Post-Galbraoith Warfare- Bombing can win wars

Michael Perelman michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Fri Nov 30 20:38:48 PST 2001


Max, the economists were trying to find strategic targets. The army believed in that strategy at the time. While Afgh. has no such targets, Yugoslavia and Iraq did, but the US emphasized civilian infrastructure.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 11:30:20PM -0500, Max Sawicky wrote:
> This is a whole different matter. Strategic bombing aimed to
> cripple an advanced economy. It was thought that creating
> key bottlenecks by well-focused destruction of particular
> sectors would bring down the German war machine. But
> evidently economies are a bit more flexible than that.
>
> In Afgh there is no such economy to target, nor any reason
> to do so.
>
> mbs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:50 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Post-Galbraoith Warfare- Bombing can win wars
>
>
> Nathan, I have looked at the thoughts of a number of people on the
> bombing survey. You are right that modern bombing seems more effective.
>
> WW II bombing was mostly directed at military sites; the more recent
> bombings were more directed at civilian infrastructure. Vietnam and
> Korea were intermediate cases -- where irrigation systems were targeted.
>
> I am not an expert on this subject; I don't even play one on tv.
>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > A few thoughts on weaponry and struggle... Galbraith is known best
> > for his economic views, but his World War II studies that highlighted
> > the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing became as much the "common
> > sense" left over from his work as any other of his economic writing.
> > Vietnam just served to reinforce the lesson, seemingly for all
> > time. But in the wake of the Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan, that
> > common sense has to be unlearned - probably not completely but in
> > large areas of our collective unconscious thinking. Modern weaponry
> > backed by the money for sophisticated technology is a devastating
> > weapon of war, allowing a great power like the US to conquer physical
> > space without risking the death of hardly any of its own people in
> > war, especially when it can use proxies to "mop up" after the bombing
> > has done its work. That such bombing can be done in ways that
> > significantly reduce opposition casualties just reinforces the
> > political legitimacy for use of such weaponry. What flows from this is
> > unclear in every instance, but an antiwar movement built around "body
> > bag" numbers - either ours or "theirs" - will fall largely flat. It
> > also makes the romance of military-based antiimperial war a nostalgic
> > item of mid-20th century history, not a likely viable option for the
> > next century. "Progressive nationalism" is pretty much history, since
> > viable nationalism outside large power interests will likely not
> > survive outside the shelter of such weaponry. A return to large power
> > conflict may open up global political space for small acts of
> > independence, but only so long as they don't threaten large power
> > interests. Now, this basic rule of the power of air bombing only goes
> > so far, since a state with a less reprehensible government than the
> > Taliban would not fall so fast since there would be fewer proxies
> > available to assume power easily on the ground. The US otherwise
> > would have had to do its own work on the ground with greater cost and
> > politically holding such a state might be nonviable over the longer
> > term. But that is the longer term issue of political control that
> > festers in war and peace-- the issue is what to make of the clear
> > change in the nature of the power of air bombing in the modern era.
> > On that issue, the game seems to have changed quite radically during
> > the last decade. -- Nathan Newman
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901
>
>

-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list