“Perhaps the least surprising thing about the second Gulf war is that it began with a volley of Tomahawk missiles. Since they were first used in the 1991 conflict, they have become the ultimate symbol of US military power. Oliver Burkeman reveals how a hi-tech weapon that promised blood-free combat changed the way America thinks about war.” Guardian/UK

Many opposed to war find the adulation of precision-guided weaponry to be like the worship of Mammon, mollifying — realistically or not — those concerned with civilian casualties and helping to make war more conceivable and thus more likely. The war planners are able to think the unthinkable, and for the American consumers it is treated as little more than a video game. But this is nothing new; those who opposed the Vietnam War frequently cited the impersonality of high-altitude bombing as sanitizing war then too and making it more palatable to the warmongers and the viewing audience. In Gulf War I and as the buildup to Gulf War II mounted, many wsere lulled by the thought that, in addition to higher-and-higher-tech, we might be perfecting lower-and-lower-bodycount war as well. The gospel was that, after Vietnam, the American public would not accept a war with virtually any casualties; and that it was feasible to prosecute a war without losing our own (except from those pesky helicopter crashes that seem to happen so often; we must be skimping horribly on our maintenance budget, or our training for technicians, despite soaring defense expenditures). That turns out to be laughable, arrogant, deluded thinking. But it remains to be seen, as fierce Iraqi resistance persists and US body counts defy all expectations, whether it will turn the tide of popular opinion.

“Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box…”

— Country Joe MacDonald