Skip to main content

Front-paged at

... and a tale of dogged reporters ...

Larisa Alexandrova and John Byrne of Raw Story found a little-noticed quote in the NYT (fee) on Aug. 25, 2002 by Lt-Gen. Michael Moseley, and went digging:

A U.S. general who commanded the U.S. allied air forces in Iraq has confirmed that the U.S. and Britain conducted a massive secret bombing campaign before the U.S. actually declared war on Iraq.[.....]

Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.

Moseley said that some 600 bombs were dropped before the official start of the war, targeting 391 locations and/or installations.

Moseley explained that the combination of air strikes and covert raids occurred in the southern no-fly zone regions covered by routine patrols. ...

More below : : :

Raw Story has built a graph to show the spike in bombings. You can also view an extended graph.

Raw Story notes that "[t]he targets of these strikes are difficult to pinpoint, but [it] has found a clear divergence between U.S. and Iraqi reports at the time, as well as disagreement over what provoked the strikes":, a military defense group, raised concerns about the air strikes when they mushroomed in early 2002, though their worries produced few press reports.

The group saw the strikes as a means by which the U.S. could degrade Iraqi defensive capabilities, and as a precursor to a declared war.

"It was no big secret at the time," director John Pike told RAW STORY. "It was apparent to us at the time that they were doing it and why they were doing it, and that was part of the reason why we were convinced that a decision to go to war had already been made, because the war had already started."

Pike says the allied forces used their position in the `No-Fly- Zone' to engage in pre-emptive action long before war was formally declared.

"They I think had decided to take advantage of Southern Watch and Northern Watch to go ahead and take the air defense system apart and attack any other targets that they felt needed to be preemptively destroyed," Pike asserted.

"They explicitly altered the rules of engagement," he added, "because initially the rules of engagement had been that they would shoot back if [someone] shot at them. Then they said that if they were shot at, they would shoot at whatever they wanted to."

One U.S. Air Force vet told a [World Tribunal on Iraq War] hearing in Istanbul this weekend, "I saw bombing intensify. All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first."

In fact, reports Raw Story, Iraq's Minister for Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri "complained about the air raids to the UN Secretary-General May 27, 2002." Mr. Sabri complained again on May 28, 2002.

However, "[t]he U.S. account differed," reports Raw Story. "The U.S. European Command issued this statement about an attack the following day":

Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from a site in the vicinity of Saddam Dam while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attack by delivering precision ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.

"The public reasons given for at least some of these air strikes," Reports Raw Story, "generally involved purported violations of the no-fly zone region in Southern Iraq or the disabling of air defense installations."

But the timing and intensity of the strikes suggest otherwise. As the U.S. quietly moved heavy armor to the region in early 2002, along with supplies of ammunition from Qatar in August of that year, the strikes mushroomed.

The number of days per month that allied planes attacked installations in Iraq leapt from six to nine between July and August of 2002, then skipped to thirteen from December to February of 2003.

Congress had approved the use of force pending the exhaustion of diplomatic options in October 2002, and UN inspectors returned in November, while an aggressive air campaign was in full swing.

When President Bush formally declared war on Iraq in March 2003, allied airstrikes in Iraq actually declined.

Further recommended reading: "Spikes of Activity" at Why We Are Back.

Emphases mine.

Originally posted to SusanHu on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 01:13 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Michael Smith (none)
    Michael Smith has broken this story at The Times of London.


  •  Well sort of (none)
    He broke his "part of it" and said we would be breaking it (his deep throat thing). So it is sort of old news (1 day) and also new news (today).
  •  This is a direct violation of the constitution (none)
    and an unequivocally anti-democratic, imperial act.

    Forget the pre-war hype that created an aura of inevitability before the war, the atmosphere that Milbank thinks protects him and us and Bush from accountability.

    The reality-based words of our constitution require that we prosecute this crime against our republic.

    Otherwise we are unworthy citizens of this great land, and can claim to have given little back to what it has given us.

    SPREAD THIS TRUTH ABOUT THE BOMBING.  The ground right now is very fertile for the sowing.

    "I can't stand it, I know you planned it, I'm a set it straight, this watergate..."

    by Republic Not Empire on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 01:23:03 PM PDT

    •  What worries me ... (none)
      is that people will greet the news with a "ho-hum."  The U.S. was just trying to "soften up" its targets.

      And, more disturbing, bombing from the air is abstract to the average American.  The consequences on the ground are rarely, if ever, shown.  So, this news, I fear, won't jolt most Americans.

      Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

      by SusanHu on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 01:29:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd put it this way (none)
        "Kossacks approve of Pearl Harbor!"

        And not the movie, either.

        After all, what's the difference - unless you subscribe to "it's ok if it's us" doctrine.

        "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

        by bellatrys on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 01:39:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thereby signalling to Saddam (none)
    that the threat to go to war was not a bluff. Notice that Saddam reacted verbally to the bombing but not materially.  Bush and Blair failed to wrong-foot him.  While Saddam surely hoped that the U.S. would not go in without a new U.N. vote sanctioning invasion, which he hoped to forestall by cooperating with the Weapons Inspectors, he would have taken the necessary defensive measures, including dispersing munitions, preparing hide-outs, establishing protocols for destroying sensitive records at short notice, and setting up a secret chain of command to manage the resistance in the event of an invasion that he knew would overwhelm his army.  

    The U.S. Occupation is now reaping the consequences of that signal.  

  •  See also Tonkin, Gulf Of... [nm] (none)

    "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

    by bellatrys on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 01:42:34 PM PDT

  •  Is this the same info and interview... (none)
    ... that these folks had?

    US attacked Iraqi defences starting in 2002

    It is difficult to keep up with it all :-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site