A (civil) discussion of the drone war?

[Space Commander Travis]

If you've been doing something for twelve years and it doesn't seem to have accomplished anything at all, should they just carry on doing it indefinitely just because they can't think of anything else to do? I suppose that's what happens when one proclaims oneself as the World's Greatest Military Superpower, you can't think of any other way to to anything unless it involves Military Might.

[+and-then]

That answer was no answer. One either does or does not support the US being in this conflict - the best I got from you there was a qualified maybe. If you don't support it I understand - many don't. But if you seriously would rather risk American lives unnecessarily then frankly I don't know what to say. If you honestly think of Islam as some benign force in the world then I feel you are deeply misguided and will see the error of it soon enough - or not. Either way I am quite comfortable with the use of these weapons in this situation. I do not accept the idea that America is to blame for initiating these hostilities. Never will.

If you've been doing something for twelve years and it doesn't seem to have accomplished anything at all, should they just carry on doing it indefinitely just because they can't think of anything else to do? I suppose that's what happens when one proclaims oneself as the World's Greatest Military Superpower, you can't think of any other way to to anything unless it involves Military Might.

P'raps you can suggest an alternative to fighting when your enemy refuses to stop attacking you?

[Space Commander Travis]

P'raps you can suggest an alternative to fighting when your enemy refuses to stop attacking you?

Refuses to stop attacking you? Really, the number of attacks actually on America that can be in any way related to Islamic extremism compared with the number of shooting incidents by so-called "Christians" or people with no motivation at all is so small as to barely be discernible with the naked eye. If you mean the enemy refuses to stop attacking American troops in their own countries, well, there's an obvious solution there surely.

[DeWitz]

That answer was no answer. One either does or does not support the US being in this conflict - the best I got from you there was a qualified maybe. If you don't support it I understand - many don't. But if you seriously would rather risk American lives unnecessarily then frankly I don't know what to say. If you honestly think of Islam as some benign force in the world then I feel you are deeply misguided and will see the error of it soon enough - or not. Either way I am quite comfortable with the use of these weapons in this situation. I do not accept the idea that America is to blame for initiating these hostilities. Never will.

P'raps you can suggest an alternative to fighting when your enemy refuses to stop attacking you?

Sorry you didn't read my whole post. I answered you thoroughly, regarding overall strategy, tactics, and my reasons for stating that drones are cowardly.

Yes, the US did not ask for 9/11, nor the previous terrorist attacks (WTC 1993; the USS Cole; others). You and I simply disagree on tactics. Define "unnecessarily." People volunteer for the US military to fight and die. Period. My son did. He didn't die, thank whomever. . .

I never said that "Islam is a benign force." Never. This is your thread. In it's title is the word "civil." Your choice. Please remain civil. Don't misrepresent me, or anybody else.

What war did you fight in?

P.S.- How's the amphibious assault on the US eastern seaboard with Arab dhows proceeding? I need to advise the US Navy. . .

PPS-- I just realized the black-and-white nature of your opening sentence above. That is the moronic mentality of Bush and his idiotic minions: "If you ain't with us, yer with the terra-ists!" One does not have to be monocular. Some, obviously, choose to be. Bad choice.

Edited October 31, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[+and-then]

Refuses to stop attacking you? Really, the number of attacks actually on America that can be in any way related to Islamic extremism compared with the number of shooting incidents by so-called "Christians" or people with no motivation at all is so small as to barely be discernible with the naked eye. If you mean the enemy refuses to stop attacking American troops in their own countries, well, there's an obvious solution there surely.

Col you are being insincere. Your past posts have always favored others with respect to any conflict the US is involved in. You dismiss 9-11 outright in your answer and treat this conflict as something started and perpetuated (probably for profit) by the US with no other group being responsible - as such your logic here is biased.

Sorry you didn't read my whole post. I answered you thoroughly, regarding overall strategy, tactics, and my reasons for stating that drones are cowardly.

Yes, the US did not ask for 9/11, nor the previous terrorist attacks (WTC 1993; the USS Cole; others). You and I simply disagree on tactics. Define "unnecessarily." People volunteer for the US military to fight and die. Period. My son did. He didn't die, thank whomever. . .

I never said that "Islam is a benign force." Never. This is your thread. In it's title is the word "civil." Your choice. Please remain civil. Don't misrepresent me, or anybody else.

What war did you fight in?

P.S.- How's the amphibious assault on the US eastern seaboard with Arab dhows proceeding? I need to advise the US Navy. . .

PPS-- I just realized the black-and-white nature of your opening sentence above. That is the moronic mentality of Bush and his idiotic minions: "If you ain't with us, yer with the terra-ists!" One does not have to be monocular. Some, obviously, choose to be. Bad choice.

The fact that you did not use the words does not mean there was not a clear implication of your thought ST. We simply disagree and my guess is we will never do so on this topic - no harm, no foul. But if you DO realize Islam is a threat and you still think it isn't sufficient to the use of drones then I think you are mistaken. This conflict was never sold to us as a quick, in and out war. It was clearly explained as a clash that might take decades. Or we can simply give in - that's a choice we will make as a nation but even giving in will not bring peace - THAT is a fool's errand. You can "joke" about dhows and amphib invasions but my guess is you either have never heard of the reality of Iranian testing of short range ballistic missile launches from small craft (EMP) or you are willing to deny the possibility of the US being harmed in a very major way in such a cheap and almost indefensible manner by Iran or NK. Real dangers and rhetoric doesn't make them less so. If you take offense because I respond to the spirit of your points rather than a legalistic approach to parsing each word then my apologies - truly no offense was intended.

[Space Commander Travis]

Col you are being insincere. Your past posts have always favored others with respect to any conflict the US is involved in. You dismiss 9-11 outright in your answer and treat this conflict as something started and perpetuated (probably for profit) by the US with no other group being responsible - as such your logic here is biased

Come again, sorry? I dismiss 9/11 completely? You said "they refuse to stop attacking us". 9/11 happened 12 years ago. Since then there've been a few, a very few, isolated and unrelated incidents (the shooting at Fort Hood, the Boston bombing), which were completely isolated and unrelated and could hardly be thought of as part of a coordinated campaign, could they. That's hardly "refusing to stop attacking us", is it. And would it have been impossible for any of these incidents to have happened without an organised Terror Network behind them whose Leaders have as a result to be targeted by Drone strikes? In what other ways do they refuse to stop attacking us?

"treat this conflict as something started and perpetuated (probably for profit) by the US with no other group being responsible" ? Well, it was. A conflict started by the U.S., I mean, in response to a crime. It should have been treated as a crime, not as an excuse for Military action. The reason Military action was resorted to was because the Bush admin. thought that something (no matter how futile) had to be Done to retaliate, and they couldn't think of any other way to respond. "perpetuated (probably for profit) by the US"? That's heading rather into conspiracy territory, isn't it.

[lightly]

I'm not suggesting there should be , but to those who feel threatened by it ..There is no military solution to the growth of Islam , which has more than doubled in personhood in the last fifty years. Are 'we' to consider ourselves at war with one fourth of the people on earth now? Radical islam could only ever succeed politically. If there is a perceived threat of Islamic control it must be countered Politically.

Blowing up SUSPECTED bad guys is completely counter productive. Killing innocent people through misinformation , collaterally, or on purpose, creates REAL enemies. Lots of them.

"enemy combatants " are a normal response to Invasions and does not in any way reflect an organized War against "us" .

[DeWitz]

Col you are being insincere. Your past posts have always favored others with respect to any conflict the US is involved in. You dismiss 9-11 outright in your answer and treat this conflict as something started and perpetuated (probably for profit) by the US with no other group being responsible - as such your logic here is biased.The fact that you did not use the words does not mean there was not a clear implication of your thought ST. We simply disagree and my guess is we will never do so on this topic - no harm, no foul. But if you DO realize Islam is a threat and you still think it isn't sufficient to the use of drones then I think you are mistaken. This conflict was never sold to us as a quick, in and out war. It was clearly explained as a clash that might take decades. Or we can simply give in - that's a choice we will make as a nation but even giving in will not bring peace - THAT is a fool's errand. You can "joke" about dhows and amphib invasions but my guess is you either have never heard of the reality of Iranian testing of short range ballistic missile launches from small craft (EMP) or you are willing to deny the possibility of the US being harmed in a very major way in such a cheap and almost indefensible manner by Iran or NK. Real dangers and rhetoric doesn't make them less so. If you take offense because I respond to the spirit of your points rather than a legalistic approach to parsing each word then my apologies - truly no offense was intended.

No offense perceived nor intended, AT. People like you keep people like me, starry-eyed idealists and dreamers in the Jesus of Nazareth--John of Liverpool, mode with our feet on the ground. Of course I am fully aware of NK's nuclear threat; whether they can get a missile fully weaponized, operational and 'flyable' has yet to be seen. Iran's shenanigans (taking advantage of US failure in Iraq to seize the initiative in the ME; arming Hezbollah; intervening in Syria) are worrisome. However, drones would be of limited use in confronting Iranian speedboats with katyusha or even more advanced rocketry.

My position remains consistent re: drones--Disproportionate non-combatant deaths compared to "valid kills;" diminished US trust and credibility in targeted regions; inconsistent command and control "at the switch" (the young "video gamer" theory).

The 'caliphate's amphibious dhows' has been an attempt at humor by exaggeration. Not everybody appreciates a given sense of humor, as it is such a subjective thing.

[+and-then]

Fox is reporting a drone killing top Taliban commander in Pakistan. If accurate then this individual can no longer coordinate strikes against US forces. I don't have any friends or family currently in Afghanistan but I am content that those who are there are a little bit safer today - at least for awhile.

[Space Commander Travis]

Fox is reporting a drone killing top Taliban commander in Pakistan. If accurate then this individual can no longer coordinate strikes against US forces. I don't have any friends or family currently in Afghanistan but I am content that those who are there are a little bit safer today - at least for awhile.

not another Second in Command? Just how many have been killed over the decades of Operation We've Got to Do Something, However Futile? And has it ever made the slightest tangible difference?

[lightly]

Are all Taliban fighters this clean? ... look at those clothes and hats... battle worn? This guy strikes me as a boogyman creation.

Maybe he is/was a fierce Taliban fighter... but i don't automatically swallow any of it anymore.

http://www.foxnews.c...ty-sources-say/

The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center describes Mehsud as "the self-proclaimed emir of the Pakistani Taliban."

Mehsud, who is also believed to be behind a failed car bombing in New York's Times Square in 2010 as well as brazen attacks inside Pakistan, was widely reported to have been killed in 2010, but later resurfaced. The tribal areas where the drone attacks occur are dangerous, making it difficult for journalists to independently confirm information.

[Space Commander Travis]

Mehsud, who is also believed to be behind a failed car bombing in New York's Times Square in 2010 as well as brazen attacks inside Pakistan, was widely reported to have been killed in 2010, but later resurfaced.

That seems to happen rather a lot as well.

[Space Commander Travis]

as well as brazen attacks inside Pakistan,

On who? Is it a Brazen attack when it's a Terrorist doing it, but it's justice being done with surgical precision when it's America's Overwhelming Technology doing it?

[lightly]

On who? Is it a Brazen attack when it's a Terrorist doing it, but it's justice being done with surgical precision when it's America's Overwhelming Technology doing it?

He's been credited with all sorts of things. He, and his "organization" just don't ring true with me.

I found this short story on him

http://www.google.co...5c-1390b185a478

here is a portion:

He made a name for himself by staging daring attacks on convoys supplying NATO troops in Afghanistan, once posing with a US military Humvee vehicle reportedly snatched in a raid.

He switched his nom de guerre to Hakimullah, or "one who has knowledge".

After a drone strike killed Baitullah Mehsud in August 2009, the energetic, radical Hakimullah took the helm of the TTP after winning a bitter leadership struggle.

He pushed the TTP closer to Al-Qaeda and oversaw some of Pakistan's bloodiest gun and suicide attacks yet.

He swore to avenge Baitullah and within weeks the network claimed a 20-hour siege on Pakistan's army headquarters, a humiliating assault on the most powerful institution in the country.

After months of silence following his reported killing by a US missile in January 2010, Hakimullah resurfaced to threaten revenge attacks on major US cities in videos issued in May.

It was a typical public appearance by a man who enjoyed the spotlight.

An AFP reporter who met him twice said Mehsud had a fondness for firearms and theatrics, firing a pistol wildly into the air, laughing mid-interview and challenging journalists to a shooting competition.

Shortly before the 2010 drone strike , he appeared in a video with the Jordanian Al-Qaeda double agent who claimed responsibility for the suicide attack on the CIA base in Khost.

Just weeks before his death, Hakimullah gave an interview to the BBC in the tribal areas in which he vowed to continue attacking US targets.

*... here is a story on the capture of his alleged right hand man :

http://www.independe...an-8876040.html

American troops have captured senior Pakistani Taliban commander Latif Mehsud, but several conflicting accounts mean the exact details remain unclear.

The TTP confirmed the capture, but claimed Mehsud was seized by the Afghan army at the Ghulam Khan border crossing in the eastern province of Khost on return from a meeting to discuss an exchange of Afghan prisoners for money.

However, Pakistani intelligence officials said American forces seized Meshud while he was with the Afghan army, and that they no longer know where he is.

Edited November 1, 2013 by lightly

[Drayno]

All those things are called terrorism, at least when other countries do it to the U.S. When the U.S. does it to anyone else, it's a legitimate act of war, it seems. As usual, one standard applies to the Global Megapower, and a different one to everyone else?

Spot on.

The Drone-War of Terror is exactly what the name implies.

Blow up children and get a medal and a nice pat on the back.

Sickening.

[+and-then]

Spot on.

The Drone-War of Terror is exactly what the name implies.

Blow up children and get a medal and a nice pat on the back.

Sickening.

I'm sure that those we are blowing up call us terrorists. Why in the world would be label ourselves as such? They kill us...we kill them... it's called war. Nothing new or special about it except for the moment we have a weapon that they can only counter with propaganda. They depend on us having something they totally lack in their pursuit of war - a conscience. And before anyone has a stroke perhaps you can tell me how much conscience Assad or the rebels have shown to other "believers"? Chemical weapons, eating internal organs... makes a low casualty drone strike seem mild by comparison - except it's being done by the "bad guys" right? The drama involved in saying "blow up children" as though that were the primary aim of any operation is patently false and I think we all know that but it doesn't matter - sounds good.

[Space Commander Travis]

So to preserve the Western Values of Truth, Justice and Freedom, the Global Peacemaker has to resort to the same tactics and same level of conscience as the terrorists? Then I think it's forfeited any right to claim to have the right to promote Western Values and impose them anywhere it thinks it has the right to. Even if we are (or some of us are, at any rate) living in fear of an existential threat to Western Civilisation (or Israel, at any rate), I'm afraid that simply saying that anyone protesting that people who are not terrorist masterminds are killed in these Incredibly Like Unbelievably Incredibly Amazingly Precise Surgical Strikes by the Good Guys is merely being a drama queen seems very... selective in terms of morality. Say some children are blown up by a small, home-made bomb by someone that the Law Enforcement Authorities say "has links to Al Qeada"; I'm sure that the howls of horror would resound for weeks and would spawn at least fifteen different threads here, and people here would be howling for military retaliation somewhere, it wouldn't matter where as long as it was somewhere in the Middle East; some children are blown up by America's Incredible Military Tech; that's just collatoral damage and look, it was in a good cause since we took out the Taliban or Al Q or whoever's Second in Command, yet again! Rejoice at that news, comrades! And anyone kvetching about any children that happened to be killed in the process; oh, don't be so dramatic.

[+and-then]

So to preserve the Western Values of Truth, Justice and Freedom, the Global Peacemaker has to resort to the same tactics and same level of conscience as the terrorists? Then I think it's forfeited any right to claim to have the right to promote Western Values and impose them anywhere it thinks it has the right to. Even if we are (or some of us are, at any rate) living in fear of an existential threat to Western Civilisation (or Israel, at any rate), I'm afraid that simply saying that anyone protesting that people who are not terrorist masterminds are killed in these Incredibly Like Unbelievably Incredibly Amazingly Precise Surgical Strikes by the Good Guys is merely being a drama queen seems very... selective in terms of morality. Say some children are blown up by a small, home-made bomb by someone that the Law Enforcement Authorities say "has links to Al Qeada"; I'm sure that the howls of horror would resound for weeks and would spawn at least fifteen different threads here, and people here would be howling for military retaliation somewhere, it wouldn't matter where as long as it was somewhere in the Middle East; some children are blown up by America's Incredible Military Tech; that's just collatoral damage and look, it was in a good cause since we took out the Taliban or Al Q or whoever's Second in Command, yet again! Rejoice at that news, comrades! And anyone kvetching about any children that happened to be killed in the process; oh, don't be so dramatic.

I think you've long since made your point and clarified how you feel about the conflict in general Col. It is unjust and America is at fault and no weapons of any kind would be acceptable in prosecuting it. I (and a great many people who actually live in the US) feel differently. Your opinions are duly noted.

[Space Commander Travis]

So everything I say is just dismissed as Hating America? Well, there's a call from a Sen. McCarthy, he says he's looking for people to join his team, and he thinks you'd be just the person he'd looking for.

[DeWitz]

I think you've long since made your point and clarified how you feel about the conflict in general Col. It is unjust and America is at fault and no weapons of any kind would be acceptable in prosecuting it. I (and a great many people who actually live in the US) feel differently. Your opinions are duly noted.

AT, we all know that you are not this simplistic as a thinker. Many good, moral thinkers hate exactly what the Col. has plainly stated is so despicable about US/UK arrogance and moral 'superiority': You don't prove anything by becoming as savage and barbaric as one's adversary. You don't have to devour enemy hearts to stoop to an all-time low in military comportment. This undeclared "war" is one of propaganda, dissembling and plain superstitious numerology (how many # 2's have been slain, as the Col. correctly asks?), as well as an indiscriminate, imprecise technology 'manned' by video gamers wanting to "get the job done" with ethical training by the US military (by way of Malmedy, My Lai and Haditha), then get on to their next 'virtual' reality with maybe a taxpayer-funded cold beer for good measure.

I'd simply, on that basis, call this "war" a "lie," if I weren't concerned that you, or someone else, would twist my one word around and accuse me of being "unpatriotic, anti-American and/or giving aid and comfort to the terra-ists." But not to worry--Bush and McCarthy beat you to the 'j'accuse.'. All lies.

Your third-last sentence above does not accurately summarize the opinions Col. R. has promoted in this thread, as I read his/her plain English. Not at all.

And I ask no "parsing" of you. I ask for your response to my repeated criticisms of drones (in your/this thread about them) stated at least thrice previously. You've never given a counter-argument. You sloughed me off with generalities and the same dismissive attitude you've given the Colonel. What happened to responding to posts about your thread, debating your position--in a civil way, as you, yourself, requested?

Edited November 2, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[+and-then]

So everything I say is just dismissed as Hating America™? Well, there's a call from a Sen. McCarthy, he says he's looking for people to join his team, and he thinks you'd be just the person he'd looking for.

Careful you don't hurt your elbow with that ridiculously broad brush

[+and-then]

AT, we all know that you are not this simplistic as a thinker. Many good, moral thinkers hate exactly what the Col. has plainly stated is so despicable about US/UK arrogance and moral 'superiority': You don't prove anything by becoming as savage and barbaric as one's adversary. You don't have to devour enemy hearts to stoop to an all-time low in military comportment. This undeclared "war" is one of propaganda, dissembling and plain superstitious numerology (how many # 2's have been slain, as the Col. correctly asks?), as well as an indiscriminate, imprecise technology 'manned' by video gamers wanting to "get the job done" with ethical training by the US military (by way of Malmedy, My Lai and Haditha), then get on to their next 'virtual' reality with maybe a taxpayer-funded cold beer for good measure.

I'd simply, on that basis, call this "war" a "lie," if I weren't concerned that you, or someone else, would twist my one word around and accuse me of being "unpatriotic, anti-American and/or giving aid and comfort to the terra-ists." But not to worry--Bush and McCarthy beat you to the 'j'accuse.'. All lies.

Your third-last sentence above does not accurately summarize the opinions Col. R. has promoted in this thread, as I read his/her plain English. Not at all.

And I ask no "parsing" of you. I ask for your response to my repeated criticisms of drones (in your/this thread about them) stated at least thrice previously. You've never given a counter-argument. You sloughed me off with generalities and the same dismissive attitude you've given the Colonel. What happened to responding to posts about your thread, debating your position--in a civil way, as you, yourself, requested?

I have stated my opinions on this matter. I listen to arguments, come to a conclusion about a person's intent (assuming the truthfulness of said arguments BTW) and answer based on how I feel about that person's stance. I have never felt the need to attempt to answer anyone point by point. If this disturbs some "rules" you feel should be in place then I don't know what to tell you. I am able to understand what a person believes based on their words and I answer that. You feel this war is unjust and you also feel the use of standoff weapons to be cowardly, yes? Or is there some nuance I dared to miss? The Col, based on a couple of years of responses on various topics has quite consistently taken a position biased against America..He will not admit it but it is easy for anyone to see who wants to see it. This thread has been good up to a point but now it seems to be devolving into a lets pin AT on some legalisms. Continue with response in that vein and you can discuss it without me. It would be pointless to continue until an actual argument begins.

[Space Commander Travis]

So wanting to see justice done for terrorist outrages is consistently Hating America, then, is it? Because that's what I'd like to see, and this is why I don't think that the response by Military action is the appropriate response, because it isn't achieving anything towards getting that done, for the reasons that many, including myself, Yam and SZ, have repeatedly tried to explain. In fact, it's purely counterproductive.

Similarly the assassination of the Mastermind himself, bin L; assuming that was deliberate and it wasn't just an error in the heat of the moment, that too did the exact opposite of helping the campaign against terrorism, by letting the biggest intelligence coup that they could possibly hope for slip through their fingers and be dumped in the ocean.

So does this mean that you're not going to discuss this any further, only with people who agree with your stance on this policy? I don't think you'll have much discussion then, since I don't think there have been many who have agreed with your policy.

[DeWitz]

No "legalisms," AT. Your thread is about opinions regarding the "drone war." Often people provide reasons for their opinions, that's all. My reasons for doubting the validity, accuracy, effectiveness and morality of the "drone war" have been repeated. You've not rebutted them. You opine. I thought this was a discussion, not a monologue.

[Frank Merton]

not another Second in Command? Just how many have been killed over the decades of Operation We've Got to Do Something, However Futile? And has it ever made the slightest tangible difference?

Actually my understanding is that it has made a considerable difference in the competence and dedication of the leadership and more and more of the leaders are more and more willing to talk than before. Of course these are subjective assessments and it's hard to know for sure, but I think your assessment is less likely and just as subjective.