Let’s take a step back for a moment. This is a bit of a vague number on first glance, hell, it’s a range as well.
What does “Documented civilian deaths from violence” really mean?
Does this tally the constant background crime always present in a region?
How about the victims and criminals, does it merely count Iraqi civilians or aid workers and foreigners in the area as well?
These are all important distinctions that can significantly alter the meaning of the figure. Regardless, over 100,000 lives are being attributed to the persistent conflict in the Iraq and its neighbors. With the U.S. being the most dominant force in this war among the NATO nations, doesn’t that leave much of the blame on us?
Maybe it is the U.S.’s fault. Maybe if we had cut our conflict short long ago or never even succumbed to war in the first place 100,000 people would still be alive and well. Were the lives of some 3,000 American worth more than 100,000 Iraqi lives? That’s a question that has no real answer but deserves as much thought as one can muster.
P.S. After writing this I double-checked the way in which the toll is counted. See this page in particular to get a better sense of where each verified death fits in.
By chance, coincidence, or just conscious choice, two of my favorite TV programs, Top Gear UK and Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations, both set an episode in the northern region of Iraq know as Kurdistan. They both began their respective programs with a similar theme, essentially, “what on earth are we thinking and how many armed guards do we need?” Yet after the initial, expected, reactions and lengthy segments detailing their intense “Situation Defcon 1” preparations, both programs took a sharp turn.
It came as a surprise how many parallels were drawn between the two vastly different shows. Their first stops especially left an impression, as it did on all the hosts.
Nested in the North of Iraq is the, only recently, officials recognized region of Kurdistan, land of the Kurds. To most Americans the only mention of the Kurds they remember is from the media attention given to Saddam Hussein’s crimes against humanity. It was the Kurdish culture, and the Kurdish people, that came under chemical attack by order of Saddam, no doubt one of his most widely loathed acts of tyranny. When Saddam was deposed, the Kurds were left with a very foreign sense of freedom (it should be noted that the Kurds have been, and still are, unfairly persecuted in Iraq, Turkey, and the surrounding regions). In the years that followed, Kurdistan was allowed to blossom. Amusement parks and scenic mountain picnic spots are now normal…in Iraq.
When talking with the locals, Burdain naturally asked how the U.S. was viewed by the Kurds. The reactions was to be expected, they were eternally grateful and, as alluded to in a previous post, could not imagine them leaving. With so many pessimistic views on the war in the Middle East, it’s refreshing to see tangible signs of good being done. Whether or not the region can sustain itself without U.S. intervention is not yet entirely clear, but with it, at least for now, there is peace and stability in Kurdistan.
This year marks the 10th year of combat operations in Afghanistan. While Iraq has gradually fallen off the radar (even though troops and troubles still persist in the region), Afghanistan has not seen such a marked decline.
Thought of as just another piece of the “Middle East,” Iraq and Afghanistan are very different countries even just in terms of terrain. The sweeping deserts of Iraq transition to vast mountain ranges in the highlands of Afghanistan. Once could be forgiven for mistaking Afghanistan’s Kunar Province with a canyon from the American Southwest. Snowcapped peaks and harsh scrub forests lining the slopes make for a unique combat environment. Firefights often range over a hundred yards or more, making combatants only visible due to the flash from a rifle through the brush. It’s this type of terrain that is the Special Forces and Air Forces’ bread ‘n butter. The shadows of the valley make excellent cover for covert operations and the difficult, long range engagements make overwhelming air power a popular tool in the G.I.’s arsenal.
But it’s been 10 years, shouldn’t combat be fading away? Well, yes and no. The Taliban are an elusive force. Those valleys and mountains make escape and evasion exceptionally easy, seldom are entire enemy teams taken out. And even after years of open combat, the Taliban still hold the numbers and home-field advantage. With more “recruits” available at any time and sympathizers still out there, they are in no danger of dissolving as an organization. In Iraq, al-Qaeda has shown a similar longevity. While not as consistently active as in years past, they continue to show they are alive a kicking. The inspiration for this post, in fact, comes from a very recent VBIED (Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device) attack in Baghdad. They lack the means to wage all-out war but still like to remind the world they can inflict chaos and harm when they please.
And there lies the problem. After years of fighting, are we any closer to erasing the threat of a swift Taliban or al-Qaeda takeover once U.S. forces leave country? Some citizens of Iraq cannot fathom the U.S. leaving and hope the day never really comes. There are always exceptions, but many citizens value the work being done, the improvements to infrastructure, education, and politics. To leave, they know, would mean a return to the oppressive rule of yesteryear in short order.
So what is the U.S. and NATO doing to truly put that fear to rest…?
I’m sure anyone who hasn't been living under has at least heard of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet. And perhaps you've heard of its companion aircraft, the F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter). And just maybe you've heard how much money and time both are taking to reach full combat readiness.
Now both these aircraft have cost billions to develop and cost, individually, upward of 100-150 million dollars. The funny thing, regarding the F-35 at least, is that the program was envisioned as a “low cost” supplement to the F-22 program. This sort of tandem development is nothing new and in fact is just a revision of the “High Cost, Low Cost” strategy made popular in the 70s and 80s. Back in those days the U.S. Air Force was looking for replacements for many of their early generation jet fighters. In the air, tension was high as the Soviet Union continued to developed and display its increasingly modern air-to-air high performance fighters such as the Su-27 Flanker and Mig-29Fulcrum. To effectively safeguard America’s airspace against such threats, the U.S. government commissioned two planes at roughly the same time: the F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon.
The Eagle was, and still is, the best air-to-air fighter ever to take to the skies; a true air-superiority platform with 104 confirmed kills to zero (as in none what so ever) losses due to an enemy combatant. But with high production costs due to its advanced radar suite, the Eagle was no bargain. To complement the high cost, low volume, F-15 a second aircraft was pitched by the now infamous “FighterMafia.” This would eventually become the F-16, winner of the Lightweight Fighter competition designed to, as the name implies, find a low cost, high volume, supplement to the Eagle. This same strategy, to build a (relative) few high-tech super-planes and pad out the rest of the force with more general, easier-to-produce, aircraft, has resurfaced in the form of the F-22 and F-35 situation. The Raptor has far greater stealth and speed (able to Super-Cruise) capabilities with an air-to-air focus (a la the F-15C) and the JSF, again as name suggests, will be a multirole craft serving multiples branches of the U.S. military (Army, Air Force, and Navy).
So where am I going with all this? Well, if you track military aviation news (and who doesn't ?!?!), you should have heard that both the F-22 and F-35 have been grounded almost as often as they fly. There are different reasons for each craft, each time, but the latest issue plaguing the F-22, for example, is a faulty oxygen supply system. At over 30,000 feet a lack of oxygen becomes a worrying matter. The groundings have been so bad that some pilots are in danger of needing re-certification training to stay safe after such prolonged periods without flight practice. Last I heard, the Raptors were being allowed to fly on a case-by-case basis, just not at high altitudes.
With all these issues surrounding the projects and their monumental costs, the public, and even some top military brass, are having doubts as to whether the effort and resources are worth it. Some argue that the U.S. doesn’t need such aircraft when the F-15 can still hold its own. But one always has to keep an eye to the future, and in doing so it comes to light that both China and Russia are developing counters to our own 5th generation fighter, the F-22. So are your tax dollars being spent on needless hardware only good for boasting military power or on a necessary element that will protect American skies given the worst occurs? I like to think the latter, and damn does the Raptor evoke a primal response in person and flexing full thrust-vectoring…
P.S. Long post. What can I say, I told you I’m all about military hardware and aviation…
