A (civil) discussion of the drone war?

[lightly]

It seems like suddenly press "releases" and "news" stories about drone strikes have stopped using the term "Suspected" in relation to strikes? As in a suspected ,person or group was the target today somewhere or other " .. I get the feeling that killing SUSPECTED anybody's is becoming very unpopular ?

I just googled "suspect hit in drone strike" and got over 6 million responses ... from the past.

https://www.google.com/#q=+suspect+hit+in+drone+strike

Edited October 29, 2013 by lightly

[+and-then]

We have a weapon that they HATE and fear because it is very effective and they know it. If we stop using it and send in large forces to do the same job then they (and the Col) will STILL blame us..probably more so. I'm comfortable with the use of these weapons as they are being employed at this time. I accept that others are not but I also know that NOTHING my country does short of (possibly) surrender will make them happy. Hopefully they will have a long sad life if that is the price of happiness.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Lets put the boot on the other foot.

Imagine the Chinese develop a weapon that can strike at the Enemies of China anywhere on the globe. But it has the side effect of "collateral damage".

RThey deploy it in America and kill their target and a passing car's worth of a family.

How would you react?

How would Americans in general react?

[+and-then]

Lets put the boot on the other foot.

Imagine the Chinese develop a weapon that can strike at the Enemies of China ™ anywhere on the globe. But it has the side effect of "collateral damage".

RThey deploy it in America and kill their target and a passing car's worth of a family.

How would you react?

How would Americans in general react?

We would probably strike back - anyone would - the Pakistanis already ARE... that is the point here. The ISI is supporting the Taliban and supplying them money, weapons and cover in their NW. If THAT situation was duplicated in your scenario...say, Canada was pirating Chinese ships or some such and then hiding it's fighters in the NE states... AND China was giving the democrats cash to help against the Canucks well things wouldn't be so clear cut any longer eh?

[Space Commander Travis]

We would probably strike back - anyone would - the Pakistanis already ARE... that is the point here. The ISI is supporting the Taliban and supplying them money, weapons and cover in their NW.

So there's the futility of the War on Terror in a nutshell there. It all started because Uncle Sam decided that it had to do something, however futile. Really it's an admission of defeat; that despite Uncle Sam's globe-straddling Military Might, anything it tries to do with its military ingenuity just makes it worse by stirring up hatred of it.

[+and-then]

So there's the futility of the War on Terror in a nutshell there. It all started because Uncle Sam decided that it had to do something, however futile. Really it's an admission of defeat; that despite Uncle Sam's globe-straddling Military Might™, anything it tries to do with its military ingenuity just makes it worse by stirring up hatred of it.

So when a person is hated they give up to their enemies? Living in harmony with a world that has no interest in harmony is a tough trick Col... no thanks - I'm okay with upsetting those who've decided they want to kill Americans - I'll worry about hurt feelings when they do.

[Space Commander Travis]

I'm not talking about hurt feelings, I'm talking about the way that it's a self perpetuating cycle; the more America is seen as the global bully that has no qualms about Striking at whoever it likes wherever it likes whenever it likes, the more the Terrorists will be able to recruit people to fight against the Global Bully. It does nothing but generate a perpetual supply of enemies. People who may not have had any wish to kill Americans until Americans started killing people they know.

[+and-then]

I'm not talking about hurt feelings, I'm talking about the way that it's a self perpetuating cycle; the more America is seen as the global bully that has no qualms about Striking at whoever it likes wherever it likes whenever it likes, the more the Terrorists will be able to recruit people to fight against the Global Bully. It does nothing but generate a perpetual supply of enemies. People who may not have had any wish to kill Americans until Americans started killing people they know.

I agree with this point. But if you had not noticed, retreat does no good either. There are serious and well funded groups out there that want "the Great Satan" ended. Until we can find another way to stop that I suspect armed conflict will be seen as the ONLY way to preserve our country. Seems hopeless... maybe it is - wouldn't be the first nation to disappear because it had run it's course, would it? Russia is an example of how a nation at the brink can be a survivor..at least sort of. Their nukes kept them a "player" globally when they had nothing else to offer anyone. I see America maintaining this grudging respect as well.

[DeWitz]

Too many Americans continue to subscribe to the idea that, "If we can do it, and justify the target enemy, we should do it," 'cause freedom and liberty and "they hate" us because we're free and they're not and our lifestyle which we have and "they" want to take it from us. . ." ad nauseum.

Drones are like V-1 and V-2 Nazi rockets with perfected guidance systems and imperfect targeting despite that guidance. They are the remote equivalent of grapeshot from a Civil War cannon sprayed into the civilian populace of Gettysburg.

And, as already stated, they decrease our security by increasing--geometrically, Malthus would say--heartbreak, grief and hatred towards the US.

[+and-then]

Too many Americans continue to subscribe to the idea that, "If we can do it, and justify the target enemy, we should do it," 'cause freedom and liberty and "they hate" us because we're free and they're not and our lifestyle which we have and "they" want to take it from us. . ." ad nauseum.

Drones are like V-1 and V-2 Nazi rockets with perfected guidance systems and imperfect targeting despite that guidance. They are the remote equivalent of grapeshot from a Civil War cannon sprayed into the civilian populace of Gettysburg.

And, as already stated, they decrease our security by increasing--geometrically, Malthus would say--heartbreak, grief and hatred towards the US.

While I agree with the last part of your statement I strongly disagree on your first premise. America - and the west in general - face a real and growing threat from an ideology that cannot be denied with impunity. Islamists DO hate our freedom - but certainly not from jealousy. They hate freedom because it is diametrically opposite what they believe in their deepest being. They believe in SUBMISSION. They want power over others - their holy books teaches that this is their goal. That there will be ONE religion on the whole earth and that those who lead it will control all who worship. Many will deny this but the facts are there in the scriptures so it is a moot point. These aggressors will never stop or negotiate except as a necessity because they meet a stronger force. Deny it at your own peril.

[DeWitz]

While I agree with the last part of your statement I strongly disagree on your first premise. America - and the west in general - face a real and growing threat from an ideology that cannot be denied with impunity. Islamists DO hate our freedom - but certainly not from jealousy. They hate freedom because it is diametrically opposite what they believe in their deepest being. They believe in SUBMISSION. They want power over others - their holy books teaches that this is their goal. That there will be ONE religion on the whole earth and that those who lead it will control all who worship. Many will deny this but the facts are there in the scriptures so it is a moot point. These aggressors will never stop or negotiate except as a necessity because they meet a stronger force. Deny it at your own peril.

Whoa! Whoa! I know that the word "is-la'm" means 'submission.' The first part of my statement, which you didn't really criticize, goes to American 'hubris' (see "The Iliad") and that America-First, Amerika-Uber-Alles falsehood which is not only killing us morally, but destroying our international reputation for being so-called "good guys." Too many Americans have too high an opinion of their nation for too few good reasons. We can't even vote in a majority in major elections, fer goodness' sake!

I appreciate your non-flame thread, and will honor it. Let me encapsulate my opinion with a stark juxtaposition: Do Islamist radicals want control over their own sphere of influence, just as we allowed the USSR for over 45 years, or do they want New York City, our nukes, and to sleep in Goldilock's bed?

Someday someone will do the math: Have drones killed more non-combatants than terrorists? You already know the answer.

Do radical Muslims want to be left alone, or to cover the earth like locusts? You seem to know that one, too.

And, unless you are a Delta Team operative, Navy SEAL or invulnerable mystic, we share what peril there may be--together. Let's not continue to dip the flag in innocent blood, thinking we are keeping the world safe from fascism communism Islam.

Edited October 30, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[DeWitz]

and then, have you studied the history of Islam? Yes, it was a virulent take-no-prisoners movement across Arabia, the Levantine and North Africa--even into Southern Spain--in the 900's-1000's. However, it changed in character and, frankly, public relations.

Do you know of Andalusia, a paradise of Muslim, Christian and Jewish cohesive culture, in 12th century Spain? Do you know of the heterogenous religiosity and acceptance in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul)? Do you know of the presence of Islam in Central Asia, to this day generally placid and tolerant? Do you know that my wife works with an observant Muslim man who offers her utter respect, and that I myself have had many doings with Muslim individuals--even in prisons, where I taught--and to a one they were respectful and even humble (no, prison doesn't do that to all--the worst were the white nazis and black activists, disrespectful, violent miscreants)?

For reasons I don't know, you have chosen to paint Islam/all Muslims with the brush that, perhaps, Suleiman the Magnificent (1530, siege of Vienna), the butchers (retaliatory or not) of Bosnia 1991-1996, or any branch of that minority report known as Al Q'aeda truly deserve. Do you know that these constitute a sliver of Muslims in our world? Even Sa'la'din, the one who bested Richard I the Lionhearted in the 3rd crusade, was a more sophisticated, educated and erudite fellow than his enemy. So what if bin Laden was touted as the new Saladin when Osama was in his heyday? What GOP Tea Partier in the US doesn't compare him/herself to the Founding Fathers?

It occurs to me that your broad-brushing of Islam is akin to the negativity towards Germans after WWII (and it continues in places to this day).

Not all Germans were Nazis. Not all Muslims want to burn churches and put your daughter in a bur'qa.

Ignore history at your peril.

[Space Commander Travis]

Even Sa'la'din, the one who bested Richard I the Lionhearted in the 3rd crusade, was a more sophisticated, educated and erudite fellow than his enemy..

The Crusaders often came to greatly respect their opponents, (and not just because of their fighting skill) and often thought they were more worthy of respect than the Popes and Kings back home.

[+and-then]

and then, have you studied the history of Islam? Yes, it was a virulent take-no-prisoners movement across Arabia, the Levantine and North Africa--even into Southern Spain--in the 900's-1000's. However, it changed in character and, frankly, public relations.

Do you know of Andalusia, a paradise of Muslim, Christian and Jewish cohesive culture, in 12th century Spain? Do you know of the heterogenous religiosity and acceptance in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul)? Do you know of the presence of Islam in Central Asia, to this day generally placid and tolerant? Do you know that my wife works with an observant Muslim man who offers her utter respect, and that I myself have had many doings with Muslim individuals--even in prisons, where I taught--and to a one they were respectful and even humble (no, prison doesn't do that to all--the worst were the white nazis and black activists, disrespectful, violent miscreants)?

For reasons I don't know, you have chosen to paint Islam/all Muslims with the brush that, perhaps, Suleiman the Magnificent (1530, siege of Vienna), the butchers (retaliatory or not) of Bosnia 1991-1996, or any branch of that minority report known as Al Q'aeda truly deserve. Do you know that these constitute a sliver of Muslims in our world? Even Sa'la'din, the one who bested Richard I the Lionhearted in the 3rd crusade, was a more sophisticated, educated and erudite fellow than his enemy. So what if bin Laden was touted as the new Saladin when Osama was in his heyday? What GOP Tea Partier in the US doesn't compare him/herself to the Founding Fathers?

It occurs to me that your broad-brushing of Islam is akin to the negativity towards Germans after WWII (and it continues in places to this day).

Not all Germans were Nazis. Not all Muslims want to burn churches and put your daughter in a bur'qa.

Ignore history at your peril.

I state opinions here St. I too am allowed them. Is it possible I am totally in error? You betcha. I keep getting back to the fact that 19 guys with a few thousand dollars and some boxcutters managed to damned near nuke our economy and kill 3000 people a decade ago. 19.... If only the 10% that is commonly bandied about as "radicalized" Muslims is true then we are talking over 100 million people who think that killing for the expansion of Islamic ideals is acceptable. I have discussed the idea of a caliphate here before and am generally ignored because it seems so implausible that such disparate elements within Islam could NEVER coalesce and be ruled under a single brand. Sa'la'din would disagree. But the use of any weapon that actually evens the field and causes the enemy to slow the pace of his conquest is a good thing imo. We cannot hope for mercy from people who do not even understand the concept - I offer Syria for your inspection into that truth. We disagree on what the nature and the extent of the threat is and I am fully comfortable with my assessment. If the west, by whatever technological means available, does not fight this ideology at least to a stalemate then eventually it will win. I for one will never live in a Sharia controlled state. Some here probably think me mentally unstable for even considering such a scenario - I respectfully disagree with them.

[Yamato]

A civil discussion about drone wars, as opposed to a hostile discussion about puppy breath.

No drone missiles ever hit me, it's easy to be civil about drones. Now, if one blew up my neighbor's house yesterday, I'd be livid. As would you all.

[Space Commander Travis]

I state opinions here St. I too am allowed them. Is it possible I am totally in error? You betcha. I keep getting back to the fact that 19 guys with a few thousand dollars and some boxcutters managed to damned near nuke our economy and kill 3000 people a decade ago. 19.... If only the 10% that is commonly bandied about as "radicalized" Muslims is true then we are talking over 100 million people who think that killing for the expansion of Islamic ideals is acceptable. I have discussed the idea of a caliphate here before and am generally ignored because it seems so implausible that such disparate elements within Islam could NEVER coalesce and be ruled under a single brand. Sa'la'din would disagree. But the use of any weapon that actually evens the field and causes the enemy to slow the pace of his conquest is a good thing imo. We cannot hope for mercy from people who do not even understand the concept - I offer Syria for your inspection into that truth. We disagree on what the nature and the extent of the threat is and I am fully comfortable with my assessment. If the west, by whatever technological means available, does not fight this ideology at least to a stalemate then eventually it will win. I for one will never live in a Sharia controlled state. Some here probably think me mentally unstable for even considering such a scenario - I respectfully disagree with them.

So the U.S.'s Drone Strikes are going to be likely to take out this hypothetical 100 million fanatics? Maybe that's why there doesn't seem to be too much concern about "collateral damage"; "look, there's 100 million fanatics that want to enslave the world to Islam, so it's quite likely that we've got some of them, isn't it"? Or is it just that old cry of desperation, "we've got to do something, however hopeless it may be"?

[DeWitz]

I state opinions here St. I too am allowed them. Is it possible I am totally in error? You betcha. I keep getting back to the fact that 19 guys with a few thousand dollars and some boxcutters managed to damned near nuke our economy and kill 3000 people a decade ago. 19.... If only the 10% that is commonly bandied about as "radicalized" Muslims is true then we are talking over 100 million people who think that killing for the expansion of Islamic ideals is acceptable. I have discussed the idea of a caliphate here before and am generally ignored because it seems so implausible that such disparate elements within Islam could NEVER coalesce and be ruled under a single brand. Sa'la'din would disagree. But the use of any weapon that actually evens the field and causes the enemy to slow the pace of his conquest is a good thing imo. We cannot hope for mercy from people who do not even understand the concept - I offer Syria for your inspection into that truth. We disagree on what the nature and the extent of the threat is and I am fully comfortable with my assessment. If the west, by whatever technological means available, does not fight this ideology at least to a stalemate then eventually it will win. I for one will never live in a Sharia controlled state. Some here probably think me mentally unstable for even considering such a scenario - I respectfully disagree with them.

I don't consider you 'mentally unstable' for your opinions or proposed scenarios. Just to be clear, also, I don't believe I ever said "10%/100 million" Islamic radicals are out there trying to take over the world. I used the word "sliver," a tiny slice of Islam-hood. I don't pretend to know how many Muslims will fight to the death to establish a global caliphate. I do, not pretending, assert that such a possibility is remote at best, and better left to the authors of cheap fantasy or military speculative fiction, or the idiocies of Hollywood.

So, let's go with your estimate of 100 million bloodthirsty warriors crying out "Allah'u akbar!" as they storm the shores of New Jersey with their sophisticated amphibious dhows, blazing away with the AK-47's the US supplied them with. I'll assume the US Navy got wind of this at some point, and, in fact, would have obliterated them mid-ocean if Delta Force and the SEALS ever allowed them to leave port.

Or do you think the Western world will be infiltrated by 100 million Muslim radicals (a pretty thinned-out group, if spread from Seattle to Tierra del Fuego, and Hawaii to Croatia) with bombs, box cutters or worse, and we'll all wake up one day to the call of the muezzin? This isn't, let's say, "outlandish," but it is unlikely.

The idea that the Big Bad Wolf is 'out there,' just beyond the reach of the firelight as Cro-Magnons huddled together to resist potential invaders, is an ancient one. Sometimes, in history, it was actually an adaptive response ("circling the wagons" as white "settlers" encroached on Native American land and culture; the Red Army re-taking Stalingrad brick by bloody brick, etc.). However, the Big Bad Wolf Theory has also degenerated into paranoia and fear-mongering (the 1920's Red Scare; Germany 1933-45; McCarthyism in the 50's).

So if you could simply explicate how this caliphate will come to fruition, instead of just postulating it, it would help me--and perhaps others--to understand your position and your fears. Maybe I'm missing something. I've been wrong about a lot of stuff over my years. At this moment in history, Americans have much more to fear internally. Waving the anti-Islamic radical flag can be a convenient way to distract US citizens from the horrors of our broken political system, sharply-divided culture and sclerotic economy.

And, as for the drones, how much of an impact are they having on the "100 million," and at what cost (dead non-combatants, US 'moral superiority' further eroded)?

Edited October 31, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[Frank Merton]

The drones, used carefully and in limited circumstances, seem to me to be a way to carry out necessary business in the least harmful manner imaginable. Far better than air strikes and ground incursions, and much better than doing nothing.

We don't live in a feather-bed world.

[+and-then]

So the U.S.'s Drone Strikes are going to be likely to take out this hypothetical 100 million fanatics? Maybe that's why there doesn't seem to be too much concern about "collateral damage"; "look, there's 100 million fanatics that want to enslave the world to Islam, so it's quite likely that we've got some of them, isn't it"? Or is it just that old cry of desperation, "we've got to do something, however hopeless it may be"?

Targeting specific individuals who rise to positions of leadership is a sound military tactic. Those people who plan and train, who teach bomb making, etc. are valid targets - to suggest that the killing is random is totally inaccurate. Doing something is generally a better plan than waving a white flag to those who just want you and your ideas of civilization GONE.

[Space Commander Travis]

Targeting specific individuals who rise to positions of leadership is a sound military tactic. Those people who plan and train, who teach bomb making, etc. are valid targets - to suggest that the killing is random is totally inaccurate. Doing something is generally a better plan than waving a white flag to those who just want you and your ideas of civilization GONE.

Actually it never has been a generally accepted military tactic, assassinating the other lot's leaders or senior commanders, it's always been frowned upon for some reason, Military leaders seem to have always preferred to sit back and watch happily as thousands of their lot slug it out with thousands of the other lot, I suppose because the danger to the Leaders personally was negligible (at least since Leaders no longer led their own forces into battle). If it was an accepted method of War, who knows, it might save thousands of lives. If that was what these Strikes were about, if taking out the Other Lot's leaders would bring about a swift end to any conflict, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever, but the point is that, however many of the Other Lot (in this case what we like to call, as a convenient all-purpose lumping together, Al Q)'s Senior figures the U.S seems to Take out on a regular basis, it seems to make absolutely no difference at all, does it. How many of Al Qaeda's Second in Commands has the U.S. Taken out? there seems to be one every couple of months. And surely taking out the Most Evil Man in the World a couple of years back must have ended the war, you might think? So why didn't taking out old Bin L, the Supreme Big Cheese himself, eradicate the threat from the Global Terror Network once and for all? If we're to believe what the Governments of the West tell us, the danger from Radical Islamic Terrorism is still as severe and as dangerous as it's ever been; so if Taking out the Supreme Number One himself didn't seem to make any difference at all, what is the point of it?

[+and-then]

Actually it never has been a generally accepted military tactic, assassinating the other lot's leaders or senior commanders, it's always been frowned upon for some reason, Military leaders seem to have always preferred to sit back and watch happily as thousands of their lot slug it out with thousands of the other lot, I suppose because the danger to the Leaders personally was negligible (at least since Leaders no longer led their own forces into battle). If it was an accepted method of War, who knows, it might save thousands of lives. If that was what these Strikes were about, if taking out the Other Lot's leaders would bring about a swift end to any conflict, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever, but the point is that, however many of the Other Lot (in this case what we like to call, as a convenient all-purpose lumping together, Al Q)'s Senior figures the U.S seems to Take out on a regular basis, it seems to make absolutely no difference at all, does it. How many of Al Qaeda's Second in Commands has the U.S. Taken out? there seems to be one every couple of months. And surely taking out the Most Evil Man in the World a couple of years back must have ended the war, you might think? So why didn't taking out old Bin L, the Supreme Big Cheese himself, eradicate the threat from the Global Terror Network once and for all? If we're to believe what the Governments of the West tell us, the danger from Radical Islamic Terrorism is still as severe and as dangerous as it's ever been; so if Taking out the Supreme Number One himself didn't seem to make any difference at all, what is the point of it?

When we lose battlefield commanders do we quit? Who would think they should? It is a process - nothing magical about it. Wars have always been about grinding down an enemy until they lose the will to fight. This process could take decades - others have... The alternative is to give in. We try to avoid surrender here in America - we try... Edited October 31, 2013 by and then

[DeWitz]

The drones, used carefully and in limited circumstances, seem to me to be a way to carry out necessary business in the least harmful manner imaginable. Far better than air strikes and ground incursions, and much better than doing nothing.

We don't live in a feather-bed world.

Drones, like Greek fire, boiling tar dropped from the ramparts, smallpox-infected blankets, grapeshot and poorly-thrown hand grenades, are relatively indiscriminate weapons. What weapon system, in history, has ever been limited to "careful" use in "limited circumstances?" The place names Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai and Haditha come immediately to mind.

The US military has developed a well-documented record of carelessness and malfeasance, from fiscal matters to allowing felons to volunteer without adequate screening or intervention. Some drone operators, barely out of their teens, admitted they felt as though they were playing a video game when vaporizing human beings. More than one has claimed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result.

[+and-then]

Drones, like Greek fire, boiling tar dropped from the ramparts, smallpox-infected blankets, grapeshot and poorly-thrown hand grenades, are relatively indiscriminate weapons. What weapon system, in history, has ever been limited to "careful" use in "limited circumstances?" The place names Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai and Haditha come immediately to mind.

The US military has developed a well-documented record of carelessness and malfeasance, from fiscal matters to allowing felons to volunteer without adequate screening or intervention. Some drone operators, barely out of their teens, admitted they felt as though they were playing a video game when vaporizing human beings. More than one has claimed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result.

ST do you find the war necessary? I ask because the idea of making intelligent choices about which weapons systems to use is pointless if the whole premise for fighting is moot. If you do feel there is justification then what other means would you employ to attack a village in a country apart from the main battlefield where the commanders are living and directing mayhem against OUR soldiers? Would you send in a special ops group? Use stealth bombers? Send an entire battalion sized unit or larger? I'm not trying to be over the top here, I'm serious. IF we need to kill these combatants then how do we do it in a manner that is safer for our troops - and even the civilians who will get caught in a crossfire?

[Yamato]

Kill good for government: Hero

Kill good for not-the-govt: Murderer

War is justified in self defense. How many times does this have to be repeated before some posters hear it once?

[DeWitz]

AT, which war? You ask if (I) "find the war necessary." If you mean The War on Terror, I would say it is misguided, even as protection from those who would do "us" (the US; the West) harm is necessary. My opinion of drones is that they are indiscriminate and not as "surgical" as the US Department of Defense or any gung-ho soldier, Marine, sailor or airman would have us believe. The disproportionate number of non-combatant casualties, compared to killing bad-guys (cost-benefit ratio) suggests that the use of drones, given current technology and availability of immature 20-year-olds to manipulate the game controls software from safety, thousands of miles away from the consequences of their actions, is morally, militarily and logically skewed.

I am no military expert nor strategist. I don't even play one on TV. As a hobby, and conversation partner with combat veterans (my son, my father, my uncles and many friends) over the years, I have ingested an eclectic blend of military history. I have traveled widely. I have spoken with many Europeans in their own languages. For a North American I have a great deal of amateur knowledge about singular or isolated (from the US) military affairs (Russo-Finnish Winter War; the Spanish Civil War). I mention this only to indicate that I know the principles of which I write: The importance of minimizing civilian/non-combatant casualties; the preposterous notion that better technology means "better" (improved) warfare; the absurd notion that American military personnel are more ethical or honorable than those of other, even "enemy," nation; the idea that America, the 'only-remaining-superpower,' gets to make all the rules.

So is the issue this war, this unending War on Terror which had no beginning and knows no end? Is your question one of strategy, or tactics? My opinion is that the US lacks a comprehensive strategy about how to provide security to the nation ("homeland" sounds so, well, Nazi-ish) apart from banning nail clippers from airliners and feeling up grandma because her hip replacement dings the airport metal detector. My opinion is that the use of drones is disproportionately murdering civilians--a tiny slice of Dresden or Hiroshima every time a drone wipes out an Afghani wedding party. My opinion is that war is an abomination, and it is national disgrace that the US has a War College and no federally-supported program of Peace Studies.

I have no great answers. I have criticism of certain tactics. I have my own broad brush, to wit: Bush was a brainless fool manipulated by a heartless curmudgeon named Dick, who reacted to a horrendous national crisis with the intelligence and tact of a Vandal on meth. Somehow, their successors Obama and Biden have proven to be equally inept. In many ways I consider Obama a coward for relying on the use of drones. And the SEAL assassination of bin Laden was pure theatrics.

I say, keep the volunteer military in trim. Stop killing Pakistani newsboys or Afghani brides by--yes, I'm saying it--using "our" human assets to 'take out' "their" human assets. Anything less, or different, is to allow America to continue to feel "safe" via immoral and inefficient means, without tasting our own blood.

Happy Halloween. Good thread, good conversation. I'm still waiting, though, to hear if the dhows can pull off the caliph's version of Normandy!

Edited October 31, 2013 by szentgyorgy