Afghanistan airstrikes up 31 percent in 2008

[unhappycamper]

Afghanistan airstrikes up 31 percent in 2008
By Jim Michaels - USA TODAY
Posted : Wednesday Nov 5, 2008 21:15:38 EST

WASHINGTON — Air missions to back U.S. troops on the ground have increased by 31 percent in Afghanistan this year, as fighting in the country spreads.

The growing reliance on air power raises the risk of injuring civilians and their property and reflects a shortage of ground forces needed to protect civilians and root out insurgents, ground commanders and military experts say.

“If we got more boots on the ground, we would not have to rely as much on” airstrikes, said Army Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Ground commanders in Afghanistan have asked for an additional three combat brigades and an array of support forces, which could amount to about 20,000 more troops.

The air missions, called close air support, are airstrikes are requested by ground forces engaged with the enemy.


Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/11/gns_afghanistan_airstrikes_110508/%2e

[OneBlueSky]

1. aerial bombing is a cowardly way to conduct a war . . .

I don't like bullies, and I don't like unfair fights . . . to me, bombing has always been an abhorant tactic . . . delivering explosives of ghastly destructive power from thousands of feet up or hundreds of miles away and hoping you'll hit the right target (and only the right target) is a cowardly way to run a war . . . no risk to your own personnel, and no consequences if your bombs miss their mark take out bunches of civilians, or destroy their homes or businesses . . .

it boggles the mind that human beings are capable of doing this to other human beings -- and believing that it's a perfectly "ethical" tactic of modern warfare . . . their values just baffle me . . .