[Marxism] 'No-fly' zone perils were for Iraqis, not allied pilots

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Among the reasons U.S. Senate candidate Mel Martinez supported the war
in Iraq was the alleged danger faced by U.S. and British pilots who
protected "no-fly" zones in that country before the 2003 invasion.

In his first debate with Betty Castor, the Orlando Republican said that
pilots were fired on "almost daily" and that "our men and women in
uniform flying those aircraft were risking their lives."

Technically, that's true. But a closer look at the history of the
no-fly zones shows that the real risk was to innocent Iraqis. Over an
11-year period, hundreds of civilians, including children, were killed
or injured by U.S. and British airstrikes, while not a single allied
pilot was shot down or killed by Iraqi fire.
. . .
 By 2002, it became clear that the United States and Britain viewed the
main purpose of the no-fly zones as more military than humanitarian.
(France, concerned by the casualties, dropped out of the coalition in
1996.)

"Since the current Bush administration took power," journalist Jeremy
Scahill wrote from Baghdad in 2002, "there has been a significant
increase in the frequency and intensity of the bombings, particularly
in the south of the country.

"The administration has used the zones to pre-emptively degrade Iraq's
already limited ability to defend against a large-scale U.S. attack
while not citing a single incident of attempted repression of Shiite or
Kurdish populations as a justification."

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/29/Columns/_No_fly__zone_perils_.shtml
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5EB21FA9


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism