August 11, 2003
IT'S A TOSSUP
Good piece on Canadians in Kabul. Choice quote: "The Germans have dubbed the place Camp Krusty. The Canadians are considering Camp Scorpion or Canada House".
Hmm. Decisions, decisions. (Hat tip to Pat C.)
REBRANDING AIN'T JUST FOR TOOTHPASTE ANYMORE
You say tom-ay-to, and I say tom-ah-to;
You say napalm and I say 500 lb Mark 77 firebomb;
Tomayto, tomahto, napalm, firebomb;
Let's flatten Safwan Hill.
Best quote: "A spokesman admitted [firebombs] were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage."
UPDATE: I remember the denials at the time of the Safwan bombing that, despite eyewitness testimony from reporters and soldiers, the Armed Forces PR machine insisting napalm wasn't used. I probably should have commented on it at the time. It's technically true... the old Vietnam-era napalm was chemically unstable and an environmental hazard wherever it was stored. The modern US firebomb material does not pose the same storage hazard. It is also about 50 per cent more destructive per unit weight vs. soft targets. But the modern firebomb is delivered exactly the same way (level bombing under 1000 ft), tumbles in the air the same unmistakable way, and to an observer on the next hill looks indistinguishable from its precursor. Per unit weight, a firebomb is arguably more effective than an AP cluster munition vs. soft targets under most conditions, and against a tightly packed target can do the same damage with a single munition that you'd need several precision high explosive weapons to do, due to its wider area of effect.
I should also add that any firebomb-delivering aircraft is about the best possible anti-aircraft target an AA gunner can hope for: low and level. For that reason, its use on the modern battlefield is limited to situations where the enemy is incapable of mounting any air defence, in addition to close-packed (and, due to the large potential for blowback from collateral damage, isolated from local civilans as well). Even in Iraq, that was a rare combination of circumstances, making the use of firebombs in both 1991 and 2003 still something of a rarity.
"endearingly macho" -- Mark Steyn
"wonderfully detailed analysis" -- John Allemang, Globe and Mail
"unusually candid" -- Tom Ricks, Foreignpolicy.com
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
News:
The Globe and Mail
The Star
The Wash. Post
Opinion:
TNR
Slate
Washington Monthly
Rants:
Canadians
Penny
Janes
Cosh
The Hound
Coyne
Wells
Farrell, etc.
Steyn
Levant
Afghanistan
The Torch
Abu M.
Bill & Bob
Ghosts of Alex
Registan
Jari
Ink Spots
Ackerman
Kings
FRI
Embedded
Milnews.ca
Can-AFG
The Capt.
Etc.
TMLutas
Sullivan
Marshall
Kaus
Lileks
Reynolds
Welch
Farber
The Shark
Breen
Henley
Electrolite
Samizdata
Slotman
Simberg
Northrup
Bryant
Yglesias
Cole
Drum
Clients/Employers
(Past and Present):
U of T
Cdn. Forces
CG Magazine
LRC
Adrenaline Vault