Anti-war campaigners call for an end to bombing Iraq, 2014. Demotix/Mark Kerrison. All rights reserved. Watching the
debate to launch bombing raids over Syria in British Parliament on December 2, we
were struck by the frequency with which many MPs, who supported the
government’s motion to initiate air strikes, used the word ‘precision’ to
describe the potential bombing of IS targets in Syria.
The words
‘precision bombing’ or ‘precision-guided missiles’ are used to make us think
that British warplanes can go there and help the good guys, the so-called
moderate rebels, without much, if any, collateral damage. To emphasise
this point is considered important not just because many people think it is
morally wrong to cause civilian casualties, but also because the killing of civilians
can be used as a recruitment tool for the terrorist groups.
How precise
are the precision bombs?
Much has been
made of the accuracy of the so-called ‘precision bombing’. The word
precision bombing (or smart bombing) refers to the aerial bombing of a target
with some degree of accuracy, with the aim of limiting unintended, collateral damage.
Such weaponry
implies pinpoint precision from very large distance, such as allowing fast
high-flying aircraft to engage targets in urban environments with very little
collateral damage. Such weapons have been used by all major powers for the
last 20 years, in Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq
and Syria currently. Modern ‘smart weapons’, laser-guided munitions can
be and are more effective in hitting the clearly identified targets.
But they are not
magic, and not really precise in the real meaning of the term. Even
though such highly developed and high-tech systems increase accuracy, the level
of precision is still not more than 60 percent, in general. During
Operation Desert Storm, less than 60 percent of bombs hit their targets. In
the US/ NATO war on Kosovo, only 58 strikes were successful out of a total of
750. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several US ‘precision-guided’ bombs
managed to miss Iraq entirely, falling into Turkey and Iran.
‘In Iraq for a year and three months
there have been no reports of civilian casualties related to the strikes that
Britain has taken. Our starting point is to avoid civilian casualties
altogether,’ said Prime Minister David Cameron in the debate in the British
Parliament.
In fact, since August 2014, when the
coalition started its air strikes in Iraq, 950 civilians have been killed as a
result of those air strikes. (iraqbodycount.org).
What else has happened in Iraq during
that time? Have
the coalition air strikes at least reduced if not eliminated the overall
killings of civilians?
Since August
2014, according to Iraq Body Count, more than 22,000 civilians have been killed
in Iraq, in mass executions, bombings, shootings, mortar attacks. The result of
our intervention has not been the creation of a peaceful state, it has not
defeated ISIS, it has not stopped the violent deaths of innocents, it has not
abated sectarian conflicts, and it has not alleviated suffering. All violence
has continued unabated, violence to which we added 950 deaths. Extremism has
continued to flourish, as it has done since our invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Our involvement
in Syria will be not only military, but also political and ethical, as it has
been in Iraq for the past 13 years. It is an involvement as misplaced, as
lethal and as unethical as that which has led to the complete collapse of the
Iraqi state. Endemic anarchy will follow, leading to mass exodus of civilians,
death, poverty and generations living with the trauma of war.
The west is
dealing with yet another crisis it itself has created, risking the
disintegration of yet another state and contributing to the rise of theocracy
and jihadism. Non-state actors now dominate, millions are radicalised,
disillusioned and despairing.
Since the
coalition started its air strikes in Iraq, the country witnessed its largest
bombing in years, when 120 civilians were blown to pieces by a suicide bomber
on July 17, 2015, in Khan Bani Saad.
Peace has never
been further away than it is now. The promise of democracy has never seemed
emptier. The violent regime change we saw in Iraq has brought anarchy, death
and devastation, from which it has been unable to recover. To think it will be
any different in Syria is an illusion.
Overthrowing
dictators in the name of freedom, and bombing in the name of peace has been our
country’s foreign policy for over a decade. The consequences of this policy
have been plaguing not only the Middle East, but Europe as well: terrorist
attacks, migrant crisis, anarchy, rising global insecurity.
When
states can no longer provide any security or peace for their citizens, who will
provide that? Other states? Are we trying to secure the Syrians, as we tried to
secure the Iraqis? Are our ‘precision bombs’ meant to free and secure? If so,
they are failing.
Airwars have been monitoring international airstrikes
against the so-called Islamic State and others in Iraq and Syria. As a result
of a total of 8,657 precision air strikes an estimated 23,000 ISIS members have
been killed, and up to 2,104 civilians (airwars.org).
Civilians like Mohannad Rezzo, a university professor, and his 17-year-old son,
Najeeb; his sister-in-law Miyada and her 21-year-old daughter, Tuka. The four
family members were killed when a coalition air strike flattened their home as
they slept, on 21 September 2015 (‘When
War Comes Close to Home’, The New
York Times, 4 October 2014).
What
if Najeeb was your son? Tuka your daughter? Miyada your wife? What if you were
Mohannad Rezzo? Would you sacrifice your own life, or your family's lives to
help defeat ISIS? It is easy for us here, far from where the killings happen,
to justify the bombings, to dismiss fears of civilian casualties, to downplay
our role in the deaths of thousands. But what if the lives of those we love
were at stake? What if it was our own state that was collapsing, together with
our livelihoods? What might our perspective be then? Which would we consider
the greater evil?