.

Just a note to those who claim the "surge" is working. No it's not. The goal of the surge was never "stem US and Iraqi casualties for a few months." The goal of the surge was to provide security in order for the Iraqi parliament to reach some critical agreements on the structure of their government, oil development and sectarian reconciliation. None of that has happened. So while it's great that fewer soldiers are dying, it's completely beside the point in the larger context of the mission.

It's like claiming that the mission of a space shuttle launch is to bring much-needed emergency supplies to the international space station, and then calling the mission a success because the spacecraft lifted off without a hitch, but everyone on the space station is dead and the thing fell out of orbit and burned up.

ex-liberal, current-doofus: I'm unclear on why Kaplan and Kevin Drum criticize airstrikes being used to keep U.S. casualties down.

If we are really interested in keeping US casualties down, we'd pull our troops out of Iraq.

We should all be happy to keep US casualties down . . .

You would think, but then conservatives continually oppose the most productive method of keeping US casualties down: withdrawal.

. . . the surge is also keeping Iraqi casualties down. That's right. Reports show a dramatic drop in Iraqi casualties.

Reports by a mendacious military and general who have already proven they will cherry pick statistics and lie about violence in Iraq.

Has anyone confirmed whether the quadruple increase in sniper attacks has made its way into Pentagon and administration analyses of violence in Iraq?

It certainly hasn't made its way into thre brain matter of current-doofus.

Of course, the drop in US and Iraqi casualties is related to an upswing in insurgent and al Qaeda casualties.

Of course, you have no proof of a causal relationship.

For all I know, Petraeus' strategy may be flawed.

Since your knowledge is clearly limited and your use of that limited knowledge extremely flawed, this is a meaningless statement.

But, it's working so well at the moment . . .

Your opinion does not equal fact/reality.

Disputo: You seem not to understand how occupation works.

The commenter also must be unfamiliar with the US Civil War and white America's lynching of blacks.

ex-lib: I'm unclear on why Kaplan and Kevin Drum criticize airstrikes being used to keep U.S. casualties down.

down?

f.y.i.....last weekend, usa dead in iraq passed last year's total...and its not yet halloween..

2006: 822
2007: 834 (as of 10/24)

(icasualties.org)

there's no doubt..

2007 will set a new record for usa dead in iraq ...

heckofajob..

ex-lib: For all I know, Petraeus' strategy may be flawed. But, it's working so well at the moment, that those who carp sound unserious.

moment?

let's look at some...moments..

march of 2005...35-usa soldiers lost their lives in iraq....

but then it rose 50% the very next month...

.

31-usa soldiers died in march 2006...

yet it more than doubled the very next month...

.
june thru october of 2006...usa soldier deaths were below 100 each month...

yet in the 9-months following that streak...its hit OVER 100 more than HALF the time..

.
2006 set a new low for usa deaths in iraq..

yet 2007 will set a new record high..

.
why does the big picture hate america?

(Source: icasualties.org)

... particularly since the surge is also keeping Iraqi casualties down. That's right. Reports show a dramatic drop in Iraqi casualties.

Never one to miss an opportunity to post comments based entirely on the most obvious kinds of lies, are you?

This had been our bad habit since WWII, though they knew even back then that there was no strategic value to increased aerial strikes, unless it was close air support in combat. Now it's just used as a one size fits all solution when you don't want to risk ground troops.

I tell you, nothing aids the fight against terrorism than a few 500lbs. JDAMs. "We had to destroy the village to save it."

I get the feeling the increase in air strikes will coincide with a decrease in reports on civilian deaths. Kill every body and you're bound to kill a few bad guys.

The killing of civilians by US aerial bombardment distresses me. It angers me. My citizenship damns me.

Junebug and mr. irony, the surge really began halfway through 2007 when its reached its complement of extra soldiers. Yet, you're using the high casualty rate in the first half of 2007 as evidence that the surge isn't working.

Since the surge began, American and Iraqi casualties have consistently dropped, and by big amounts. So much so that Iraqi cemetary workers are complaining about being laid off.

How the fuck do you sleep at night? The ethnic cleansing has been a rousing success, dipshit. That article, by the way, references one Shi'ite cemetery, not the entire country.

And aerial warfare against a counter-insurgency is a sign of weakness, not strength.

You really are a deeply disturbed and flawed person. Reexamine your life and ask yourself if this is what you wanted to be when you grew up. I'm pretty sure if you are honest with yourself, you will be horrified by your own answers.

Since the surge began, American and Iraqi casualties have consistently dropped, and by big amounts.

Using air strikes to "swat flies" may save American lives, but with the declining Iraqi tolls makes one wonder about those "unlucky" Iraqis killed, maimed, etc. as "collaterial damages", "accidents of war", etc. Do they count or are they dropped down a proverbial "black hole"?

Ray Waldren: Using air strikes to "swat flies" may save American lives, but with the declining Iraqi tolls makes one wonder about those "unlucky" Iraqis killed, maimed, etc. as "collaterial damages", "accidents of war", etc. Do they count or are they dropped down a proverbial "black hole"?

Ray, please slow down. The surge, including air support, is saving Iraqi lives. Why? Because the insurgents have been murdering a hellish number of Iraqis. Reducing the effectiveness of the insurgents is saving far more lives than the collateral damages.

BTW if we withdrew immediately, as some recommend, most observers agree that there would be a far worse bloodbath in Iraq.

Some of you may believe that it's worse to see 10 Iraqis killed by American collateral damage than to see 1,000 Iraqis intentionally killed by terrorists. I'm sure the Iraqis don't agree.

Anyone who's truly concerned about Iraqi lives should be 100% in favor of the surge. The surge is better for the Iraqi people than any other real-world alternative.

junebug wrote: Never one to miss an opportunity to post comments based entirely on the most obvious kinds of lies, are you?

"ex-liberal" responded: Junebug and mr. irony, the surge really began halfway through 2007 when its reached its complement of extra soldiers.

No, the surge began when the additional numbers of troops started arriving; it was at full strength halfway through 2007 -- despite "ex-liberal"'s sad and predictable attempts to move the goalposts, and can not be sustained in any case, as troops are already leaving without being replaced.

Yet, you're using the high casualty rate in the first half of 2007 as evidence that the surge isn't working.

I, for one, am using the fact that the surge has failed to meet its goal of providing the baisis for Iraqi political reconciliation -- not to mention failign to meet most of the benchmarks Bush identified -- as proof it isn't working.

You, as predicted, are pointing to some halfassed notion of "progress" as evidience that the surge is working, to further your efforts on the Dolchstosslegende and provide political cover for your incompetent neocon cabal.

Since the surge began, American and Iraqi casualties have consistently dropped, and by big amounts.

Well, no, as we've covered, since the surge began, casualties increased, and of course the increased use of air power -- anathema to a working counterinsurgency strategy -- likely explains the reduction in American casualties. While welcoem, it's further evidence that Bush and the neocons subordinate national security (pursuing a real counterinsurgency strategy) to political goals (maintaining enough support for the war to dump the brewing disaster of Iraq into the lap of Bush's -- likely Deomcratic -- successor).

So yes, junebug, "ex-liberal" is never one to miss an opportunity to post comments based entirely on the most obvious kinds of lies. Indeed, the more obvious the lie, the more insulting it is to his betters here. "ex-liberal" simply refuses to engage in good-faith debate. Why Kevin's moderator(s) don't find "ex-liberal"'s pissing on the floor in here "sufficiently annoying" is a mystery.

....and "ex-liberal" at 1:25 PM proves my point for me.

ex-liberal, current-doofus: Anyone who's truly concerned about Iraqi lives should be 100% in favor of the surge. The surge is better for the Iraqi people than any other real-world alternative.

You haven't been living and thinking in the "real-world" for years.

That more people would die after withdrawal is a boogeyman dreamed up by conservatives like you to scare people into supporting Bush's continued failures in Iraq for fear of something worse and thus saving Bush from the ignominy of public acknowledgement of defeat of his policies that he so richly deserves.

Your's is a despicable strategy.

ex-liberal, current-doofus: Some of you may believe that it's worse to see 10 Iraqis killed by American collateral damage than to see 1,000 Iraqis intentionally killed by terrorists.

Insurgent does not equal terrorist no matter how many times you claim this equivalence.

And since the Iraqi government's soldiers and police are working with and under our command, except of course those who are betraying our trust, any killing they do is not collateral damage, but direct damage, as is the direct killing of opposing Iraqis by "coalition" troops, including American troops.

So the 10 to 1000 ratio is as bogus as the "logic" and "facts" you use and cite.

ex-liberal, current-doofus: The surge, including air support, is saving Iraqi lives.

A claim you cannot prove, since it relies on information from proven liars, the Pentagon, the Bush admininstration, and Petraeus.

There is a little ranch down in Texas that deserves the title of this column---BOMBS AWAY, just make sure he is at home.

anonymous: A claim [that the Iraqi death rate is down] you cannot prove, since it relies on information from proven liars, the Pentagon, the Bush admininstration, and Petraeus.

Not to mention information from the Associated Press and the Iraqi government. In fact, every organization I know of that measures monthly death rates in Iraq says that deaths are way down.

anonymous: Insurgent does not equal terrorist

That's why I used the word "terrorist" to describe people who are bombing civilian areas or shooting civilians suspected of cooperating with the US or the Iraqi government.

If China invaded the US out of sheer greed, and leveled entire cities, how would YOU feel about it?

Darryl McCullough: Well, I would hope that Americans wouldn't respond by killing each other.

Yes, because Americans never respond with intramural violence....need I remind anyone of the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War, in both of which Americans happily slaughtered each other in large numbers?

Face it, within five minutes the right-wingers and the rest of the authoritarian cultists would be lining up to collaborate with the occupiers so they could get the police state of their dreams.

That's why I used the word "terrorist" to describe people who are bombing civilian areas or shooting civilians suspected of cooperating with the US or the Iraqi government.

The US is bombing civilian areas. Is he really calling American airmen terrorists? Why, that's outrageoous. I demand a Congressional resolution condemning this loathsome and contemptible hate speech!

Stefan beat me to it, but I have a point of clarification: mercenaries in the employ of the US government have shot civilians irrespective of whether they're cooperating with the govenrment...does that make them terrorists in "ex-liberal"'s book too?

Face it, within five minutes the right-wingers and the rest of the authoritarian cultists would be lining up to collaborate with the occupiers so they could get the police state of their dreams.

Until then, they'll settle for the authoritarianism offered by the modern Republican Party.

Although tbrosz would probably want them to throw in some tax cuts, too.

... the surge really began halfway through 2007 when its reached its complement of extra soldiers.

You might explain to Robert Kagan, who was trumpeting the success of the Surge in March of this year, that it didn't really begin until several months later.

It's worth pointing out, too, that with the exceptions of July & October, each month of the Surge has seen higher Iraqi casualties than the month during which he was touting its success.

Better lies, please -- from the both of you.

For those who still question the improvement wrought by the surge, Reuters reported earlier this week:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry [of Iraq] said on Monday.

Stefan and Gregory, you know as well as I do that "terrorists" are those who utilize terror. If some hypothetical mercenaries intentionally shoot Iraqis in order to terrorize them, then those mercenaries would be terrorists. If they shoot Iraqis because they lost their cool or accidentally or in self defense, then they're not. As far as know, no US contractors use terror as a tactic, nor does the US military.

Accurate to within 15 feet! Now we just need to get all of the insurgents enormously fat and convince them stand still until the planes show up.

The Iraqi Government is not exactly the most reliable source. It's not as if they don't have an incentive to bend the truth.

ex-liberal, current-doofus: That's why I used the word "terrorist" to describe people who are bombing civilian areas or shooting civilians suspected of cooperating with the US or the Iraqi government.

Then you have deliberately used the term incorrectly.

Par for the course.

Not to mention information from the Associated Press and the Iraqi government. In fact, every organization I know of that measures monthly death rates in Iraq says that deaths are way down.

The AP gets its info from the government and your claim that the Iraqi government is a reliable source of information is laughable.

Why is it that of "every organization" you know that measures monthly death rates, you only cite ones who are known liars or rely on information from known liars?

Interesting.

Maybe only "know" sources that are liars because you only wish to consult sources you know will through their lies support your desired conclusion.

Reuters is quoting the Iraqi government, already universally acknowledged to be corrupt and dishonest outside Wingerville, not determining this on its own.

More mendacity by current-doofus.

As far as [I] know, no US contractors use terror as a tactic, nor does the US military.

We don't use torture either!

The simple fact is you don't bother to "know" anything that doesn't fit your preconceived truth.

Stefan and Gregory, you know as well as I do that "terrorists" are those who utilize terror.

Rhetorical Tautology 101.

BTW, since you seem to be able to define "terrorist" to be whatever you want it to be and apply to whomever you want it to apply, I think it would only be fair to accord that same flexibility to your opposition.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Stefan and Gregory, you know as well as I do that "terrorists" are those who utilize terror. ... As far as know, no US contractors use terror as a tactic, nor does the US military.

What about "Shock and Awe"?

ex-liberal, what part of "the ethnic cleansing has been largely successful do you not fucking understand? Are you obtuse, obstreperous, or both? We know that you cling desperately to a discredited and obsolete ideology.

Yet you repeat, ad nauseum, the same debunked bullshit over and over and over - as if we will suddenly lose our fucking minds, like you apparently have, and get on board with you "More War!" cheerleading.

Your karmic payback is gonna be a doozy, fella.

Iraqi government forces, under the direction, command, control, or protection of US forces, have engaged in violence against Iraqi civilians for ideological reasons.

At the very least by aiding and abetting and by arming and protecting these government forces, the US is complicit in terrorism.

This week the AP reported:

October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls “Concerned Citizens� — both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he’s signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.

“I’ve never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we’ve made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We’ve said that all along. And now they’re coming forward in masses,� Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.

[You have made your point, it has been answered. Repetition is not debate. If you have nothing to add, further repetitive commentary from you on this thread will get the * treatment.]

What about "Shock and Awe"? Posted by: Gregory

Any act of war directed against the civilian population is by default terroristic.

Snark aside, "ex-liberal"'s conveniently shifting definitions of terrorism reveals the fundamental dishonesty of this neocon toad.

Of course the US military uses "terror" --or more accurately, fear -- as a tactic. When a soldier points his weapon at someone to induce his cooperation, or even his surrender, it is by definition using fear -- do what I'll say, or I'll shoot you.

On a larger scale, except in the minds of neocon fantasists like "ex-liberal", who pretends that we can simply kill the finite number of "terrorists" and then everything will be hunky-dory, armies win not by destroying the other one utterly, but in getting the other side to surrender or run away, and you do that by inflicting fear, not so much casualties, on the other side.

The US military did so explicitly in "shock and awe" -- it was an attempt to demoralize the Iraqis and quicken their surrender. It was done by in part by bombing Baghdad were, last I looked, a lot of civilians lived -- though less now than then, of course. And it probably worked, too.

"ex-liberal''s feeble defense of cowboy mercenaries that fire their weapons willy-nilly at civilians would be grimly amusing if it werent' for the fact that his own example is an indication of the failure, not success, of the US mission.

For "ex-liberal," it boild down to motivation -- note his careful definition of mercenaries [who] intentionally shoot Iraqis in order to terrorize them as terrorists, where reckless and trigger-happy ones are not, even though the terror, pain and death they produce is just as real.

But it doesn't matter one whit to "ex-liberal' how many Iraqis or US soldiers die -- after all, typical of the rencid neocons, he knows he and his won't be among them. And it doesn't matter to him who kills them. The results are the same -- death and suffering on a massive scale. "ex-liberal" only pretends to a morally superior position to justify the carnage of which he approves from that he does not. and, in typical bad faith, he pretends that pious words can blind one ot the realities they're meant to conceal.

I submit that "ex-liberal"'s long history of dishonest posting here, and the actions of the incompetent, mendacious government and neocon cabal for whom "ex-liberal" is performing the disgusting rear-guard action of preparing the Dolchstosslegende, excuse them from any claim to superior morality.

Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.

And you know no civilians were killed by this artillery, how? Either the notion of outgoing US artillery -- which is second only to airstrikes as a dumb-ass weapon to use in a counterinsurgency, due to its inherent inaccuracy -- gave you such a woody that you couldn't risk including it, despite the fact that it undercuts your own argument, or again, you include the obvious contradiction to make the insult of your bad-faith posting perfectly obvious.

Give, that "ex-liberal" is once again posting a new story based on quotes from US mititary officials, whose credibility has sunk to Vietnam-era levels -- nearly as low as "ex-liberal"'s own! -- despite having been politely informed of their credibility problems, leads me to side with the latter: It's deliberate bad faith. "ex-liberal" doesn't have a convincing argument, but simply intends to post and re-post the same bullshit as if he believes repeating a lie will change it into the truth.

Whether he actually believes it is immaterial, although the parallels with the tactics of totalitarian regimes is unavoidable. The point is, "ex-liberal" has once again dropped the pretense, however unconvincing, of posting in good faith, and is once again enacting his psychodrama of insulting his betters with obvious, repetetive bullshit that takes no notice of correction or refutation -- or, indeed, the repeated observance and even prediction of his own dishonesty.

Wy Kevin's moderator(s) continue to tolerate "ex-liberal" pissing on the floor in here is a mystery.

Gregory, look up thread a bit. I do believe that the mods are growing "sufficiently annoyed."

look up thread a bit.

Ah, that wasn't there when I posted.

Gregory, I included the last sentence because it was part of the article.

Frankly, I think that sentence is not really a part of the story. It neither supports nor contradicts Gen Lynch's assertion.

I agree with your point that civilians are being killed by US actions. But, more civilian lives are being saved because the US (and Iraq Army) actions are killing and capturing so many terrorists.

It's only in some ideal world that a war could be won without violence.

But, more civilian lives are being saved because the US (and Iraq Army) actions are killing and capturing so many terrorists.

Can you prove this statement? Also, you have yet to acknowledge the success of the ethnic cleansing campaigns that have segregated the country. Why is that?

Mods, sorry for the last post. I just saw your note.

Volatile Compound: The assertion that the cause is the killing and capturing of so many terrorists is a deduction. It seems logical since fewer terrorists at loose would naturally lead to less terrorism. Also, the drop in violence coincided with the increased military action against terrorist. Also, this claim has been made by some in the military.

However, it's inference, not a fact. You're free to reject it or rebut it.

The ethnic cleansing has been horrendous. However, the drop in terrorism isn't necessarily where the ethnic clieansing was complete. E.g., Anbar was always a Sunni area. The drop in terrorism there wasn't due to the completion of ethnic cleansing. It was due to the defeat of AQI in that area.

Baghdad remains very mixed. The ethnic cleansing there is by no means complete. So, I don't buy the explanation that the drop in violence is due to the completion of ethnic cleansing. YMMV.

I included the last sentence because it was part of the article.

is, of course, contradicted by

I think that sentence is not really a part of the story.

and thus my question remains: Were you too enamored by the illusion -- counterproductive as it may be -- of US military power, or simply playing out your usual psychodrama of making your bad faith insultingly obvious?

It neither supports nor contradicts Gen Lynch's assertion.

Au contraire, "ex-liberal" -- outgoing artillery from a US base both contradicts Lynch's assertion of the Iraqi role in the coutnerinsurgency and his assertion that things are improving -- use of artillery being, in its inherent inacucuracy and the inevitable civilian casualties thereby, counterproductive to counterinsurgency tactics.

I agree with your point that civilians are being killed by US actions.

You're be even more of a dishonest jackass than you obviosuly are if you denied the point, so your concession is meaningless. But you fail (of course) to address my actual points about the civilian deaths caused by US actions.

But, more civilian lives are being saved because the US (and Iraq Army) actions are killing and capturing so many terrorists.

Ah, so you drop your argument of superior motive -- shall we consider it conceded, then? -- in favor of an argument of practicality. Alas for you, as before, you have no factual basis for making this assertion. Repetition, even of wishful thinking, is not debate. But of course, you aren't here for debate.

It's only in some ideal world that a war could be won without violence.

Straw man. No one is suggesting that war could or should be won without violence. I contend that the violence inflicted on Iraqi civilians by Bush's criminally incompetent occupation are both morally abhorrent and practically counterproductive.

You have no response to these points, obviously; all you do is post your same bullshit neocon talking points. Your task is clearly to build the Dolchstosslegende by claiming the US military action is succeeding where it is not. And it is not -- there is no Iraqi political reconciliation, and a superficial drop in civilian casualties as the result of ethnic cleansing perpetrated under the very noses of our occupying army does nothing to advance our goal of said reconciliation.

Your problem, "ex-liberal," is that the Dolchstosslegende, like Bush's occupation, is doomed to fail. Chickenhawks like you agree with us that the neocon project in Iraq isn't worth dying for. Instead of following the so-called "success" of the surge with more troops, we're withdrawing them because we're simply out -- and Bush won't even call for volunteers, not that you chickenhawks are signing up anyway.

Either the so-called "success" is just a politically convenient illusion or a troop drawdown is yet another criminally incompetent action by the bush Administration. Either way, the failure of Iraq belings to him and his supporters, and you and your loathsome neocon cabal stand exposed as blodtirsty fools.

Congratulations, "ex-liberal." You hitched your wagon to a failure, and followed Bush's record. Bush has ruined for a generation the myth of Republican strength on defense. As for the neocons, well, they never had any such myth, except in their own minds, but henceforth no one will hear the word "neocon" wothout thinking "war criminal." I leave it to you to consider what other regimes bear that foul distinction.

Of course, deep down, you know all this -- your sespeate rearguard action on the is in and of itself a tacit admission that you know the US adventure in Iraq is doomed to failure, since you're looking to shift the blame from your own bloody hands. Failing that, you simply seek to insult your betters, who have at every proved themselves more prescient, more accurate, more honest and more moral than you.

Shame on you, "ex-liberal."

"The more likely explanation, Kaplan thinks, is that airstrikes are being used to keep U.S. casualties down — despite the fact that standard counterinsurgency doctrine recommends against operations that result in large number of civilian casualties...."
___________________________

Of course, airstrikes are being used to keep down casualties - that's why it's called close air support. However, the increased use of bombing does not always result in large numbers of civilian casualties. It largely depends on the identification of target sets and how restrictive the ROE becomes. Blanket statements about the effects of bombing have to be updated to account for current practice and accuracy.

In Iraq, the increased use of bombing is caused by the increase in ground troop activity, rather than being a substitute for it. Bombing targets are most often identified by ground troops or, less often, by aerial surveillance. Both methods tend to limit the chances of civilian casualties more than other methods of targeting. In Iraq, we aren't doing any BAI, nor are we are targeting strategic infrastructure, both of which have historically held a far greater chance of civilian casualties.

The physical separation of al Qaeda from the Iraqi tribes has resulted in better intelligence and more movement to contact on the part of coalition troops. That has given us more opportunity to deliver aerial munitions with less fear of collateral damage. This is as compared to operations in Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban are closely linked to the Pushtan tribes. There, the enemy tends to use civilians as cover from bombing either before or after conducting their own operations. In those circumstances, bombing even confirmed enemy targets can too often result in civilian deaths.

Mods, sorry for the last post.

Again with the obvious lies, "ex-liberal"? Repetition in lieu of debate is part of your M.O.; you have a lot more to apologize for than just that last post.

Besides, no one, but no one, mistakes you for an honest commentator, and an insincere apology certainly won't do anything to change that.

The assertion that the cause is the killing and capturing of so many terrorists is a deduction.

But you didn't identify it as such; you asserted it, dishonestly, as fact.

It seems logical since fewer terrorists at loose would naturally lead to less terrorism.

But it doesn't follow, logically, that more civilian lives are being saved than the casualties you admit the US and the factions in the incipient iraqi civil war -- many of which we're training and arming, and many of which do continue to work with, if not for, factional militias -- are inflicting.

Also, the drop in violence coincided with the increased military action against terrorist.

"ex-liberal," your usage of the word "terrorist" -- in this thread, and throughlout the history of your posting -- is so vague as to be meaningless, save to mark you as either woefully ignroant or a willing tool of the neocon propaganda machine.

Also, this claim has been made by some in the military.

And again you go with citing the US military as a credibile source, despite havign been rebutted on this point and despite havign apologized for exactly such a repetition not a few sentences ago.

I must admit, I have a grudging admiration for your ability to couch insulting bad faith in bland, faux-reasonable language.

However, it's inference

An inference based on faulty logic and flawed, if not entirely pulled-out-of-your-ass, assumptions.

not a fact

You don't say.

Oh, wait -- you did say; that is, you presented that assertion above as a fact.

You're free to reject it or rebut it.

Done and done.

The ethnic cleansing has been horrendous.

Thank you, George W. Bush! Another jewel in his legacy.

However, the drop in terrorism isn't necessarily where the ethnic clieansing was complete. E.g., Anbar was always a Sunni area.

Once again you conflate terrorists and insurgents who target US troops.

The drop in terrorism there wasn't due to the completion of ethnic cleansing. It was due to the defeat of AQI in that area.

And it had little if anything to do with the surge. Indeed, you fail -- no doubt deliberately -- do draw the obvious inference that the Sunnis of Anbar do not welcome foreign invaders, while touting the so-called "success" of anbar. Congratulations, "ex-liberal" -- it's two dishonest statements in one!

Baghdad remains very mixed.

No, not nearly as much as you'd like to imply. Inasmuch as it's "mixed," furthermore, it's composed of conclaves of relatively consistent ethnicity.

The battle over those has barely begun.

The ethnic cleansing there is by no means complete.

As I was saying; and hardly a ringing endoresement of "success," I might add.

So, I don't buy the explanation that the drop in violence is due to the completion of ethnic cleansing.

As has been abundantly demonstrated, "ex-liberal," you're a mendacious neocon toad who posts in bad faith. What you claim to "buy" or not -- especially when it comes to rejecting rebuttals to your bullshit in the absence of a factual basis for doing so -- isn't worth a bucket of piss.

trashy wrote (emphasis mine): the increased use of bombing does not always result in large numbers of civilian casualties.

Which can be taken to mean that it sometimes, or even often, does. Which is why, of course, it's a piss-poor technique to use during an insurgency, and just goes to show that the Administration Trashy defends is once again subordinating national security for its own political expedience.

In Iraq, we aren't doing any BAI, nor are we are targeting strategic infrastructure, both of which have historically held a far greater chance of civilian casualties.

True, as far as it goes; but irrelevant to the number of civilian casualties that we are, in fact, inflicting.

That has given us more opportunity to deliver aerial munitions with less fear of collateral damage.

I submit that "deliver[ing] aerial munitions with less fear of collateral damage" is part of the problem of the occurrance of collateral damage.

Oh, and Trashy? You'd be viewed as slightly more honest if you said "civilian casualties" instead of the euphemism collateral damage."

Nice, Trashy. Real nice.

How about calling them dead and wounded civilians? That's what they are, aren't they?

"The US military did so explicitly in "shock and awe" -- it was an attempt to demoralize the Iraqis and quicken their surrender. It was done by in part by bombing Baghdad were, last I looked, a lot of civilians lived -- though less now than then, of course. And it probably worked, too."
_________________

The USAF did not execute "shock and awe" tactics during the bombing of Bagdad, except in the sense that bombing always creates some shock and some awe. The earlier attempts to kill Saddam through bombing vitiated any true "shock and awe" effort, as did our unwillingness to completely destroy the power net.

A pure "shock and awe" effort is intended to do more than demoralize the enemy. It is intended to create so much havoc and disruption that the enemy's ability to react is severely hampered, even if they keep their wits. "Shock and awe" is a theoretical goal, rather than a readily achievable mission task.

Of course, airstrikes are being used to keep down casualties - that's why it's called close air support. Posted by: Trashhauler

Dumb ass. U.S. troops are rarely involved in running gun battles/fire fights anymore in Iraq. We are losing are troops primarily to IED and, now, snipers. Leveling a building or even a block with several smart bombs or rocket fire, because it perhaps containing a sniper or even a handful or gunman (terrorist, insurgents, Iraqi freedom fighters, whatever), does not constitute "close air support," as the bombs/missiles would be dropped/launched from several thousand feet and several hundred yards away. There really is no such thing as "close air support" with fighter jets cruising at several hundred mile per hour. The only air force exception to this rule is the Warthogs, which I believe have been returned to their stateside bases.

Forget Apaches and Blackhawks as they can both be brought down by small arms fire if they get too close to the action, which is what defines true close air support. You've apparently watched too many WWII movies.

Air power is being used, as it has since Vietnam, as the biggest and bluntest stick in the quiver with about as much precision as a $3.00 watch.

trashy wrote (emphasis mine): the increased use of bombing does not always result in large numbers of civilian casualties.

Translation:
Which casualties are, of course, unavoidable but, I mean, come on, dude, it's Iraqis instead of Americans. When you calculate the ROE (I had no idea the military calculated a Return on Equity for each engagement...that shows they're being economical with taxpayer money) the return is positive if Iraqis die instead of Americans. I thought everybody knew that.

ex-lib: Yet, you're using the high casualty rate in the first half of 2007 as evidence that the surge isn't working.

there was no surge in 2006 and that year set the lowest usa death toll in iraq...

2007 will set a new record high...

even with a surge...

maybe your problem is with a calendar...

how inconvenient..

ex-lib: Since the surge began, American and Iraqi casualties have consistently dropped

you left out one important thing..

the usa military states they stopped counting iraqi's who are blown up in car bombs...

its kind of inevitable that casualties will drop...

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Right, let me clarify, Miles. What they're not counting is the Iraqi civilians who are killed in suicide car bomb attacks, in IED attacks, in rocket-propelled grenade attacks, in bombing attacks. The U.S. military, for the moment, when it's offering its statistics, is only talking about Iraqis murdered, shot essentially, strangled, tortured.

-CNN Aired September 13, 2006

and they have been doing this for awhile..

mission accomplished..right?

The USAF did not execute "shock and awe" tactics during the bombing of Bagdad, except in the sense that bombing always creates some shock and some awe.

'Shock And Awe' Throttles Iraq:
Hundreds Of U.S. Air Sorties Hit Sites Iraq

March 22, 2003

The U.S. military delivered Friday on its promise of "shock and awe" by launching a major air campaign against Iraq, an attack heralded by the sound of air raid sirens and explosions in the center of the Iraqi capital.

Huge explosions rocked Baghdad as a barrage of mighty bombs crashed down on the city of 5 million, sending up huge clouds of smoke and flame.

A huge fire raged to the south of the city; the red glow of the flames illuminated the horizon.

The presidential compound at the Old Palace was struck anew by missiles after a lull in the heaviest attack on Baghdad since the conflict began. The compound also includes a camp of the Republican Guard and presidential units that are the foundation of Saddam Hussein's control.

The first attack on Baghdad came from 320 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by ships in the Gulf and the Red Sea, said Rear Admr. Matthew G. Moffit, commander of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk battle group.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/22/iraq/main545267.shtml

the increased use of bombing does not always result in large numbers of civilian casualties.

Hey, neither does the increased use of car bombs or suicide bombers.

ex-lib: Anyone who's truly concerned about Iraqi lives should be 100% in favor of the surge. The surge is better for the Iraqi people than any other real-world alternative.

ex...i know you FEEL you are right...but how about seeing how the IRAQI's feel..

6 in 10...IRAQI's say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.

57% of Iraqi's call violence against U.S. forces acceptable, up 6-points.

92% of Sunni's call violence against U.S. forces acceptable

More than 8 in 10 Shiites and nearly all Sunni Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq....7 in 10 Kurds, by contrast, still support the presence of these forces.

- ABC News/BBC/NHK poll in Iraq Sept-2007

wow...ex...don't you feel embarrased?

mr. irony, I don't feel embarassed at all. The snippets you found from that ABC survey don't contradict what I said.

What are the alternatives:
1. Withdraw American troops
2. Keep American troops in garrisons, rather than attacking al Qaeda and other terrorists.
3. The surge

Most experts think withdrawal of American troops now would lead to much greater bloodshed of Iraqis

The pre-surge strategy of keeping American troops in garrisons is what allowed violence to escalate during the first half of this year.

If you want to recommend a 4th strategy that would be better for the Iraqi people, I'd seriously like to know what it is.

"Oh, and Trashy? You'd be viewed as slightly more honest if you said 'civilian casualties' instead of the euphemism collateral damage."
________________________

There's nothing dishonest about the term collateral damage, gregory. Aside from being a useful euphemism, it is also a technical term that includes far more than civilian casualties. Collateral damage encompasses everything that can be damaged or killed as an unintended consequence of bombing, including your own men, buildings, and even the bombing aircraft itself. I used the phrase intentionally because there are always more considerations than possible civilian casualties (which I also used).

JeffII wrote:

"Dumb ass. U.S. troops are rarely involved in running gun battles/fire fights anymore in Iraq. We are losing are troops primarily to IED and, now, snipers."
_______________________

I'm often quite a dumb ass, Jeff, but not about this. I doubt very much if you've been keeping up with many after action reports, or even the milblogs, but open combat is not so rare as you might think as we scour areas clean of al Qaeda and challenge militias in their strongholds. As so often happens here, you're talking about last year's war.

You also wrote:

"There really is no such thing as 'close air support' with fighter jets cruising at several hundred mile per hour."
______________________

Close air support is a mission, not a specific platform and can be performed by fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, helicopters, or gunships. The speed of the attacking aircraft sometime makes a difference in how close the munitions can be dropped, sometimes not. Almost all jet fighters, such as the AV-8, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and their foreign counterparts, fly between 450-550 KIAS in dive bombing attacks and sometimes a little slower in gun runs. Our jet aircraft performed CAS at the same speeds in Vietnam. As you say, the A-10 is designed to do such things a bit slower and lower, but CAS is still a mission for everyone who can deliver a weapon. This is especially true today when using precision munitions. We've actually had incidents in Afghanistan where CAS was performed by orbiting B-52s and B-1s. GPS has been a wonderful enhancement in the mission.

TJM wrote:

"Which casualties are, of course, unavoidable but, I mean, come on, dude, it's Iraqis instead of Americans. When you calculate the ROE (I had no idea the military calculated a Return on Equity for each engagement...that shows they're being economical with taxpayer money) the return is positive if Iraqis die instead of Americans."
__________________________

Air forces have dealt with the issue since air combat began. Some air forces don't give it much effort, but we do. The US military takes the greatest care possible, given the specifics of each mission, to avoid killing people we don't mean to kill. It sometimes happens anyway, despite the safeguards built into the Rules of Engagement (ROE).

'Shock And Awe' Throttles Iraq:
Hundreds Of U.S. Air Sorties Hit Sites Iraq
_____________________

Yep. We hit them hard and often in the invasion. You expect an Air Force officer to apologize for it? We'll do the same to Toronto, if we ever go to war against Canada.

As to the headline, it wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last, that the media has used a bit of jargon they really didn't understand.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, planting hundreds of bombs in the capitol city of a nation in an attempt terrorize the populace and maybe assassinate their leader is an act of terrorism. I don't care if you plant them on individuals walking the streets or if you plant them by dropping them from the safety of an airplane whilst wearing matching outfits.

Is that harsh? Sure, but which is more harsh: my rhetoric, or having your face blown off by some coward in an airplane dropping a bomb on your house?

"I've said it before, I'll say it again, planting hundreds of bombs in the capitol city of a nation in an attempt terrorize the populace and maybe assassinate their leader is an act of terrorism."
_______________________

So, Hillary should probably scratch your name from that list of possible SECAFs.

Seymour Hersh wrote about this in the New Yorker when it was in the planning stages about a year or two ago. It's amazing how good his sources are.

Unfortunately, he's been writing about a planned strike on Iran for about the same amount of time. Hope he's wrong about that one.

"[quoting me] 'the increased use of bombing does not always result in large numbers of civilian casualties.'

Hey, neither does the increased use of car bombs or suicide bombers."
________________________

The difference being, of course, that we take steps to avoid civilian casualties and they take the opposite approach.

The statement, "More bombing will always mean more civilian casualties" is flat out wrong. Much depends on the kind of delivery, the type of munitions used, target selection, and other elements of the ROE.

ex-lib: I don't feel embarassed at all. The snippets you found from that ABC survey don't contradict what I said.

.....what did you say?

ex-lib: Anyone who's truly concerned about Iraqi lives should be 100% in favor of the surge.

6 in 10...IRAQI's say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.

- ABC News/BBC/NHK poll in Iraq Sept-2007

so...iraqi's don't care about their own lives?

snippets? interesting word....given its more than you offered...in defending your empty assertion..

a healthy dose of embarrasment might help stop you from exposing your weak claims in public...

ex-liberal: Most experts think withdrawal of American troops now would lead to much greater bloodshed of Iraqis . . .

Most experts (including only those not privy to the US intelligence available to Bush which showed otherwise) thought Saddam had WMDs.

Virtually all of the conservative experts who are now predicting disaster (self-servingly so) if US troops leave, predicted a cakewalk in Iraq (you know, parades in the street and oil revenues that would pay for the war).

They were either wrong or lying for their own reasons, but in either case they have not earned any credibility with respect to their predictions.

truthmauler: The difference being, of course, that we take steps to avoid civilian casualties and they take the opposite approach.

There are certainly terrorists who do take the opposite approach, but as noted repeatedly insurgent does not equal terrorist.

More to the point, some members of the US administration and military have deliberately targeted civilians with various means of violence or methods that would inevitably and knowingly subject those civilians to violence.\

Thus, your statement is fatuous.

The difference being, of course, that we take steps to avoid civilian casualties and they ta