home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
012891
/
0128993.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
3KB
|
76 lines
<text id=91TT0207>
<title>
Jan. 28, 1991: What Happened To The Body Counts?
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
Jan. 28, 1991 War In The Gulf
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE GULF WAR, Page 24
What Happened to the Body Counts?
</hdr><body>
<p> Q. General, besides the various installations we have talked
about that we're bombing, are we dropping bombs on Iraqi
infantry brigades or other troops?
</p>
<p> A. [From General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff] Allow me to duck that for the time being.
</p>
<p> Whatever else it accomplished, the outbreak of Operation
Desert Storm struck onlookers as a surpassing marvel: a
tiptoeing whirlwind, bloodless belligerency. The enormous
firepower loosed in air raids on Iraq caused, according to
early reports, only a smattering of civilian deaths. If that
seemed strange, the sense of unreality was heightened by the
release of videotapes taken by U.S. Stealth fighters over
Baghdad. Images of laser-guided bombs sailing slap on target
into a ventilation shaft, followed by the building's soundless
obliteration, produced the feel of combat found in a Nintendo
game.
</p>
<p> An antiseptic war? Or was the surgical face of battle, 1991
style, a mask over the familiar maw of death? The high command
of the U.S.-led alliance offered few insights. In a press
conference the day after Desert Storm was launched, General
Powell repeatedly declined to estimate casualties. As far as
Iraqi civilians went, his reluctance seemed justified:
impossible to tell from the air, casualties could be gauged
only by Iraq's own, doubtful figures (23 deaths in the first
wave of assaults, according to preliminary reports in Baghdad)
or by the guesswork of foreign correspondents on the scene.
And yet Powell also dodged queries about the toll in Iraqi
trenches.
</p>
<p> Contrasts with the last television war--Vietnam--could
not have been more striking. In that chaotic enterprise, TV
watchers were treated to point-blank bloodshed at the dinner
table every night. Fighting an insurgency, moreover, meant that
the Pentagon could not measure progress by battles won and
territory gained--hence the emphasis on Viet Cong body
counts. Public skepticism about those inflated numbers surely
contributed to today's policy of restraint in the gulf. But war
with Iraq produced another reason for downplaying death.
Washington does not want to inflame Arab opinion against the
U.S. Although he hoped that Iraqis might rise up and overthrow
Saddam Hussein, President Bush recognized that Arabs elsewhere
are keenly sensitive about the idea of a Western power
inflicting heavy casualties on their brethren.
</p>
<p> Because those sensitivities might extend to soldiers,
spokesmen for the alliance withheld their estimates even of
Iraqi military casualties--though two U.S. officials
privately described them as "serious" and "major." On the
record the vocabulary tends to be technical, even euphemistic.
Alliance commanders referred to "collateral damage"--a term
meaning dead or wounded civilians who should have picked a
safer neighborhood. As the war continues, the facts--if not
the official lingo--are certain to get bloodier.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>