When the airstrikes begin, such as they did at the start of the second Gulf War, and as is desired by US, UK and French leaders against Syria, large numbers of government buildings are attacked, resulting in the deaths of large number of civil servants in the country being attacked.
(The legality of targeting civilians is another question worth considering another day: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6.)
The elimination of these civil servants has the desired effect of damaging the military organisation of the target country: supplies are not ordered, shipments are not arranged, payroll does not happen, communication is disrupted: information does not get escalated and orders do not get distributed, intelligence is not analysed. In this way the machine of war is halted despite the troops and armour being intact because the troops have no food or bullets, the guns have no shells, the tanks have no fuel, the aircraft have no targets. It is a seemingly ‘humane’ way of disabling an opponent or one party in a civil conflict.
The reality is, the combatants are left intact while the civilians are killed, maimed or forced to flee, adding them to the numbers of refugees. Amongst those refugees will be the pacifists, the civil rights specialists, the conscientious objectors and the fearful who left the country during the crisis.
How very ironic is it that those who speak for our armed forces say killing civilians instead of soldiers is more humane? That makes it quite clear where their allegiances lie.
If the external influence is effective, and the targeted government falls, then who will form the civil service of the new administration? Certainly not the corpses and the cripples and the refugees of the deposed government.
It will be recruited mostly from the victorious liberating army, that group of ‘rebels’, ‘terrorists’, ‘insurgents’ and ‘insurrectionists’ that became redefined as ‘freedom fighters’ because their winning suited our political convenience. An army including reactionaries, the vengeful, hot-blooded young anarchists, psychos, criminals, malcontents, sufferers of post-war stress syndrome and anyone who decided to pick up a gun and kill their police officers, armed forces members and government officials despite them being fellow citizens. It is from these ranks the new government’s officials will be constructed. Those who can answer the questions:
“What did you do in the war, Daddy?“
and
“How many did you kill?“
Experienced administrators from the previous government, those who left because of their conscience, the displaced – these people are least likely to get their old jobs back.
So is it any wonder that when we interfere with another country by applying airstrikes that the incoming government is itself full of turmoil with police recruits shooting their colleagues, suicide bombers, corruption, instability, ongoing car bombs and ultimately another revolution?
Perhaps if we stopped killing their filing clerks, accountants, data analysts, IT staff, secretaries, junior supervisors, PAs, human resources officers, trainers, typists, middle managers, and office cleaners then maybe their future governments might be competent, organised, capable and stable.
The outcome of using airstrikes are:
- the deaths or injury of many fit, intelligent, taxpaying, civilians;
- the armed forces and their matériel are left intact;
- ongoing national incompetence for many years;
- the need for greater external influence in maintaining stability;
- those who may have a bias towards peace and reconciliation become personae non gratae;
- a continuation of civil disorder and violence;
- the likelihood of major armed conflict in the future.
So what are the real agenda when airstrikes are used? Anyone would think it was advantageous foreign policy, commercial interests and the maintenance of the arms industry. It certainly is not humanitarian reasons.
