ABSTRACT
I t may be well to consider, in a purely objective and detached manner, whether in any circumstance, even where the utmost circumspection is employed, the use of the air weapon for bombing purposes on the Frontier has had any justification from its results. It should be clearly understood that the hateful use of poison gas from the air is not here under discussion at all. We are simply considering the employment of the aeroplane as a punitive weapon in hostile districts which have been already warned. I f war is to be waged at all-so the argument runs-then the quicker it is over the better. The agony of the conflict should not be prolonged. The Air Arm brings the quickest results and therefore in the end less suffering than the old long drawn-out punitive war. From a purely military point of view, a defence of this new air weapon is to be found in a speech by Air Commander Sir John Salmond, who had gathered in his time a wide experience of its results in Iraq, when used against refractory tribesmen.1 He points out how the Government of Iraq had been able to consolidate its authority by this means. A certain area of Mesopotamia had before been a veritable plague spot, defying all comers. It was also intersected by canals in such a manner that it could
only be crossed by pack animals. There was always a danger of a raid being made upon the BasrahBaghdad Railway, which ran through a part of the district. The tribesmen had done this on a previous occasion and were likely to do so again.
