“Can coercive airpower quell a rebellion?” So opens a new working paper by Regine Schwab, Werner Krause, and Samer Massoud on the bombing of hospitals in civil wars — considering, in particular, the case of Syria.

Why Syria? “Since the conflict’s outbreak in 2011, the Syrian war has exhibited a systematic pattern of targeting, denying, and weaponizing healthcare. Syria is thus a critically important case to study this phenomenon.” The authors also make the case that Syria adds nuance to the debate around the effects of civilian harm in counterinsurgency, as the other cases where such data is available are Iraq and Afghanistan.

The authors distinguish between attacks on civilians (the focus of much of the related pre-existing literature) and attacks on civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals. An attack on a hospital is not, they argue, the same thing as an attack on a civilian — but it is “a widely visible form and powerful signal of civilian victimization.” The authors — who concluded that there is credible evidence that pro-government forces’ targeting of  medical facilities “was intentional and deliberate” — looked particularly at counterinsurgent bombings and subsequent violent acts, and found that, far from decreasing violence, targeting hospitals actually increases insurgent violence. (The authors make this conclusion quantitatively but supplement it with qualitative research: namely, interviews that suggested “hospital bombings induce rebels to resist more fiercely through two mechanisms: intrinsic motivations and civilian pressure.”)

The authors also believe that, though they looked specifically at medical infrastructure, these findings could very well hold for other kinds of civilian infrastructure, like water facilities and schools.

One possible avenue for future research is why, exactly, governments continue to rely on coercive airpower when the effectiveness of such strategies is “disputed” (to say nothing of what morality and international law have to say about, for example, the bombing of a hospital). The authors suggest that one reason is that it is cheap in comparison to a sustained ground offensive, and that “as long as insurgent responses do not directly threaten incumbents, they may thus be willing to pay the price of a tit-for-tat cycle of violence.” So, too, do the authors concede that “it remains a crucial task for future studies to disentangle the complex, long-term relationship between targeting civilian infrastructure and subsequent violence dynamics.” For now, though, they have found that “rather than contributing to incumbent victory or a negotiated settlement, the targeting of medical facilities in northwestern Syria has fueled insurgents’ resistance and thus makes ending the conflict less likely.” Peace has yet to emerge from the rubble of a bombed out hospital.

The mass killing of civilians gets attention in the political arena and from the media, the authors write. But targeting civilian infrastructure also has long-term consequences. Those repercussions are often overlooked, but they can be “severe” and linger long after we’ve stopped considering them — if we ever did in the first place.

Daniel Ofman looked at the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was launched more than six months ago. The counteroffensive was intended to recapture territory but found that goal “thwarted” by Russian forces. Others have noted, however, that Ukraine has made other gains, arguing that Russia’s military power has deteriorated more quickly since the counteroffensive began. That not all is well for Russia’s military is not, however, necessarily good news for Ukraine, the future of which, Ofman argued, still depends on sustained European and American aid and interest — and support, Ofman said, has “wavered recently” in the US and some parts of Europe.

Shirin Jaafari wrote that Jordanians are boycotting American companies viewed as pro-Israel. A red label warns customers that the products are boycotted, and concludes, “your choice.” Jaafari explained that though the boycott movement is not new, it has gained renewed interest given Israel’s current war in Gaza, ongoing since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7. As Jaafari put it, “Many in Jordan and in other Arab countries say that Israel’s war on Gaza would not be possible without the backing of the US and some European countries, where many of these big corporations are based.” The boycott’s impact on Jordan’s economy is mixed: some worry about job losses, while others note that local businesses are seeing a bump.

Khamsone Sirimanivong, with the assistance of Pajouablai Monica Lee, considered Henry Kissinger’s legacy in Southeast Asia. “Laos was my ancestors’ home before we fled to America. The home where my family led a quiet and sustainable life, farming crops, raising cattle and weaving textiles, where children roamed and played carefree before bombs were littered everywhere,” wrote Sirimanivong, who also warns that today’s leaders are all too comfortable making the same mistakes that Kissinger did, pointing in particular to US support for cluster munitions. It is one thing to condemn Kissinger; it is another to work not to be like him.

Why was there no 007 in ‘07?

Oh, rats!

The devil went down to Wittenberg.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Nobody is doing it like them.

Spend your money elsewhere.