Five-Million-Dollar Man Among Pak Dead

Tim Cavanaugh | January 19, 2006

The New York Times reports that at least four of the 18 people killed in last week's controversial airstrike in Northeastern Pakistan were Al Qaeda types. The highest value target appears to have been one Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar:

At least one of the men believed by the Pakistani officials to have been killed, an Egyptian known here as Abu Khabab al-Masri, is on the United States' most-wanted list with a $5 million reward for help in his capture. His real name is Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, 52, who according to the United States government Web site rewardsforjustice.net, was an expert in explosives and poisons.

Abu Khabab, the Web site says, operated the Qaeda camp at Darrunta, near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, and trained hundreds of fighters. He was responsible for putting together a training manual with recipes for crude chemical and biological weapons, the Web site says.

Among those Abu Khabab trained was Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's No. 3 operative, who was captured in 2002 in the Pakistani town of Faisalabad, one of the Pakistani officials said.

Among the other sweethearts reportedly killed in the raid: An Egyptian leader of insurgent operations in southern Afghanistan, Ayman al-Zawahiri's Moroccan son-in-law, and another Egyptian Zawahiri associate. Possibly two others were also foreign militants. This is all from unnamed Pakistani and U.S. officials. I wouldn't expect any of this to calm down the furious anti-American protestors in Pakistan. Somehow the idea that the dead were innocent civilian victims and the idea that the dead were heroic martyrs fighting the Great Satan never seem to be as mutually exclusive to the fist shakers as they are to me.

Comments

|1.19.06 @ 7:55AM|#

Does this make him a Shish Khabab?

*rimshot*


*gunshots*

|1.19.06 @ 8:24AM|#

Somehow the idea that the dead were innocent civilian victims and the idea that the dead were heroic martyrs fighting the Great Satan never seem to be as mutually exclusive to the fist shakers as they are to me.

Well, both types were killed, right? I really don't see how the fact that perhaps 4 of the 18 were "Al Qaeda types" makes the strike any better. If we shouldn't throw a bomb into an American general store where 4 terrorists are hanging out and 14 Americans happened to be shopping, we shouldn't throw a bomb in the Pakistan scenario. Here I appeal to a principle that seems pretty unpopular in some circles: the life of a Pakistani civilian is worth just as much as that of an American civilian.

Tim Cavanaugh|1.19.06 @ 8:48AM|#

Here I appeal to a principle that seems pretty unpopular in some circles: the life of a Pakistani civilian is worth just as much as that of an American civilian.

Which means that this is still good news because 1) there are not, as originally believed, 18 civilians dead, but a somewhat smaller number; 2) among those civilians is apparently a homeowner who opted to have terrorists and murderers into his home for dinner; and 3) although this news does not relieve the United States of responsibility for the civilian deaths, at the very least it shifts a large portion of the responsibility back to that homeowner, who apparently was not enough of a man to send his wives and children somewhere else while dining with wanted killers. Factor in that the dead included members of a movement wholly committed to slaughtering Americans, with a proven ability to kill thousands of Americans in less than an hour, and at least arithmetically, this transaction is substantially less egregious than it seemed a few days ago.

|1.19.06 @ 9:04AM|#

I largely agree with Tim. Assuming that the current version of events bear out, it's much more understandable. I'm still not convinced that our government bears no responsibility for those civilian deaths, but the story becomes much more complicated.

Also, the comparison with 4 terrorists inside a building in the US isn't necessarily appropriate. In the US there would be other ways to capture those terrorists without bombing the store. In rural Pakistan the local authorities are usually some mixture of weak, corrupt, and sympathetic to the bad guys. And sending in US forces could easily result in at least as many civilian casualties, since they'd have to fight their way in and out of the village. All things considered, it's quite plausible that this bombing was the best option from the standpoint of civilian casualties.

I'm still not prepared to say that our government's hands are completely clean (child deaths cannot be easily excused), but I am prepared to much more serious thought about how to assign blame.

|1.19.06 @ 9:08AM|#

One place where I might disagree with Tim:

How do we know that the homeowner allowed the terrorists into his house voluntarily? And how do we know that it was his idea to keep the women and kids in the house? It's plausible to wonder if the terrorists make a policy of not letting anybody leave a house as long as they're inside, so that nobody can run out and report who's inside.

Then again, I may be totally wrong.

pigwiggle|1.19.06 @ 9:12AM|#

"I really don't see how the fact that perhaps 4 of the 18 were "Al Qaeda types" makes the strike any better."

Lay down with dogs, ...

|1.19.06 @ 9:25AM|#

pigwiggle: Lay down with dogs, ...

When the dogs have guns you don't always have a choice.

|1.19.06 @ 9:26AM|#

I'll wait for a more credible proof of success than the NYTimes...show me the body...or the dna...

Til then, I will beleive only that 18 people were killed

B.D.|1.19.06 @ 9:27AM|#

I'm troubled on this one as well. The loss of innocent civilians is troubling. Also, in an earlier report (I don't recall where), the U.S. government was said to have been tracking this location for 2 weeks. Why not send in a team of assassins and lower the risk of civilian deaths? Why not get the Pakistanis to take care of this? Finally, what possible good purpose will this have served if in return it sparks 5 more people to become terrorists for each one killed?

|1.19.06 @ 9:28AM|#

Fuck 'em. Glad they're dead.

|1.19.06 @ 9:28AM|#

Not sure how criminal gangs operate overseas, but here in Jersey, when Anthony the Plumber's #3 gets whacked, they don't disband, they just get another.

|1.19.06 @ 9:33AM|#

"Not enough of a man." Careful you don't trip over your enormous cock, Cavanaugh.

|1.19.06 @ 9:46AM|#

Til then, I will beleive only that 18 people were killed

so you haven't even seen the bodies yet you believe 18 were killed? sucker.

|1.19.06 @ 9:57AM|#

hey 'w'...as Lucy might say to Linus...

Don't you recognize sarcasm when you hear it ;-)

|1.19.06 @ 9:58AM|#

I agree with everyone who trashed Tim on this one. Tim is arguing that it's OK to kill an innocent child if her dad wasn't a man enough to send her outside while entertaining terrorists. In fact, it's OK to kill an innocent child even if didn't happen that way, as long as it might have. Your hands are bloody, Tim, and your cock is short. Defending the right of the state to murder the innocent for the greater good? Is that what libertarianism is about?

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 9:58AM|#

I really don't see how the fact that perhaps 4 of the 18 were "Al Qaeda types" makes the strike any better.

Well, for starters, I think we can all agree 14 dead "innocents" is better than 18, so unless your definition of "better" is limited to "better propaganda for those who oppose the US," I don't see where you are coming from.

On a larger, and less snarky, point, though, this indicates that the strike was made according to decent intelligence on acceptable targets.

The fact that there were collateral deaths really, really blows, but if you limit yourself to taking military action only when there is no possibility of collateral damage, then you might as well say military action is never acceptable under any circumstances.

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 10:01AM|#

When the dogs have guns you don't always have a choice.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are we supposed to give a free pass to anybody who can get into a civilian building or line up a meatshield?

when Anthony the Plumber's #3 gets whacked, they don't disband, they just get another.

This either. As long as there is another recruit lined up for a promotion, we just shouldn't bother?

To listen to you people talk, AQ is better off now that we've killed one of its core members.

pigwiggle|1.19.06 @ 10:04AM|#

"When the dogs have guns you don't always have a choice."

You know, if these folks were really running around the Pakistani countryside imposing themselves on unwilling villages I have a feeling they would be a bit easier to find. Come on, doesn't it seem a bit absurd that a group of wanted terrorists would travel miles from their hidey-holes, congregate at some arbitrary village, and force a dinner party at gunpoint?

Ashish George|1.19.06 @ 10:07AM|#

If, as it appears to be the case, the Pakistani government did not know of or approve this strike, it was unethical. As a general principle, governments should be given no more sanction to strike their enemies across borders than watchful neighbors are allowed to discipline neighborhood vandals by breaking into the kids' homes and caning them or somesuch as their parents protest.

|1.19.06 @ 10:14AM|#

Ashish said: "If, as it appears to be the case, the Pakistani government did not know of or approve this strike, it was unethical."

Maybe. But maybe the 20 other times we figured out where the dinner party was, and notified the local Pakistanis, the party ended before anything could be done.

|1.19.06 @ 10:54AM|#

Why not send in a team of assassins and lower the risk of civilian deaths?

As a guess, I would say because it is tougher to successfully place a strike team and then successfully get them out than to lob a missle.

Why not get the Pakistanis to take care of this?

From what I have read elsewhere, this portion of Pakistan is akin to 'Wild West' of 19th Century America only worse. The Pakistani central government has very little power in these regions. For instance, the Paki army negotiates with local tribes before the move into these areas near the Afghan border.

Finally, what possible good purpose will this have served if in return it sparks 5 more people to become terrorists for each one killed?

Perhaps it will dissuade(sp?) 5 potential terrorists from becoming terrorists.

|1.19.06 @ 10:57AM|#

Well, for starters, I think we can all agree 14 dead "innocents" is better than 18, so unless your definition of "better" is limited to "better propaganda for those who oppose the US," I don't see where you are coming from.

I meant "better" as an idea. And even in the sense you understood me, the difference is not significant, in my view.

On a larger, and less snarky, point, though, this indicates that the strike was made according to decent intelligence on acceptable targets.

Not necessarily. The guy we were after wasn't there. We may have just lucked out. Notice how it was AFTER the attack that we found out who was there. If the intelligence was good, wouldn't we have known BEFOREHAND?

The fact that there were collateral deaths really, really blows, but if you limit yourself to taking military action only when there is no possibility of collateral damage, then you might as well say military action is never acceptable under any circumstances.

My view doesn't require that limitation. We did not have to strike that target at the particular time we chose. We could have waited until there was some separation between who we wanted dead and the innocent. Of course, this would require ACTUAL good intelligence about who was there, which apparently we did not have. That being said, I question the whole view that we can just go in and kill people because we believe they have ties to terrorist organizations.

Which means that this is still good news because 1) there are not, as originally believed, 18 civilians dead, but a somewhat smaller number

Well, fewer civilian deaths than previously thought is indeed good news, but what matters is our decision process in going in. If it was something like, "Well, we don't know who's down there, but there is probably an Al Qaeda guy, so let drop a bomb or two," then I still object.

2) among those civilians is apparently a homeowner who opted to have terrorists and murderers into his home for dinner

Just like O.J. Simpson's friends? Death by association? So now feeding a person with links to a terrorist organization is a capital offense, the sentence to be carried out immediately?

although this news does not relieve the United States of responsibility for the civilian deaths, at the very least it shifts a large portion of the responsibility back to that homeowner, who apparently was not enough of a man to send his wives and children somewhere else while dining with wanted killers.

No, all the homeowner did was serve dinner. We dropped the bombs. I don't see what "being a man" has to do with anything, and even if it did, why should the penalty for this be death? He may have not been thinking about the possibility of an attack at all (since he was in a country we haven't declared war on), or he may have been thinking that we weren't such monsters that we would attack a house that probably contains innocents. I guess we proved him wrong, eh?

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 11:35AM|#

We did not have to strike that target at the particular time we chose. We could have waited until there was some separation between who we wanted dead and the innocent.

You're watching way too many James Bond movies if you think we have real-time intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorists in remotest Pakistan that can tell us not only exactly where they are, but the precise identities and degree of involvement of every single person near them. Sounds to me like you are asking for the functional equivalent of "no military action ever, anywhere."

The guy we were after wasn't there. We may have just lucked out. Notice how it was AFTER the attack that we found out who was there. If the intelligence was good, wouldn't we have known BEFOREHAND?

Yeah, it was just a coincidence that we had intelligence that some AQ biggies were going to get together in a certain house on a certain night, and sure enough they were there, even though Mr. Big couldn't make it his own self.

I repeat, based on all the evidence, our intelligence appears to have plenty good enough to have ordered the strike. To ask for perfect intelligence before acting (we know exactly and comprehensively who will and will not be hurt by the strike at the instant the bomb goes off) is to say you are never willing to take military action.

|1.19.06 @ 11:36AM|#

There folks were having the Eid al Adha feast, so it's not like bombing a store with only 4 terrorists in it, it's more like bombing a house on Thanksgiving when you know 4 of the 18 people having dinner are terrorists.

While I agree that it sucks that kids were killed, there have been enough stories on this board of "drug raids gone wrong" where innocent people are shot and sometimes killed to think the military is going to be more cautious of innocent life than civilian police.

|1.19.06 @ 11:38AM|#

There=these

|1.19.06 @ 11:43AM|#

"So now feeding a person with links to a terrorist organization is a capital offense, the sentence to be carried out immediately?"

Ethan, I wouldn't want to be a convenince store cleck who unwittingly sold food to a top al queda, never mind feeding one in my house, just for what the feds are going to do to me if they find out. You can be indignant about it, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

|1.19.06 @ 11:49AM|#

Responsibility for civilian deaths resides with the slimeballs who used them as shields. Saying you can't attack them when they are among women and children is equivalent to insuring they will always be among women and children because they confer immunity. I thought libertarians were supposed to know about carrots and sticks?

And yes, accidentally killing some civilians to prevent Islamofascist nutters from deliberately killing a lot more civilians is a moral, if regrettable, action.

|1.19.06 @ 11:54AM|#

...who apparently was not enough of a man to send his wives and children somewhere else while dining with wanted killers.

If we're going to be macho about it, what kind of a "man" attacks his enemy from miles away, knowing that by doing so he's going to kill innocent children at the same time?

Ethan absolutely, positively sums up my feelings.

Here I appeal to a principle that seems pretty unpopular in some circles: the life of a Pakistani civilian is worth just as much as that of an American civilian.

If that's not true, let's just say so. But let's not pretend that if known terrorists took over an American establishment with American children as hostages we'd lob a bomb in there, shrug our shoulders and say, "Hey, those kids died because the terrorists used them as shields."

|1.19.06 @ 11:55AM|#

Bonus question: Have any civil or criminal suits been brought against police brutality during a raid by people who were indicted for harboring violent criminals?

Captain Holly|1.19.06 @ 12:02PM|#

If we're going to be macho about it, what kind of a "man" attacks his enemy from miles away, knowing that by doing so he's going to kill innocent children at the same time?

While dueling and swordplay might have a certain appeal to some people, the truth is precision-guided weapons have made war today far, far less hazardous to civilians than say, the 1940's, when millions of European civilians on both sides were killed by indiscriminate aerial bombing delivered by massed formations of hundreds of planes.

|1.19.06 @ 12:04PM|#

You're watching way too many James Bond movies if you think we have real-time intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorists in remotest Pakistan that can tell us not only exactly where they are, but the precise identities and degree of involvement of every single person near them. Sounds to me like you are asking for the functional equivalent of "no military action ever, anywhere."

This was not a wide-ranging military action, it was an attack on a few buildings, so, yes, I think we should have known more about who was there before bombing the place. How that implies that I think that we should not have resisted Hitler you are going to have to explain.

Yeah, it was just a coincidence that we had intelligence that some AQ biggies were going to get together in a certain house on a certain night, and sure enough they were there, even though Mr. Big couldn't make it his own self.

I didn't say it was a coincidence, I said it may have been luck. The justification for an attack should come before the attack, not after. We had some indication that an Al Qaeda dude might be there and let the bombs fly--and had no idea whether we were right or not until the bodies were found. I submit to you that this is not good enough.

To ask for perfect intelligence before acting (we know exactly and comprehensively who will and will not be hurt by the strike at the instant the bomb goes off) is to say you are never willing to take military action.

I never asked for perfect intelligence, I ask for good enough intelligence. If you are destroying a particular building you should have reason to believe that it is not occupied by innocents. You certainly should not strike if you KNOW that there are innocents (which may be the case here and would make the strike even worse).

Captain Holly|1.19.06 @ 12:06PM|#

And while we're at it, which would be more "moral": Using a Hellfire missle to kill General Tojo, the Japanese war cabinet, and a few unfortunate family members, or sending hundreds of B-29s to burn the hell out of Tokyo?

|1.19.06 @ 12:12PM|#

How ever many inocent people were killed, it is a tragedy and not to be taken lightly. At the same time, terrorists hide themselves among innocent civilians and use our sense of morality against us, effectively using civilians as human shields. There is no way to go after them without endangering and sometimes killing innocent people. The hard part is what is proporitional. How many innocent people have to die before the price of getting the terrorist is too high.

Three things to consider about this strike. First, the people we were targeting in the strike were some of the most dangerous and important terrorists in the world. It is not like we bombed a house to get some Al-Quada Gomer Pyle. Second, the strike was done at 3 a.m. to limit the potential for civilian casualties and because of that we missed out on getting OBL's number two man who apparently left the party early. So, the U.S. clearly tried to limit civilian causualties. Third, since the strike did get several important Al-Quada leaders, it was based on some pretty good intelligence. The U.S. did not just go out and randomly bomb some house because they thought there might be terrorists there. Considering the value of the targets, the reliability of the intelligence and the precautions taken to limit civilian casualties, this was a lawful strike dead civilians or not.

|1.19.06 @ 12:15PM|#

"You certainly should not strike if you KNOW that there are innocents (which may be the case here and would make the strike even worse)."

Ethan,

If we followed that maxim there would never be any military strikes. Further, that is just not that law. The mere death of an innocent civilian does not necessarily make a bombing illegal. If the military value of the target outweighs the cost in innocent lives, it is perfectly lawful to take out the target. It is called the law of proportionality.

|1.19.06 @ 12:22PM|#

I wouldn't expect any of this to calm down the furious anti-American protestors in Pakistan.

Neither would I. Which raises the question: why do it?


Factor in that the dead included members of a movement wholly committed to slaughtering Americans, with a proven ability to kill thousands of Americans in less than an hour

You do realize, they got lucky, right? 911 was a coordinated hijacking, not a nuclear attack. And the guys who did it are dead.

Tim McVeigh may have come up a little short on the casualty count, but is there anything to prevent your same line of thinking from being applied to allowing the FBI to bomb a Home Depot in Oklahoma where four Aryan Nations (or whatever) guys are buying fertilizer? Or a farmhouse in Minnesota on Thanksgiving?

If not, then I think the criticism that we value American lives over foreign lives remains valid. Whether we want to conduct moral reasoning on an "us vs. them" basis is up to us. But I am not sure that the conclusions that such reasoning would lead to are ones that lead to positive outcomes.

Yeah, there are terrorists out there who want to kill us. We get it. But sometimes I think we're still at square one in terms of answering the question "so what are the appropriate limits on combating them"?

|1.19.06 @ 12:24PM|#

While dueling and swordplay might have a certain appeal to some people, the truth is precision-guided weapons have made war today far, far less hazardous to civilians than say, the 1940's, when millions of European civilians on both sides were killed by indiscriminate aerial bombing delivered by massed formations of hundreds of planes.

I agree with you, Captain. I'm actually rather proud of the progress our military has made in decreasing "collateral damage." But I still think it's rather obvious that, generally speaking, Americans value the lives of non-American civilians to a much lesser degree than they value the lives of American civilians (or even American military personnel) (which, of course, is probably not unique to Americans; I'm sure nationalism all over the world makes it hard for most to value all civilian lives equally).

|1.19.06 @ 12:42PM|#

So, it's open season.

And when the Spanish kill ten Americans, on American soil, because an important Basque "target" was (or may have been, based on intelligence deemed to be acceptably good but not perfect) available, we will just shrug our collective shoulders and say, "In the Global War on Terror, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Those people shouldn't have been there, it's their own fault."

ps- you are more likely to die from falling down in your own bathroom than as a result of a terrorist act

|1.19.06 @ 12:54PM|#

But let's not pretend that if known terrorists took over an American establishment with American children as hostages we'd lob a bomb in there, shrug our shoulders and say, "Hey, those kids died because the terrorists used them as shields."

To be fair, there are other options available on US soil besides bombing. In rural Pakistan, cooperation with local authorities is generally not possible.

Some people here seem to be willing to just shrug and say "Eh, civilian casualties are the fault of the terrorists hiding among them. Bombs away!" Me, I'd say that civilian casualties have to be weighed in light of (1) How many deaths are you preventing by taking out the bad guys? (2) How confident are you about your answer to #1? and (3) Was there another way to achieve the goal with fewer casualties?

I'm willing to believe that in this case the answer to #3 was, sadly, no. I'm more dubious about the answers to #1 and #2. There's a difference between going after the leaders of a group preparing an attack, and going after the remnant leaders of a shattered group with few capabilities. I don't know enough about Al Qaeda's capabilities at the moment to say whether these guys can do anything more than release videos at this point. (And before anybody jumps all over me, pause to think about whether you really want to argue that no progress has been made in the past 4 years.)

Anyway, I have conflicting feelings about this particular situation right now. I'm not going to issue blanket condemnations, but neither am I going to jump on the simplistic bandwagon of "Don't you know this is war?"

If somebody wants to accuse me of not caring about (choose one: fighting terrorists/civilian deaths), go ahead.

|1.19.06 @ 1:08PM|#

thoreau,

I agree with you, generally. I would be willing to believe #3 was "no" as well, but considering the confusing, often contradictory way the military reports on such incidents (and friendly-fire incidents, among others), I really don't know what to believe.

|1.19.06 @ 1:13PM|#

If the military value of the target outweighs the cost in innocent lives, it is perfectly lawful to take out the target. It is called the law of proportionality.

My view doesn't concern the legality of the attack (although I think the legality of an attack in Pakistan is debatable) but its morality. And whether or not the value of the target in this case outweighed the cost is one of the questions at issue here. I don't think it did. Consider:

1. We just attacked a country we didn't declare war on, and lit a fire under the Islamist elements in that country (who were already pretty riled up to begin with).

2. In no other country with a nuclear arsenal is the radical Islamist element so close to the throne. In our rabid focus on terrorism we have dropped the ball on a greater danger--nuclear proliferation.

3. Terrorism is just one of many dangers we face, and is probably not even the worst one. So killing civilians, knowlingly or not, to stop people who might be involved in the planning of potential attacks that might at their best kill up to the number of people who die in traffic accidents in a few weeks is not "proportional."

4. We would never attack a building we knew to contain American civilians, and so our cost-benefit analysis must be downgrading the value of non-American civilians. In other words, our determination of "cost," I am arguing, includes a morally dubious weighting of non-American lives.

5. Our attack will create more terrorism than it prevented.

If we actually acted on the belief that non-Americans' lives were equal to our own in value, it is true that there would be far fewer military actions in this world. Um, but, isn't that what we want? Incidentally, there would also be far less terrorism, and, um, isn't THAT something else we want?

|1.19.06 @ 1:24PM|#

Don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but has anyone noticed that we take out Al-Qaeda's "Number 3" operative about once a year? I saw an article on it when we had captured or killed four Number 3's. The thrust of it was that there probably isn't a clear hierarchy once you get beyond bin Laden and his right hand man (I forget his name at the moment) and that al Qaeda is pretty good at replacing fallen leaders.

|1.19.06 @ 1:38PM|#

Our attack will create more terrorism than it prevented.


What attack doesn't do that by your logic Ethan? I guess we should just stop trying to kill these people and let them do whatever it is they want to do. Further, not killing these people creates many more terrorists than killing them. No one wants to join a loosing side. If, however, we allow terrorist to continue to plot and kill Americans and get away with it because we are too afraid doing something about it will result in innocent deaths, the United States looks weak and the terrorists look like winners and the future. Success draws a lot more recruits than martyrs. The mid-east is full of martyrs. That is why the governments over there are not too worried about killing their own people. By your logic they should be because after all, "killing a dissident just creates more dissidents." Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. Moreover, your statement assumes that Islamic terrorism is based on legitimate grievances against the U.S.. It is not. It is an ideology and a political movement. Belief that the movement can succeed is what draws recruits not grievances.

|1.19.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Snappy,

They replace them, but the replacements don't seem to be as good as the originals. KSM and OBL pulled off 9-11. What have the new batch been able to accomplish? Its kind of like the mafia, yeah, somebody new replaced the old bosses after they went to jail in the 1980s, but the new guys weren't like the old guys.

|1.19.06 @ 1:43PM|#

Innocent? Innocent of what?

|1.19.06 @ 1:48PM|#

"precision-guided weapons have made war today far, far less hazardous to civilians than say, the 1940's"

Cap'n: you are doubtless correct in this assertion. But I would argue that what has made wars today even less hazardous to civilians is the fact that we have tended to fight them against nations and groups pathetically inferior to us militarily speaking. I would wager that if push ever came to shove with a large industrialized nation that had some chance of defeating us we would be frying their civilians like bacon to break their industrial backbone and ensure victory.

|1.19.06 @ 1:52PM|#

John,

I'm just not so sure how difficult it is to be a terrorist mastermind. Their coup to date has required training half a dozen guys how to fly an airplane and figuring out how to smuggle box cutters through airport security. Since 9/11 I (and I'm sure most of you) have seen dozens of situations in which I thought "it would be so easy to [fill in the blank for carnage-inducing mayhem."

I would guess that it takes more brains for them to evade capture than it does to hatch plots.

|1.19.06 @ 2:06PM|#

Smappy - "we would be frying their civilians like bacon to break their industrial backbone and ensure victory." Wake up, people, it's the 21st century! We are not fighting WWII again, nor Vietnam. We are fighting an information war on the networked battlefield. There are no front lines, there are no "industrialized" countries (they are information economies, or they are not advanced at all). We would _not_ fry civilians to win a war against an advanced economy, we would destroy their technological infrastructure, a process which would yield surprisingly few direct casualties.

And, Smappy, the "coup" of the Islamic fascists was not smuggling boxcutters, as you so condescendingly put it, it was capturing terrain in the global hive mind by systematically sewing mayhem across the planet. In a world of image and illusion, that terrain is of strategic importance. The war to reclaim that territory will be long and hard.

theOneState|1.19.06 @ 2:12PM|#

If not, then I think the criticism that we value American lives over foreign lives remains valid.

Should that not be the case? I mean, really. If the U.S. government doesn't value American lives more than it values others, that would be sinister.

And to everyone making comparisons to some foreign gov't bombing homes or businesses in America to go after their most-wanted, your analogies don't come close. The U.S. did not send missiles into a gigantic, busy shopping center that was accessible to local police and federal agents. Nor did they likely do it without some cooperation from Pakistan. And these are internationally recognized terrorists responsible for hundreds if not thousands of murders across continents.

|1.19.06 @ 2:25PM|#

What attack doesn't do that by your logic Ethan? I guess we should just stop trying to kill these people and let them do whatever it is they want to do.

That strikes me as a false choice.

Further, not killing these people creates many more terrorists than killing them. No one wants to join a loosing side. If, however, we allow terrorist to continue to plot and kill Americans and get away with it because we are too afraid doing something about it will result in innocent deaths, the United States looks weak and the terrorists look like winners and the future.

Another false choice. Actually, it's the same false choice. My bad.

Success draws a lot more recruits than martyrs.

Aren't they the same thing? That is, aren't the sucessful terrorists martyrs? When we attack Iraq or a building full of civilians we create terrorists. Iraq was not a base for terrorism until we invaded--this, I suggest, is not a coincidence.

Moreover, your statement assumes that Islamic terrorism is based on legitimate grievances against the U.S.

No it doesn't. It is certainly based on anti-U.S feeling. Whether such feeling is legitimate depends on the situation. Different terrorists probably have different motivations. Some are motivated by U.S. assistance to Israel, some are motivated by our presence in Saudi Arabia, some are motivated by the exportation of our hedonistic culture, some are motivated by having their families burned alive in American bombing raids (seeing your own mother shredded in the street can cause anger, I am led to understand). Terrorism is directed at America for a reason (although I don't think that terrorism is morally justified, for reasons similar to why I don't think that the Pakistan strike was justified).

|1.19.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Ethan,

FYI - No war is moral.

nofrontin|1.19.06 @ 2:38PM|#

"Among Pak Dead?" You wouldn't say "Among Jap Dead" would you?

|1.19.06 @ 2:40PM|#

Thoreau:

I don't know enough about Al Qaeda's capabilities at the moment to say whether these guys can do anything more than release videos at this point. (And before anybody jumps all over me, pause to think about whether you really want to argue that no progress has been made in the past 4 years.)

I'd think that there'd be quite a range of possible capability between "can execute 9/11" and "can only release videos".

|1.19.06 @ 2:41PM|#

Hey Guy,

Perhaps not, but I can imagine war being morally justified. That is, it may never be the case that war is obligatory, but it may be not wrong in certain cases. This would seem true of almost any type of violence.

Cheers

|1.19.06 @ 2:42PM|#

You say that Ethan, but there isn't very much evidence of it. Certainly in Iraq, there is some of that going on as tribes and families try to take revenge for members killed by the coalition, but I don't think anyone would argue that is the driving force behind the insurgency as opposed to the existence of foreign fighters or former Bathists intent on ruling the country again. Outside of Iraq, terrorism whether it be 9-11 or Madrid or Bali, is being committed by people who have no specific grievance against the U.S. but are usually middle-class raised in and around the west and are just nuttbag fanatics.

How many times are we going to have to hear the "Arab Street is going to explode" mantra before we realize its bullshit? It was supposed to happen when we invaded Afghanistan and really happen when we invaded Iraq and it now nearly five years after it was supposed to happen it still hasn't happened. The closest thing to the Arab Street exploding happened when Zarkarwi bombed that hotel in Jordan. Not exactly what the peaceniks were hoping for when they were talking about the Arab street. Further, by your logic, why did Japan and Germany eventually submit to the allies? God, the U.S. incinerated a lot more Japanese and Germans than they ever have Arabs. If what you were saying were correct, we should have had a long bloody insurgent war against a recalcitrant population in both countries because we killed so many of their people and created so many "new Nazis and bushidas". It didn't happen that way. Eventually everyone, even people as fanatics as the Nazis of the Japanese, people who were just as fanatical as the typical jihadist and a lot smarter, get tired of dying and loosing. That is how you win a war, by making the other side get tired of dying, not making friends and influencing people.

|1.19.06 @ 2:43PM|#

If the U.S. government doesn't value American lives more than it values others, that would be sinister.

I would also prefer that the government that we pay for (and are subject to the laws of) value our lives somewhat more highly than people of other nations.

|1.19.06 @ 2:45PM|#

Ethan,

No war the US has ever engaged in was moral, in that they were caused by money interests and hegemony.

|1.19.06 @ 2:59PM|#

The reason the five million dollar man was killed is because he ran away in slow motion.

|1.19.06 @ 3:14PM|#

We are not fighting WWII again, nor Vietnam. We are fighting an information war on the networked battlefield

What the fuck are you talking about? Did the CIA hire hackers to e-mail a virus to take down the Pakistani Internet?

Meanwhile, here's a question for Tim and other manly men: how many innocent civilians do you think we can kill before we lose whatever moral high ground we had the day after 9-11?

Captain Holly|1.19.06 @ 3:27PM|#

I would wager that if push ever came to shove with a large industrialized nation that had some chance of defeating us we would be frying their civilians like bacon to break their industrial backbone and ensure victory.

Good point, Smappy. Which is why there was little political fallout from the Dresden and Tokyo firebombings, or from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

|1.19.06 @ 3:39PM|#

I don't think anyone would argue that is the driving force behind the insurgency as opposed to the existence of foreign fighters or former Bathists intent on ruling the country again.

It's both. The occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces is the driving force behind the insurgency. And the insurgents want to run the place. If we left tomorrow the insurgency would end.

Outside of Iraq, terrorism whether it be 9-11 or Madrid or Bali, is being committed by people who have no specific grievance against the U.S. but are usually middle-class raised in and around the west and are just nuttbag fanatics.

Again, it's both. Al Qaeda has made quite plain that its attacks are in direct response to U.S. actions and policies (and those of our allies). And they are fanatics. Spain, London, WTC. Not random choices. Bin Laden has no beef with the U.S.? Are you serious?

How many times are we going to have to hear the "Arab Street is going to explode" mantra before we realize its bullshit? It was supposed to happen when we invaded Afghanistan and really happen when we invaded Iraq and it now nearly five years after it was supposed to happen it still hasn't happened.

Iraq has been exploding for 3 years. I don't think that it is necessary to have a pan-arabian explosion to provide evidence that we create terrorists when we kill innocent Arabs. "People" may have said that we were inviting such an explosion, but I wasn't one of them, so while your point may be well-taken by them it is not relevant to my view.

Not exactly what the peaceniks were hoping for when they were talking about the Arab street.

Here your soul is showing, I'm afraid.

by your logic, why did Japan and Germany eventually submit to the allies? If what you were saying were correct, we should have had a long bloody insurgent war against a recalcitrant population in both countries because we killed so many of their people and created so many "new Nazis and bushidas".

I never claimed that anytime you attack anyone you just create more danger. My claim was focused on terrorists, not states or governments. Besides, the Japanese and the Germans are not the Arabs, and the methods of fighting back that the Japanese and the Germans felt they had at their disposal were not conducive to victory/success. The terrorists' methods are.

|1.19.06 @ 3:39PM|#

Jennifer, who cares about the moral high ground? The rest of the world dislikes us because we're the top dog and they feel good that we've been taken down a peg.

Whether we kill 10 or 100,000 or 2,000,000,000 is irrelevant in the long run. If the US economy can keep chugging along and be able to finance the costs of killing these folks then the US wins and that what will be in the history books 200 years from now.

The US government is sworn to protect us, not worry about how other nations view the US or to have moral quibbles over whether a US body is the same moral value as a non-US body. Perhaps if the Founding Fathers had conceived of the day when the US could win a war against the rest of the world they would have put in some language about only being allowed to kill a max of 25% of the enemy population or some such.

But the fact is according to the people who are paid to prosecute this war one American body is priceless compared to any number of foreign bodies. This fact allows us the liberty to have such a discussion in the first place.

It's like being protected by the Berserkers, or the Doomsday machine that Commodore Decker tried to blow up with a shuttle.

|1.19.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Jennifer, go rent a clue, okay? If you think this war is about capturing terrain by killing enemy combattants, you haven't been paying attention. This war is an asymetrical struggle between a bunch of media savvy Islamic nutters on the one hand and the advanced elements of social evolution -- namely, liberal democratic society -- on the other. The Islamic nutters cannot directly kill enough US troops to succeed; they can, however, discourage enough muddlehead people in the West (like you) to cause the US to withdraw. They do that by manipulating Western media -- virtually hardwired to splatter gore across the 'verse, as wet and gruesome as possible -- to focus on them, thereby demonstrating their power and working on our emotions, exciting revulsion, but also fear. Capturing our attention is their victory. I repeat, this isn't WWII, this isn't Vietnam. This is a new kind of war, possible only in the 21st century. And if we expect to defend and extend our freedom in the face of this new threat, we damn well better recognize it, and learn how to fight it, instead of ankle-biting the people who are out there on the front lines fighting it to protect us.

|1.19.06 @ 3:56PM|#

If you think this war is about capturing terrain by killing enemy combattants, you haven't been paying attention

Then what is it about--killing every single person in the world who dislikes us, along with every person who happens to be in the vicinity of those who dislike us? (By the way, your constant repetition of the phrase "Islamic nutters" is as effective a debating technique as your constant use on the other thread of "Saddam Insane" and "Bushitler," which is to say not at all.)

The US government is sworn to protect us

This begs the question that bombing a country we're not even officially at war with protects us. We got lucky this time--in retrospect, it turned out that twenty percent of the dead were, perhaps, people who didn't like us.

|1.19.06 @ 4:01PM|#

I mean, really. If the U.S. government doesn't value American lives more than it values others, that would be sinister.

I don't think "sinister" is the right word. "Understandable" is what I would choose, though I disagree with the philosophy that an American child's life is worth more than a foreign child's life. The notion that one kind of child's life is worth more than another's is part of what fuels the kind of barbaric hostilities that will only decrease as people reject it.

And to everyone making comparisons to some foreign gov't bombing homes or businesses in America to go after their most-wanted, your analogies don't come close. The U.S. did not send missiles into a gigantic, busy shopping center that was accessible to local police and federal agents.

That's not the comparison I made. The question is, if we knew there were American women and children there (missionaries maybe, who knows?), would we have lobbed a bomb in or would we have attempted something more difficult to decrease the chances of collateral damage?

|1.19.06 @ 4:01PM|#

This might be the dumbest thread I've ever read in this forum, with such tremendously insightful remarks suggesting that a team of assasins should be dispatched to remote mountainous villages in Pakistan, to carry out precisely calibrated violence. Golly gee, maybe Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda can just drop in with their light sabers! I saw on cable last week that they can decapitate people without even getting blood on the carpets!

I also learned that taking action agaginst Islamist terrorists in such remote Pakistani villages presents the same tactical issues as doing so against Basque terrorists who are in a Home Depot in Indianapolis. Who knew?

|1.19.06 @ 4:03PM|#

Which is more reasonable?

The people in the house having a feast day dinner were friends with and abetting sworn enemies of the US.

or

The four al Queda members kicked in the door and demanded that they be made part of a family celebration.

|1.19.06 @ 4:15PM|#

Levi, I'm intrigued that your insights into this new form of warfare led you to the novel tactic of not giving a crap about civilian casualties. Such a tactic has never, ever been tried before. This is truly a tremendous advance in warfare!

Seriously, though, whatever the best approach to civilian casualties might be, you can't simply dismiss the concern by talking about how different things are today.

|1.19.06 @ 4:28PM|#

I'm curious, for those who are defending such actions of ours on the grounds that We Are At War--exactly how will we know when the war is over? There's no enemy capital we can capture, no single leader who can surrender and tell his army to lay down their weapons--so what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? All Muslim nations to become US-loving democracies? The eradication of every last person who dislikes the US? What?

|1.19.06 @ 4:36PM|#

Jennifer - you need to take a breath and try to use whatever mental faculties you might have to contemplate how to win this war without killing every last one of these guys, which I never said was desirable or necessary. Maybe by starting to figure out how wars have ever been won. I'll give you clue -- it wasn't by running around and shouting hysterically that the sky is falling when a secret, but legal, surveillance program is exposed by people with a political agenda to take down the President who is leading that war but who happens to be a member of the opposite party.

|1.19.06 @ 4:43PM|#

Will,

I'm not sure how you expect such a condescending attitude to contribute to the debate. If we dismiss the question of whether or not the women and children who were killed were worthy of at least some consideration (and I'm open to the idea that they HAD to die, but not so supplicatingly trusting of our military to jump to that conclusion), then we're not much better than the enemy we're fighting.

|1.19.06 @ 4:46PM|#

it wasn't by running around and shouting hysterically that the sky is falling when a secret, but legal, surveillance program is exposed by people with a political agenda to take down the President who is leading that war but who happens to be a member of the opposite party.

How do you know that all the people who helped expose it are Democrats? How do you know it was legal, seeing as how there are many Republicans who don't and several who think it wasn't?

I don't think wars are won by reflexive loyalists to unqualified leaders, myself.

|1.19.06 @ 4:47PM|#

I used to have a friend who was a mid-level mafioso over for dinner, but I had to stop -- he never wanted to pay for the shot out windows.

|1.19.06 @ 4:47PM|#

Les hits the nail on the head.

|1.19.06 @ 4:48PM|#

contemplate how to win this war without killing every last one of these guys, which I never said was desirable or necessary.

You've said what is NOT desirable or necessary to win this war, but you haven't said what IS necessary to win. So I'll ask again--how will we know when the war is won? What exactly are the goals we are trying to accomplish?

|1.19.06 @ 4:51PM|#

Howza' 'bout this Jennifer? This war will be over when people who are known to have carried out deliberate mass slaughter of civilians, as a primary goal, and who would like to impose a totalitarian form of government on huge numbes of people, decide to go have a festive holiday meal, and we are able to inform the government that has sovereignity over where that meal is taking place that the killers will be present, and said government, which hopefully governs with consent of the people, apprehends them, and turns them over to the government which has sovereignity where the slaughter took place.

|1.19.06 @ 4:53PM|#

Howza' 'bout this Jennifer? This war will be over when people who are known to have carried out deliberate mass slaughter of civilians, as a primary goal, and who would like to impose a totalitarian form of government on huge numbes of people, decide to go have a festive holiday meal, and we are able to inform the government that has sovereignity over where that meal is taking place that the killers will be present, and said government, which hopefully governs with consent of the people, apprehends them, and turns them over to the government which has sovereignity where the slaughter took place.

So you're saying the war will be over if Pakistan starts arresting al-Qaeda members for us?

|1.19.06 @ 4:54PM|#

The Islamic nutters cannot directly kill enough US troops to succeed; they can, however, discourage enough muddlehead people in the West (like you) to cause the US to withdraw. They do that by manipulating Western media -- virtually hardwired to splatter gore across the 'verse, as wet and gruesome as possible -- to focus on them, thereby demonstrating their power and working on our emotions, exciting revulsion, but also fear. Capturing our attention is their victory. I repeat, this isn't WWII, this isn't Vietnam. This is a new kind of war, possible only in the 21st century.

This may in fact be a new kind of war, but conservatives like Levi are bringing out the same old tired shibboleth of blaming those who question the military/the president/the war. "If only people would stop questioning our policies, they might work."

The war in Iraq was not only unjustified, it was a bad idea. And even if it were justified or were a good idea, this bunch of fools running the show didn't do it properly. They revealed their complete misunderstanding of Iraqi culture in their conduct of the war (and continue to do so). They have been surprised at what has happened at every important juncture, from the troops getting bogged down in the desert to the lack of a defense of Baghdad to the failure to be greeted with flowers to the scale of the insurgency. At worst they are lying warmongers and at best they are wildly incompetent--and saying so does no disservice to anyone but them.

|1.19.06 @ 5:11PM|#

Something just occurred to me, Will--assuming you are right, and the war will be over when governments like Pakistan's will arrest our enemies for us, doesn't that mean we should be fighting the war by trying to make friends with the Pakistani government, rather than throwing bombs on their territory?

|1.19.06 @ 5:12PM|#

The war will be over when you put on a burka.

|1.19.06 @ 5:16PM|#

If that were true, Doug, I'd wear one right now so we could bring our troops back home.

|1.19.06 @ 5:21PM|#

"I'm curious, for those who are defending such actions of ours on the grounds that We Are At War--exactly how will we know when the war is over? "

God will tell us when we've won.

|1.19.06 @ 5:22PM|#

Jennifer - that is just pathetic. Stopping the war isn't the goal. Living free and prosperous is the goal. Putting on a burka and surrendering to Islamic fascism is presumably not very libertarian. Or is this really a new phase of libertarianism we are discussing here at Reason?

|1.19.06 @ 5:25PM|#

Levi, you're having a grand time insulting me, but you still haven't answered my question "How will we know we've won?" If living free and prosperous is the goal, then we've already won because we already are.

I think you're dodging the question because you don't know the answer.

|1.19.06 @ 5:43PM|#

How will we know when the war is over? Maybe when we can't distinguish the "good" guys from the "bad."

If you become the thing you fear most, have you conquered fear or has fear conquered you?

(to: You Know Who You Are- look in the back of your Sgt Slaughter Handbook, and see if you can find the definition of "tactical")

ps- you are still more likely to die from falling down in your own bathroom than as a result of a terrorist act

|1.19.06 @ 5:57PM|#

R C Dean

When the dogs have guns you don't always have a choice.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are we supposed to give a free pass to anybody who can get into a civilian building or line up a meatshield?

Not necessarily, I'm just saying that a glib "they were friends of Al-Quaeda members so they deserved to die" just doesn't cut it. There are many other possibilities. If it is necessary to sacrifice innocent people to save more lives in the long run that might be a decision we have to take, but it must be done honestly without the comforting lie that we're not really comitting murder.

On the other hand, maybe you think that an individual is unimportant and the average is all that matters, in which case you should probably find a Democrat blog to post on.

pigwiggle

"When the dogs have guns you don't always have a choice."

You know, if these folks were really running around the Pakistani countryside imposing themselves on unwilling villages I have a feeling they would be a bit easier to find. Come on, doesn't it seem a bit absurd that a group of wanted terrorists would travel miles from their hidey-holes, congregate at some arbitrary village, and force a dinner party at gunpoint?

I think it's more like the bar in 'Goodfellas'. The owner doesn't really want the mafia there, but he has to show them hospitality because the alternatives are worse.

Now I don't know whether this guy is a dyed in the wool Bin Laden fanboy or whether he's just someone who got picked out by the local criminal/terrorist gang because he happened to have the nicest house in the area, but to dismiss the ethical problems of targetting an entire family just to get four men is just not acceptable.

See above, if you believe that there are sound moral reasons for killing 18 people just to get 4 suspected terrorists, then state them, but don't hide behind a convenient cliche.

Right Wing Nut: Which is more reasonable?

The people in the house having a feast day dinner were friends with and abetting sworn enemies of the US.

or

The four al Queda members kicked in the door and demanded that they be made part of a family celebration.


Neither of those is very reasonable, but if you mean 'which is more likely' that's answered above.

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 6:01PM|#

If that were true, Doug, I'd wear one right now so we could bring our troops back home.

Any war can be ended by surrendering, Jennifer.

Based on the very healthy reenlisment rates amongst our soldiers in Iraq, I doubt many of them would thank you for bringing them home in defeat.

The fundamental question is whether war (read in its new, "fourth generation" sense) with the Islamists was inevitable. If you think the answer to this question is yes, it was, then the only real issue is when and where to fight it. Pretty plausible answers to those questions are "right now" and "Iraq.

If you don't think that war was inevitable, that more or less permanent coexistence with the Islamists is possible, then no aspect of warfighting whatsoever is tolerable to you. At this point, ideas like making concessions to the Islamists that you believe will stop the fighting start making sense to you.

|1.19.06 @ 6:08PM|#

Jennifer, trying to be friends with people who are determined to not be friendly, as is the case with large elements of the Pakistani government, is often, if not usually, a waste of time. Therefore, when an action very important to one's security needs to be taken, like killing people who are plotting to kill one's countrymen, one discounts potential, if unlikely, friendship, and kills those who are plotting. That this needs to be explained is a bit of a wonder.

It is also bit of a wonder that that you limit the war to Pakistan, and thus ignore that the war cannot end until nations like Iran also can be counted on to no longer give safe harbor to those who plot to deliberately kill large masses of civilians. Iraq was once a country that did so, as evidenced by the fact that one for the first WTC bombers was harbored by the Baathists who ruled Iraq. Hopefuly, the population of Iraq has it in their power to form a government which does not behave in this manner in the future. If not, they have only gotten their toe in the water, in terms of the ocean of violence they will swim in.

That's what is at stake; the people of the Persian Gulf and larger region will either achieve the ability to govern themselves in a manner that peaceably and profitably engages with the rest of the world, or they will suffer a horribly, titanically, violent fate. The rest of the people of the world are not going to try to "make friends" while mass murdering thugs who wish to impose sharia have holiday meals. The people of the world, if sufficiently provoked, are simply going to conclude that there are a whole 'lotta people alive who they would prefer to be dead, and they are going to demand that their governments reverse that state of affairs. Ever so sophisticated President Mitterrand today informed, in a cloaked manner, that he is quite willing to turn large regions of sand into sheets of glass, if sufficiently provoked.

Nor is the rest of the world going to be willing to suffer the material deprivation that would accompany forgoing the mineral wealth of that region. Nope, this ship is sailing out of port, and those populations which don't want to, or can't, play by the rules of peaceful and profitable trade, are going to get tossed to the sharks. That may not be a very flattering view of human nature, but that is due to the fact that human nature is at times not very attractive. Libertarians all to often lean far to close to anarchists, in terms of having a wholly benign veiw of humanity. Events will eventually dissuade all but the most delusional.

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 6:11PM|#

I'm just saying that a glib "they were friends of Al-Quaeda members so they deserved to die" just doesn't cut it.

I didn't say that either, although anyone who is an active supporter of AQ is a legitimate target as well.

I'm saying that the strike can be justified even in the unlikely event that no one else in the building was an active supporter of AQ. We had good intelligence, we did what we could to minimize civilian casualties. If you require more than this to fight your war, you will lose.

If it is necessary to sacrifice innocent people to save more lives in the long run

And it is when you are dealing with the kind of people we are chasing around the Mideast.

that might be a decision we have to take, but it must be done honestly without the comforting lie that we're not really comitting murder.

You have a real problem with imagining that people are saying things they never said. I never said that it wasn't a very bad thing that innocents died in this strike, and will inevitably die in every war.

To tell you the truth, I am a little hesitant to place the intentional killing of civilians on exactly the same moral plane ("murder") as the incidental killing of civilians, because I think the former is worse than the latter. Most moral and legal systems concur in this judgment, BTW.

On the other hand, maybe you think that an individual is unimportant and the average is all that matters, in which case you should probably find a Democrat blog to post on.

You obviously have a profound misunderstanding of my attitudes towards collectives of all kinds.

Try not to be a condescending ass, try to understand and respond to what people actually post, and you might see your credibility go up in these kinds of discussions. You might emulate thoreau, for example.

|1.19.06 @ 6:25PM|#

feel your hate. be it. beeeee your hate. let your hate be you. luxuriate in it. wallow in it. feel the soft, smooth, warm, squishy hate ooze between your toes. rub it in your hair. blow bubbles in it. squeeze it in your hands, squirt thick musky jets of hate into the air. get it on the walls, on the ceiling, on the windows. cover the windows with your hate. seal the doors with your hate. your hate will protect you. your hate is all-encompassing.

your hate makes me tired

ps- you know

|1.19.06 @ 6:33PM|#

Frankly, I'm not terrified (although _you_ actually terrify me because your kind craven stupidity can't be good for our survival), the people who are luxuriating in hate in America today are not the ones proseucuting the war against the Islamic fascists, it is people like you who have succumbed to Bush Derangement Syndrome and are spewing unremitting hatred at this administration and anyone who happens to support this war.

|1.19.06 @ 6:46PM|#

R C Dean: Try not to be a condescending ass... You might emulate thoreau, for example.

So you being condescending, that's deliberate irony, right?

try to understand and respond to what people actually post, and you might see your credibility go up in these kinds of discussions.

You asked me to explain what I meant by "when the dogs have guns you don't always have a choice" so I did.

You refer to human beings as a 'meatshield', call names and then complain that I misunderstand your attitude. I hope so because it seems to me that your attitude stinks.

|1.19.06 @ 6:52PM|#

Based on the very healthy reenlisment rates amongst our soldiers in Iraq

Stop-loss programs are what you consider "healthy re-enlistments," RC?

Levi, you're very good at insults, but you are apparently incapable of answering the simple question: how will we know the war is over? Do you not know? No, obviously, you don't, which is why you shriek ad hominems in hope of distracting attention away from the questions you can't answer.

it is people like you who have succumbed to Bush Derangement Syndrome and are spewing unremitting hatred at this administration and anyone who happens to support this war.

You still don't get it, do you? You find it impossible to consider that someone might have legitimate reasons for being suspicious of the war, so you really think that shrieking "You hate Bush!" is all you need to say, don't you?

|1.19.06 @ 7:25PM|#

Jennifer, if I had asked you in 1942 how would we know when WWII will be over, would you have been able to tell me? If I had asked you in 1949 when the Cold War would be over, would you have been able to tell me? The fact that there was no "answer" at that time didn't mean the struggles weren't worth engaging. Actually, the only answer is when we prevail. Prevailing in the case of Germany was when the Nazis couldn't fight any more, not because they were physically beaten, but because they were spiritually beaten. Ditto the Communists. And ditto the Islamic fascists. Wars end when the enemy is defeated -- in their heads. And this war will continue until that point.

Or until enough people like you put on your burkas and surrender.

|1.19.06 @ 7:27PM|#

Well Jennifer, I answered your question, now let me ask you one. First, let me also implore to be intellectually honest, and attest to the fact that the oil reserves in the heart of the Islamic world are going to be essential to the material well-being of the rest of the world for at least several more decades, and thus the people of the rest of the world are not going to be willing to leave that oil in the ground out of deference to the political and cultural realities of that region.

Now, how do you propose to get it out? There are three options. The population of that region can be killed. The population of that region can be enslaved, either directly, or by despotic proxy, which is the model which has been used since the discovery of oil in that region. Finally, the people of the region can govern themselves, trade the oil, and receive the foreign currency now going to the despots.

Keep in mind that the slavery by proxy model is what got us into the current conflict with elements of the population, and that the increasingly easier ability to acquire the most destructive weapons by anyone with motivation and resources means that waiting several decades while the slavery by proxy model slowly evolves into self-government is fraught with large peril, if it can be assumed that despots with huge easily accessed oil reserves will ever tolerate such a slow evolution.

So what's it gonna be Jennifer? Titanic slaughter, slavery, or trade with a self governing population? Hmmm?

|1.19.06 @ 7:33PM|#

Titanic slaughter, slavery, or trade with a self governing population? Hmmm?

None of those apply to Saudi Arabia. How has that worked for long? And why are you humming?

|1.19.06 @ 7:34PM|#

How has that worked for SO long, I should have said.

|1.19.06 @ 7:36PM|#

Jennifer, if I had asked you in 1942 how would we know when WWII will be over, would you have been able to tell me? If I had asked you in 1949 when the Cold War would be over, would you have been able to tell me?

World War Two will be over when the Axis powers--Germany, Italy and Japan--have been defeated, their armies surrendered to us and their leaders either dead or in our custody. The Cold War will be over when the Soviet Union either ceases to be Communist, or surrenders to us.

Prevailing in the case of Germany was when the Nazis couldn't fight any more, not because they were physically beaten, but because they were spiritually beaten. Ditto the Communists. And ditto the Islamic fascists.

What? The Nazis were beaten physically, not spiritually--their army decimated, their country out of their control. The Communists weren't spiritually defeated--their entire damned economy imploded.

So let me ask you yet AGAIN--how will we know when we won? Who exactly has to surrender? What land, if any, do we have to control? What concrete events will let us know we have won?

|1.19.06 @ 8:05PM|#

Why does Jennifer hate 'merika?

|1.19.06 @ 8:56PM|#

Les, if you don't think the population of Saudi Arabia is enslaved by the House of Saud, and that the House of Saud is enabled in this task by the foreign currency we provide in return for oil, you are delusional. Perhaps you think the fine fellows walking around Riyadh with canes are offering a massage service.

Also, what you consider to have "worked" for so long produced the vast majority of the people who brought down the towers. If that is your example of what "works", I'd hate to see a failure!

So what's it gonna be Les; slaughter, slavery, or trade with self governing people? Hmmm?

|1.19.06 @ 9:10PM|#

Will, I'm confused. I thought you were suggesting that we could only have a long term business relationship with a self-governing people, which is not the case. Obviously, Saudi Arabia is tyrannical dictatorship and I'd prefer it if we had nothing to do with them whatsoever.

With your choices, you're basically saying that they have something we need, so we can slaughter them, enslave them (two false, hyperbolic choices to be sure), or help them become democratic.

What, exactly, are you suggesting we do so that they become a self-governing people? Do you actually think we've done anything to help Saudi Arabia become democratic? When I see Bush (literally) walking hand in hand with Saudi's dictators, I don't think our current adminstration thinks your choices are the only ones available. And I simply must know what tune that is you're humming.

|1.19.06 @ 9:38PM|#

Les, stop being childish. Given where the world's oil reserves lie, "having nothing to do whatsoever" with whatever governments control the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, is not an option. You may have well have written, "I prefer that people would fill up the tanks of their cars with seawater", or "I would prefer that global transportation needs be largely fufilled via pogo-sticks", in that it would make as much sense.

If we continue to provide the currency to these despots, then we are inevitably drawn into conflict with population which is enslaved, because we are enabling their enslavement. Compared to five years ago, there is one less despot with which we are doing this. It's a start. If the population of Iraq can achieve self-government, that will be deeply destabilizing to the regimes which surround it, and what is greatly needed in that region is instability, instability which is managed well enough to allow for the continued extraction of oil, avoiding global economic catastrophe, while transitioning to self government with some rapidity. It's a devilisly difficult problem, and it may prove impossible to solve, but them's the breaks.

Now, if we can ignore discussions of your preferences which cannot possibly come about, would you please state whether you wish the oil to extracted by via slaughter, slavery, or trade with a self governing people? Hmmm?

|1.19.06 @ 9:53PM|#

Les, stop being childish.

Hey, you're the one who's humming.

The theory you're presenting has been advocated by people who have been, mostly, spectacularly wrong about nearly every aspect of the war in Iraq.

I hope you're right, though. But I think this notion of creating democratic revolution in the middle-east via armed invasion of its weaker countries is not exactly a proven formula, as your repeated choices seem to imply.

Also, you should know, these "hmmmm"'s of yours make you sound like a big queen. Just saying.

|1.19.06 @ 9:54PM|#

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

|1.19.06 @ 10:12PM|#

Les, I can't speak for other people, but only to what I have stated from day one of the build-up leading to the war in Iraq: that it was going to be horribly difficult, fraught with peril and setbacks, and very necessary. I'll simply note that you never answered the question (Why is that?Hmmm?), because, I suspect, you prefer to live a in a child-like state where simply harping about the shortcomings and imperfections of the world as it is allows you to avoid acknowledging that choices in this vale of tears quite often are between the shitty and the shittier, but the ugliness of those choices doesn't make them any more avoidable.

We can kill the people in the Persian Gulf, we can continue to participate in their enslavement, or we can endeavor to have them become self-governing fairly quickly, while recognizing that despots with control of easily extracted oil reserves are pretty much immune to outside economic pressure. Over 20 million of that group are a lot closer to self-government than they were three years ago. If you see this as an unwanted development, or that their achieving self-government would have no implications for the wider region, or would not give us more freedom of action regarding the other despots in the region, well, you're certainly entitiled to your opinion.

|1.19.06 @ 10:20PM|#

Will, if we were determined to invade an oil-controlling despotic hellhole in retaliation for 9-11, maybe the Saudis would have been a better choice. You know--the country which provided 15 of the 19 hijackers? The one where, unlike Iraq, many members of the ruling elite not only sympathized with al-Qaeda, but gave them money as well?

I supported the Afghan invasion. I would have supported a Saudi invasion. But the Iraq invasion was bullshit.

|1.19.06 @ 10:45PM|#

Jennifer, how do you suppose the invasion of Saudi Arabia be carried out in 2002 without throwing the world into economic chaos? Do you remember how long it took to build up forces? Sure, an invasion of Saudi Arabia may have been, on strictly tactical military terms, easier to accomplish, but on the strategic level it would have been several orders of magnitude more difficult. Sometimes it makes sense to strike the first blow at the center of gravity, but not always. In WWII, the U.S. attacked in Morroco before attempting to cross the English Channel. In the Civil War, the first significant Union victories took place in the west, along the Mississippi, and not in Virginia, where the Army of the Potomoc instead floundered for years. War is like chess, except infinitely more complex; a conflict in which wise moves are often indirect or apparently purposeless, but eventually contribute to success.

Also, I must once again remind people that one of the first WTC bombers received safe harbor from the Baathist regime in Iraq. It was already in a state of war with the people of the United States, no matter that some people in the United States still can't recognize it.

|1.19.06 @ 10:58PM|#

Jennifer, with your immense sense of history, economics, and military strategy, you probably would have invaded the source of the economic lifeblood of the world economy. I'm glad the decision wasn't yours. Perhaps a better way to have accomplished the same goal of reforming the Middle East might have been to attack a weak, demented despot and his idiot sons next door, whose people were long suffering and whose overthrow was long necessary, and use that as a base to put pressure on all the other problems on the despots of the region? The US didn't invade Germany or Japan right off the bat at the start of WWII. They sort of worked up to it. Stay tuned.

And Les, have you ever read Macchiavelli? As in the part where he says to hold your enemies close? Like walking "hand in hand" with them? Because it doesn't make sense to tip your card before you need to. It's called strategery.

|1.19.06 @ 11:10PM|#

Will, your question is silly. Obviously, I would love for democracy to spring up in the Middle East; obviously it's best of your false choices. What you're having trouble understanding is I'm not buying your plan (invade weak countries in the region under a false pretense and then make them into theocratic kleptocracy, hoping for democracy in the long run).

The same people who orchestrated this "necessary" plan of yours would have been (and will continue to be) happy to prop up any dictatorship necessary to meet it's political goals. That's why we supported Hussein in the eighties. It's why we've never insisted on relevent reform in Saudi Arabia. It's why they ignored evidence that suggested Hussein wasn't an immediate threat, so they could sell the invasion as an act of defense.

Of course, you may have seen that it would be a difficult task, but the people who orchestrated the invasion boasted of its ease and simplicity. And they've been incomptent ever since. For some reason, you trust these untrustworthy people to bring about this plan. And you assume that "democracy" was their plan to begin with, instead of a cheap ploy for revenge and political empowerment (which is hardly unlikely in any administration).

So, what's the hard choice? Maybe we should deal frankly with the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and spend as much money on alternative energy research as we will on disingenuously and incompetently "creating democracy" with military force. I honestly don't know. But I don't trust the incompetent liars in charge to know either.

(Please note that I'm not insulting you or your character as I disagree with your ideas. You might try to do the same.)

|1.19.06 @ 11:15PM|#

Levi, I see what you're saying, of course (though I wouldn't be surprised if Bush thought Macchiavelli is an Italian sports car). However there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any card to tip. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that our government thinks of Saudi Arabia as anything but a close and friendly ally. So I don't think that's what's going on.

|1.19.06 @ 11:19PM|#

Perhaps a better way to have accomplished the same goal of reforming the Middle East might have been to attack a weak, demented despot and his idiot sons next door, whose people were long suffering and whose overthrow was long necessary, and use that as a base to put pressure on all the other problems on the despots of the region?

See, I can't argue against this very much actually. My main point has been and will continue to be that the people in charge of this plan are demonstrably dishonest and incompetent.

|1.19.06 @ 11:32PM|#

Les, yes, I know Bush is an idiot, so stupid he graduated from Harvard Business School, so stupid he was elected governor of the second largest state in America twice, so stupid he defeated a quasi incumbent who was supposed to be his intellectual superior, so stupid he increased his party's majority in an off-year election when the incumbent party is supposed to lose seats, so stupid he successful liberated 50 million people in the Middle East, so stupid he defeated another intellectual superior in John Kerry -- right, he's never heard of Macchiavelli, he thinks it's an Italian sports car. Yuck, yuck. Keep misunderestimating him. That would also be in Macchiavelli, by the way.

Actually, I don't think you have any way of knowing how our government considers Saudi Arabia. But I would suggest that they really aren't stupid or incompetent in the White House, the State Department, or the Defense Department. Not all of them, anyway. And that maybe there is a long term strategy for defeating the Wahabists, even if that isn't by direct invasion. Better if it's not by direct invasion.

Meanwhile, there's another problem in the Middle East looming. It's called Iran. Should we withdraw from our nice bases next to Iran so that we can't project power into that sorry state? This "incompetent" and "dishonest" administration has created an experienced, battle-hardened, high-tech military standing right up in the mullahs' face. Accident or design?

|1.20.06 @ 12:42AM|#

Levi, if you have any evidence of Bush's intelligence besides graduating from college and doing everything that Karl Rove has told him to do, please enlighten me. If you can provide me with a single quote made extemporaneously by Bush that indicates any kind of particular intelligence or insight into any subject, give me a link. A man who brags about not reading newspapers, who mispronounces and stutters inanity nearly every time he dares to venture off script, is not the kind of intellect any of us should want in the White House. That he is a Republican certainly should not be enough.

I never said I knew how our government considers Saudi Arabia, only that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is anything but an ally on good terms.

I never said that everyone in the State Department, the White House, or the Defense Department are stupid or incompetent. I claimed that the people who spearheaded this war, people like Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld have been dishonest and/or incompetent.

If you think that the post-war planning was competent, well, there's no point in discussing it. I can tell you that there are plenty of Republicans, plenty of thoughtful conservatives who think that the occupation has been handled incompetently. There are plenty of current and former military men and women who feel the same way.

And if the plan all along was to be in a good position should countries like Iran act up, then that should have been the case for invasion and not the dishonest claims of an imminent threat from Iraq.

|1.20.06 @ 1:58AM|#

pigwiggle,

You know, if these folks were really running around the Pakistani countryside imposing themselves on unwilling villages I have a feeling they would be a bit easier to find.

Come again? It could and would make them extremely difficult to find.

|1.20.06 @ 2:01AM|#

Ethan,

what matters is our decision process in going in. If it was something like, "Well, we don't know who's down there, but there is probably an Al Qaeda guy, so let drop a bomb or two," then I still object.

It is clear to me that you, like many others on this thread, are good at objecting. But what do you actually know about the decision processes that are/were used?


This was not a wide-ranging military action, it was an attack on a few buildings, so, yes, I think we should have known more about who was there before bombing the place.

If it had been a wide-ranging military action you'd be objecting a lot more than you are right now.

You have a lot to learn about what it is possible to know. You may want to know a lot more. So do many other people.

How does it feel to want?


We had some indication that an Al Qaeda dude might be there and let the bombs fly--and had no idea whether we were right or not until the bodies were found. I submit to you that this is not good enough.

I submit that you don't know what happened. You throw wild assertions around like this much more freely than anybody (except terrorists) throw bombs around.

|1.20.06 @ 2:03AM|#

thoreau,

I'm intrigued that your insights into this new form of warfare led you to the novel tactic of not giving a crap about civilian casualties. Such a tactic has never, ever been tried before.

No, it's been tried before. The Mongols used it routinely (Russians used just a few times too). It proved a spectacular success for the Mongols. It's called "take no prisoners, and leave no one behind that can later attack your rear".

That doesn't make it right, I'm just saying is all.


the best approach to civilian casualties might be, you can't simply dismiss the concern by talking about how different things are today.

True enough. The question of what happens to civilians during war is a tough question.

At least you're considering it.

Unlike Jennifer, who forbids us from considering it and urges all to surrender at once. She'd apparently rather feel "morally justified" than take on the task of fighting back.

|1.20.06 @ 2:07AM|#

thoreau, on second read, sometimes I don't catch all of your sarcasm. I suspect you knew about Mongol-like tactics.

|1.20.06 @ 2:23AM|#

Jennifer,

To answer your questions

how will we know when we won? Who exactly has to surrender? What land, if any, do we have to control? What concrete events will let us know we have won?

This isn't a "normal" war. We'll have won when terrorists aren't blowing things up in places like NYC and Bali and Jordan.

When will we know "that's not going to happen again"? Nobody knows and nobody can answer. Though I would rephrase your "who has to surrender?" question to "who has to be dead?". [and I don't know the answer to that either]

It's an open ended problem and none of us can give you pat answers.

Are you satisfied now? Do you think you've somehow proven something profound? Do you think you've now somehow undermined the position of your opponents?

Get a grip.

There are still those of us who are unwilling to put on burkas. Even if it brings the troops home tommorrow.

Even if it means we have to face really, really tough questions.

|1.20.06 @ 2:23AM|#

Golly gee, les, if my choices are false, why don't you propose an alternative choice, beyond childish fantasies of alternative energy research alleviating the centrality of Persian Gulf oil to the global economy in anything but the long term? Hell, maybe Martians will arrive next Monday night and show us how to use a cup of sand to power a 747! Cut back on the peyote.

Why don't you suggest something more specific than to "deal frankly" with the House of Saud, whatever the hell than means. Maybe we should send a letter and use really, really, really mean words? Grow up.

Also, I'm sure the "big queen" remark was not meant as an ad hominem insult in any way, but merely as a comment in passing. Gain some self-awareness.

|1.20.06 @ 2:25AM|#

Golly gee, les, if my choices are false, why don't you propose an alternative choice, beyond childish fantasies of alternative energy research alleviating the centrality of Persian Gulf oil to the global economy in anything but the long term? Hell, maybe Martians will arrive next Monday night and show us how to use a cup of sand to power a 747! Cut back on the peyote.

Why don't you suggest something more specific than to "deal frankly" with the House of Saud, whatever the hell than means. Maybe we should send a letter and use really, really, really mean words? Grow up.

Also, I'm sure the "big queen" remark was not meant as an ad hominem insult in any way, but merely as a comment in passing. Gain some self-awareness.

|1.20.06 @ 2:48AM|#

And to continue the riff on les -- can you read, dude, because I gave you "evidence" that Bush clearly has more brains than you do, namely that he's running the US and you're not. I don't care if he's dyslexic, I don't care if he wants to read his speeches, I don't care if he's a reformed drunk, I don't care if he believes in god, and I frankly don't give a fuck if the ben pensante want to look down their noses at him. The fact that he is where is he despite those handicaps should tell any objective observer that those who call him stupid and incompetent are projecting their own faults on a better man. He reached the top not because of his good looks, but because he was savvy enough to beat the house -- and because people recognized him as a leader. You may not like him, but just keep misunderestimating him, that way you're sure never to get the better of him.

|1.20.06 @ 3:02AM|#

Slightly off topic, but how come there's so much action in Iraq while Afghanistan is relatively quiet?

My guess is, Iraq is worth fighting over and Afghanistan isn't, because of the oil.

Whether anyone thinks invading Iraq was smart or not, I still contend that we need to see Iraq "through" enough to get a government in place that won't sponsor terrorists. Letting terrorists get their hands on all that oil is suicide.

|1.20.06 @ 3:14AM|#

To those who argue that foreign civilian lives are worth as much as American civilian lives, how come I don't see anywhere near the outrage when terrorists kill civilians -- anywhere in the world? But especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is clearly a load of shit heaped on the US for every civilian death (here and other places on the web), while not much gets said about it when they set an IED or a suicide bomber takes out some civilians.

If your philosophy says Americans and non-Americans are of equal value, then the terrorists should be despised more than Americans, and I'd expect to hear just as much hand wringing. Consider terrorist "decision making processes" relative to ours. It's no contest.

When you're fighting this kind of monster, at some point it really does almost have to come down to a numbers game. What approach(es) lead to the least civilian deaths?

Does anyone here really think the terrorists, world wide, are going to stop killing civilians just because the US stopped fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

|1.20.06 @ 5:25AM|#

Perhaps a better way to have accomplished the same goal of reforming the Middle East might have been to attack a weak, demented despot and his idiot sons next door,

So much for "Saddam was redeveloping WMDs and was a potential threat to us." Remember, keep your fax machine on so you get the talking points on time!

|1.20.06 @ 5:36AM|#

Will Allen: So what's it gonna be Les; slaughter, slavery, or trade with self governing people?

A false trilemma, they're so much better than false dilemmas because there's three choices instead of two.

|1.20.06 @ 7:41AM|#

Kahn

This isn't a "normal" war. We'll have won when terrorists aren't blowing things up in places like NYC and Bali and Jordan.

It's an open ended problem and none of us can give you pat answers.

I'd give you credit for giving AN answer. Nobody else has done that. The War on Terror is not a war like any other. As your answer acknowledges we will continue to be at war with terrorists for as long as they continue to kill or try to kill innocent civilians. This definition places us on a war footing until countries like Bali, Jordan, Iraq (whether US troops are there or not), Saudi Arabia and countless others are totally free from terrorism.

This, I think, is Jennifer's point. The attitude of "do whatever it takes" during war gives a frightening amount of power to the executive when the definition of war is so broad. You'll notice that you're the only one that has even tried to define victory, because to do so is to acknowledge that it will never happen. The fact that we will never completely win must affect our rules of engagement. We've already seen in Afghanistan how false allegations lead to the US taking out warlords on behalf of their rivals. If the local villages stand up to the terrorists and all they have to do is label the village elders as "Al Quaeda" we'll do their job for them.

If your philosophy says Americans and non-Americans are of equal value, then the terrorists should be despised more than Americans, and I'd expect to hear just as much hand wringing. Consider terrorist "decision making processes" relative to ours. It's no contest.

I should hope so to. If the two sides are as bad as each other then I'm joining a third side.

When you're fighting this kind of monster, at some point it really does almost have to come down to a numbers game. What approach(es) lead to the least civilian deaths?

It really doesn't come down to a numbers game, at least, not the one you're thinking of. For the civilians in the middle being killed by an Al Quaeda bomb or an American bomb makes no difference. If anyone is considered a target and you're no better off as a civilian than as a terrorist then you might as well join the terrorists, at least you get a gun and a measure of control over your own death.

Take a look at the occupied territories in Palestine, the Israeli approach of collective punishment has driven thousands of young men to join Hamas, the British policy of internment during the 70s and 80s was the IRAs greatest recruitment tool.

I said it already, but I'll repeat it, in this case it might have been justfied to kill the civilians in order to eliminate the terrorists, but you cannot treat the war on terror as a simple numbers game.

|1.20.06 @ 8:36AM|#

Jennifer, how do you suppose the invasion of Saudi Arabia be carried out in 2002 without throwing the world into economic chaos? Do you remember how long it took to build up forces? Sure, an invasion of Saudi Arabia may have been, on strictly tactical military terms, easier to accomplish, but on the strategic level it would have been several orders of magnitude more difficult.

So instead of attacking the guys who actually hurt us, you suggest we take the easy way out instead, by attacking a weaker force that had NOTHING to do with the original attack? Good thing FDR didn't share your view--"How do you suppose we can fight Japan and Germany without throwing the world into economic chaos? Let's attack Argentina instead. Attacking Japan and Germany would be several orders of magnitude more difficult."

Yeah, right. Don't do what has to be done--do what's easy to do. This is war, but it must be fought in such a way that we don't have to switch from a peacetime to a wartime economy.

|1.20.06 @ 10:27AM|#

The attitude of "do whatever it takes" during war gives a frightening amount of power to the executive when the definition of war is so broad. You'll notice that you're the only one that has even tried to define victory, because to do so is to acknowledge that it will never happen.

I understand the frightening amount of power problem. But I also understand there are two sides to the coin. There is also the problem of terrorists.

It's been a long time since I read about ME history (before 9-11), but I recall at least one other time in their history that something similar to this occurred. There was a "House of Assasins" or something similar that came, I believe, out of Saudi Arabia. They ran around knocking out governments in the ME region. It went on for a couple of centuries.

A couple of centuries. That, I concede, is frightening. This "war on terror" could last as long.

Do you know how many innocent people suffered because assassins knocked down governments and left entire regions essentially in chaos (I won't use the word anarchy around here).

Which is better under the circumstances? Fight them, or try to grin and bear it?

I'd rather fight. But I admit neither answer is very palatable.

|1.20.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Yeah, right. Don't do what has to be done--do what's easy to do.

Jennifer, on this I have to agree with you. If I'd been hell bent on invading a ME country, Iraq would not have been at the top of my list. Saudi Arabia would have ranked a lot higher.

The problem with Saudi Arabia is not so much their military capability, as the fact that the rest of the world would have gotten pretty upset with us. China and Russia could well have come out against us. That would have made it much more of a fight.

But I said from the beginning that the US shouldn't have invaded the ME (Afghanistan yes), because we will never be willing to do what it would take to "win" in that cess pool.

"Winning" on their turf means we'd have to fight just like they do. And we aren't going to be willing to do it.


I've seen no good answers to the problem of terrorism. I suppose it isn't surprising that we can't agree which is the lesser evil.

|1.20.06 @ 10:41AM|#

I actually invaded Africa before invading Japan and Germany. A lot of the public was outraged by the round about route but I made an agreement with my good friend Winston to keep his empire together.

I also made sure that Germany, which had never attacked the US, was completely knocked out of the war before turning the full power of the US on the one country that actually attacked us.

The delay only cost an extra 2 or 3 million lives, not much in the big scheme of things.

|1.20.06 @ 10:50AM|#

The problem with Saudi Arabia is not so much their military capability, as the fact that the rest of the world would have gotten pretty upset with us.

Not necessarily. If we invaded them now, maybe there'd be a problem with the rest of the world, but in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 the world was willing to support our invading whoever was responsible for that travesty. We only started having problems with the rest of the world when we chose to invade someone who WASN'T responsible for that travesty.

|1.20.06 @ 10:59AM|#

I really don't believe the UN would have sanctioned a US invasion of Saudi Arabia.

|1.20.06 @ 11:02AM|#

I really don't believe the UN would have sanctioned a US invasion of Saudi Arabia.

There's no way of knowing for sure, but there was ample evidence to support an invasion. Or there would have been ample evidence, before the State Department blacked all mention of Arabia out of the various documents relating to 9-11. When our own government erases the evidence against the guilty parties and makes up evidence against the non-guilty, the war was lost before it even started.

|1.20.06 @ 11:05AM|#

When our own government erases the evidence against the guilty parties and makes up evidence against the non-guilty, the war was lost before it even started.

Agreed. Though Russia and/or China would almost certainly have blocked any UN resolutions to invade Saudi Arabia.

Not that I, for one, give a rat's ass what the UN thinks or says.

|1.20.06 @ 11:09AM|#

To those who argue that foreign civilian lives are worth as much as American civilian lives, how come I don't see anywhere near the outrage when terrorists kill civilians -- anywhere in the world?

Well, it's because people are inconsistent, morally speaking. Duh.

There is clearly a load of shit heaped on the US for every civilian death (here and other places on the web), while not much gets said about it when they set an IED or a suicide bomber takes out some civilians.

Well, this thread is about an American attack. What do you want? By the way, I think a lot is said about the civilian deaths of terrorist attacks. Isn't that what makes us hate terrorists so? "Terrorists kill civilians" has been the number one news story for five years.

If your philosophy says Americans and non-Americans are of equal value, then the terrorists should be despised more than Americans, and I'd expect to hear just as much hand wringing. Consider terrorist "decision making processes" relative to ours. It's no contest.

I do despise the terrorists more than I despise "Americans" (who I don't despise at all). I am not responsible for anyone's hand-wringing but my own, however. I agree with you that there is a moral difference between "I am actively targeting civilians" and "I am targeting those I believe to be linked to terrorism and I know that I will kill a bunch of innocents in the process." However, I think the difference is slight.

When you're fighting this kind of monster, at some point it really does almost have to come down to a numbers game. What approach(es) lead to the least civilian deaths?

Of all the approaches I have studied, not dropping thousands of bombs into a densely populated city tends to reduce civilian deaths. If you really want to play the numbers game, it should be remembered that terrorism kills very few people, statistically speaking. I think that is a huge point that needs to be driven into the minds of you neocons ruthlessly and repeatedly.

Does anyone here really think the terrorists, world wide, are going to stop killing civilians just because the US stopped fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

I doubt anyone here thinks that. But just because terrorists aren't going to give up doesn't mean that the massive invasions we have undertaken were necessary. And if a war isn't necessary, it shouldn't occur.

It is clear to me that you, like many others on this thread, are good at objecting. But what do you actually know about the decision processes that are/were used?

Please note the "if" in the statement to which your claim refers. Also, thanks for the compliment.

Also, I will consider that some progress has been made if you are choosing to hide behind "well, we don't really know what happened."

If it had been a wide-ranging military action you'd be objecting a lot more than you are right now.

Not necessarily. The epistemological parameters of a large battle are different than an attack on a house. But I appreciate that you care enough about me and about this issue to try and read my mind.

You have a lot to learn about what it is possible to know. You may want to know a lot more. So do many other people.

But you see, that's what this is all about: what can we know and how does the lack of knowledge relate to what is permissible, particulary when people's lives are at stake? I would submit that the rules of engagement by which we are making decisions about these sorts of attacks are short-sighted and devalue both knowledge and human life.

How does it feel to want?

Don't you know?

I submit that you don't know what happened. You throw wild assertions around like this much more freely than anybody (except terrorists) throw bombs around.

None of us know for sure what happened. But we have been lied to before about what is happening in Afghanistan, and the timing of the revelation that the dead included Al Qaeda members makes me suspicious, as I have mentioned earlier. AND even if we knew FOR SURE (which we obviously didn't) that there were 4 AQ's there, that doesn't justify taking out a dozen innocents. You don't need to know what exactly happened to know that they are dead.

|1.20.06 @ 11:21AM|#

Ethan,

Okay, I think I've got your point(s) now. I can't really argue with them either. Though I also understand RCD as well. If you demand zero civilian casualties then basically you're saying you can't fight.

The only way I can see that this whole thread could have been avoided, is if there had been no civlian casualties. That would mean that we weren't fighting.

It comes down to the question, "do we fight or do we just grin and bear it?" Neither option is good.

I for one am more inclined to fight than not fight. But as Jennifer points out, the fights we've chosen haven't always made a lot of sense to people like you and I in the civilian world.

This is a problem I've observed many times whilst reading history books: in an objective analysis, neither side of the battle is entirely worthy of support.

The problem is almost always lack of top caliber leadership. Really good leadership is really hard to find.

This has probably caused more human misery than any other single thing in the history of civilization.

|1.20.06 @ 12:35PM|#

Will, you're no fun at all. I already admitted that I didn't have a solution. I only know that yours is unconvincing. And I don't trust the people in charge.

And the "big queen" remark was a joke. It was a way of dealing with your condescending attitude (which I won't be dealing with anymore after this post, because I don't enjoy debating condescending people). I was kidding, see, unlike your name calling. But I'm not surprised to see that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

|1.20.06 @ 12:47PM|#

can you read, dude, because I gave you "evidence" that Bush clearly has more brains than you do, namely that he's running the US and you're not.

I'm sorry, dude, that doesn't count as evidence (except maybe to those who instinctively love authority figures). Bush has simply done and said everything he's been told to do and say.

The fact that he is where is he despite those handicaps should tell any objective observer that those who call him stupid and incompetent are projecting their own faults on a better man.

You're repeating yourself. "He's smart because he's President." You can't show me anything he's written or said that he wasn't told to write or say that shows the tiniest spark of intellectual curiosity or insight, yet you think an "objective observer" would have to conclude he's intelligent. Why? Right, because he's President. Notice that I never said "Karl Rove isn't smart" or "Dick Cheney isn't smart," because they most obviously are. There is evidence to support their intelligence. That's not the case with the President.

You may not like him, but just keep misunderestimating him, that way you're sure never to get the better of him.

I have no delusions of ever "getting the better" of George Bush. I'm just the type that's impressed more by deeds than titles. If you can provide evidence that Bush is where he is because of something he did all by himself, then it would be a little easier to take you seriously at all.

|1.23.06 @ 8:22AM|#

If you demand zero civilian casualties then basically you're saying you can't fight.

The only way I can see that this whole thread could have been avoided, is if there had been no civlian casualties. That would mean that we weren't fighting.

It comes down to the question, "do we fight or do we just grin and bear it?" Neither option is good.

I don't demand zero civilian casualties. I just think that in many cases more should have been done to prevent them. The moral basis for allowing civilian casualties is the principle of unintended consequences. But you can hardly say that a certain consequence was unintended in a particular case if you know that it will be a consequence of your action.

Certainly we have to choose between "fight" and "grin and bear it." But "fight" includes a whole range of possibilities. Opting to fight doesn't mean that you have to support how the current administration is managing that fight, so if your offered choice is "support Bush or support doing nothing" then I would say that that is a false choice.