On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Marvin Gandall wrote:
> Anyway, as you know, leapfrogging over the enemy's armies to terror bomb
> civilians in cities and provoke regime change is not really new
> doctrine; it begins with the development of air power in WW I.
Exactly right. It has been commonly known in English since WWI as "strategic" bombing, and it has never worked, as several careful studies have shown. It didn't work in GWI either, even in its newest refinement, where it was combined with terror sanctions.
What happend on A-Day and called Shock and Awe was very different. It was aimed at minimizing civilian casualities while maximizing display -- it seems to have accomlished both.
Causally, we are told, it was designed to work directly on the army, to get them to disintegrate and surrender, rather than through the suffering of the populace, inciting them to mutiny. To the extent it was supposed to effect on the populace, it was supposed to be the opposite of the effect of terror bombing. It was supposed to be their non-suffering that would matter. It was theorized that they would see that a clear distinction was being drawn between them and the regime and flock to the other side.
This is a completely different strategy from strategic or terror bombing. It is almost its inverse. If it worked, it would be a step forward, not only from terror bombing (an inexcusable war crime) but from war itself.
There is, however, no sign yet that it has.
And I am not for a moment arguing that the old ways have been ruled out if the new ways don't work.
Michael