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