The Bombing Story

As New York Timesman Rusk destroyed the napalm myth, the London Economist just as effectively disposed of another anti-U.S. allegation: that U.S. bombers are indiscriminately killing South Vietnamese civilians. U.S. bombing policy, noted the Economist, is based on "two apparently contrary, yet complementary principles. In certain special zones or in areas where full-scale operations are being waged against the enemy, the bombing is devastating and relentless. But in areas which contain civilians, the most elaborate ground rules are in force to try to stop them from being hurt."

As an example, said the Economist, no air strike can be made unless the lo cal province chief gives his approval. This may often result in delays that allow the enemy to escape. "British television viewers," said the Economist, "who are conditioned to regard the air war in Viet Nam as an unrelieved exercise in American brutality, could profitably observe this curious partnership between American pilots and Vietnamese officials."

Before bombing commences, continued the Economist, the target is pinpointed by observers, who "reconnoiter the area for hours in slow-flying aircraft, often at great personal risk. If there is a possibility of hitting civilians, the whole thing is usually called off." In some areas of the Mekong Delta that have been declared "friendly," U.S. patrol boats are forbidden to return enemy fire for fear of hitting civilians. B-52 bombers, used only in full-scale open fighting, are electronically controlled and have a "remarkable" degree of accuracy. "The picture is reasonably clear," concluded the Economist. "Perhaps never before has a belligerent wielded such a preponderance of power with so much restraint."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.