"The third reason relates to a vital military
development that has accompanied the so-called
‘precision revolution�E It is often believed that the
production of laser- or satellite-guided missiles and
bombs has revolutionised war, making targeting a
matter of consummate precision. There is some truth in
this; during the second world war, a so-called ‘dumb
bomb�Emight land two kilometers away from its intended
target, whereas now a ‘smart bomb�Ecan get within
seventeen metres.

But in parallel with the ‘precision revolution�E new
generations of a class of weapons known as Area Impact
Munitions (AIMs) have been developed. These are
specifically conceived, designed, and used to kill and
injure as many people, and over as wide an area, as
possible. The euphemism of ‘soft targeting�Ecan
smoothly distinguish these from the ‘hard�Etargeting
of tanks, other armoured vehicles and bunkers by
precision-guided weapons; but the reality is that most
AIMs are planned specifically to kill and maim on a
very large scale. ...What is likely to happen in 2003
is the extensive and more or less continual use of a
standard tactic called ‘close air support�Eemploying
concentrated air power to clear the path for US ground
troops as they move forward. If the opposing Iraqi
forces are hiding out in urban areas, mixed in with
civilians, then the essential requirement to reduce US
casualties to a minimum will still stand; it is in
these circumstances that the loss of Iraqi lives, both
military and civilian, is likely to be high,
especially if cluster bombs, multiple rocket launchers
and other weapons are used.

(Two precedents are worth recalling here. First,
well-armed Israeli forces had great difficulty in
combating a few thousand Palestinian militia in the
siege of West Beirut in 1982, even though they heavily
outnumbered the latter. The Israelis, particularly
anxious to limit their own losses, used enormous
firepower, leading to a death toll approaching 20,000
in the few weeks of the siege, most of them
civilians."

I imagine this war in Iraq will likely end up with a
lot more than that. Indeed, some figures listed
earlier in the article said that, after Gulf I,
somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 people were
killed (that high figure is from a leaked US Dept of
Defense document, not something likely to be inflating
- the 40,000 is what the US govt publicly claims to be
the number). Unless the regime just rolls over
immediately, it could be a lot worse with this one...

-r

This is good material for the debates to come against the hard-headed and the blinded...