In the U.S. and Europe, American forces kidnap terrorists so as not to kill bystanders:
Before a CIA paramilitary team was deployed to snatch a radical Islamic cleric off the streets of Milan in February 2003, the CIA station chief in Rome briefed and sought approval from his counterpart in Italy…In Sweden, an inquiry discovered that Swedish ministers had agreed to apprehend and expel two Egyptian terrorism suspects in 2002 but called the CIA for help in flying them out of the country… [Link]
<
p>But in less-developed countries, we just blow up houses:
The provincial government said Tuesday that in addition to 18 civilians, four or five foreign militants were killed by the American airstrikes on the village of Damadola on Friday… The deaths of 18 civilians, among them 6 children, have stirred anger among the population in Pakistan and put pressure on the government to explain what happened in Bajaur. [Link]
<
p>I don’t particularly care for national sovereignty when a country won’t take out its trash, as in Afghanistan, the NWFP and the Kashmiri militant training camps. We should’ve put troops on the ground in Pakistan long ago, no matter what the political sensitivities, and bin Laden should have been caught within months of 9/11. That he hasn’t been killed yet is an ongoing embarrassment.
<
p>But killing innocent bystanders is not only deeply immoral, it unnecessarily creates enemies and a host population which supports terrorists. One month we distribute quake aid and win public sympathy; the next we kill women and children and say, ‘Oops, but we’ll do it again.’ It’s the very definition of ineffectiveness.
Look at the rank hypocrisy of U.S. lawmakers in defending this missile attack:
U.S. politicians have expressed regret over the weekend killings of 18 civilians along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, but said the airstrike was justified by the erroneous belief that a top al Qaeda leader was among the group, which included women and children. “Now, it’s a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?” Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN] asked rhetorically… Senator John McCain, also concurred… “We apologize, but I can’t tell you that we wouldn’t do the same thing again…” [Link]
Gee, Sen. Bayh, would we have launched a missile at a house in London? Would we have killed 18 innocent Brits, shrugged and said, ‘What else are we supposed to do?’
No, we would’ve sent in special ops to secure the house, ID the targets and kill them. We wouldn’t have used airborne munitions because they’re too imprecise. The FBI does not blow up houses in the U.S. for the same reason we shouldn’t blow up houses in Pakistan: the risk of killing bystanders. And in fact, we’ve used ground-based raids rather than missiles to catch terrorists in Pakistan in the past.
But last week, imprecise was good enough. Life is cheap in the third world.
Related post: Guess who’s NOT coming to dinner, The best weapon in the war against terror
I think you’re generally right about the value placed on 1st world and 3rd world life. However, I do have a minor dissent – it’s hard to launch a snatch and grab op in an isolated part of a country. Locals can spot and stranger, and word would get out before you got close. If this had been a bomb in Karachi, that would have been a stronger example for you. I’m just asking you to think through the counterfactual – what would have happened to a snatch-and-grab if the US had attempted one? I know you like tech fixes, but unless you want to argue that this is a reason for the US to develop teleportation, there isn’t an easy way to do this, which means that the humane thing to do might have been simply not to strike.
Special ops have been called upon to attack fortified hideouts with sentries. This operation would likely have been easier than that.
Perhaps, but it is easy too easy for us to say as none of us were there. Even with troops on the ground innocent lives can easily be lost as has been the case with every war.
Yes, this is a most troubling story.
My first reaction is that this is, truly, a clear example of racism.
But my second, more considered reaction is that this is war. This particular bit of nastiness is due more to war than it is to race or the value of life in “the third world.” War is all about the worthlessness of the perceived enemy’s life.
Fifty years ago, the US poured holy hell on Dresden.
Weimar, one of the central foci of nineteenth century European culture, home to Goether, Schiller, Nietszche and Liszt, was within shouting distance. All that fancy-dannery didn’t stop the minutions falling and slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.
War is a beeyatch.
There is a bit of a difference between WWII and what is going on now — just saying. You should have trusted your first reaction.
What is the qualification for this war’s ending?
CD writes: >>If this had been a bomb in Karachi, that would have been a stronger example for you
Aptly put. CIA/FBI/SpecialForces have conducted raids to snatch-n-grab many Al-Queda operatives in Karachi/Lahore/Islamabad and even some smaller towns, and all these raids have been conducted as though they would be conducted in London, Berlin or Tokyo. They have been extremely discreet, and innocent casualities have been Zero.
However, this is different. The chance of such a “city” operation being successful, in a remote town where everyone knows everyone else, is next to zero. Which is incidentally why AQ folks are now avoiding cities and taking refuge in such places amongst women and children. This is similar to the VietCong hiding in villages under the shelter of women peasants so that the US would not carpet-bomb them because of the outrage it would cause.
It’s an ugly war – it will get uglier.
M. Nam
Spot on. Life is expendable in the third world – its the same reason why the Canadian government is having such a hard time selling the Human Security concept to the US, they’ll never buy into it – apart from expressing a general and vague approval of the “Responsibility to Protect” at the UN, the US would never acknowledge any further liability which might prevent it from conducting the kinds of operations it has been doing in Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan…
The question is, how stationary was the target. If you have time, you can drop paratroopers nearby at night, and have them advance on foot. On the other hand, the purpose of the predator is to gather real time intelligence about a mobile target, and to attack it if the target is likely to escape. Remember, there are military reasons to prefer a ground attack, since a live enemy can be interrogated.
It is likely that these were the choices: A. Bomb now B. Wait 10+ hours (I don’t know how long, but these operations can’t be prepped that quickly, somebody ask Vinod) and drop in paratroopers C. Track the enemy for attack later
I’m still in agreement with your main argument, but want to be fair and accurate in describing the choices that were available. Snatch and grab takes time. The ops you mentioned were prepped and planned long in advance, in a major city. This was different.
Where I think you are right is that if they were in a French village, the US would simply have opted to track them.
The reason the U.S. can kidnap terrorist suspects off the streets of Europe, and chooses to launch missiles into Pakistan is not so much the cheapness of life in the Third World, but the fact that the kidnapping option is not viable on the western hinterlands of Pakistan. In Europe, you have modern roads, telecom, airports that aid greatly in such operations. In rural Pakistan, youÂ’ve got pretty much nothing.
The capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is not an apt comparison, cause he was busted in Karachi, by Pakistani authorities. PakistanÂ’s reach into tribal areas is not as far-reaching.
As for the cheapness of Third World life, that canÂ’t be laid at the feet of the developed world. Instead, blame it on corrupt rule within the country, that is more interested in lining their own pockets and securing their own power than in improving economic conditions. This last comment can be directed at any Third World country, not just Pakistan.
Canada is hardly an example to hold up as protecting innocent life. Exhibit A – the 20 year long investigation, trial, and acquital of the chief suspects of the Air India bombing. Even at the time of that attack, the Canadian PM extended his condolences to the gov’t of India, despite that fact that most passengers on that flight were either permanent residents or citizens of Canada.
The clearest analogy, both in terms of rationale and in terms of repercussions, is the Israeli Defense ForcesÂ’ targeted assassinations of Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militants. As in this case, one authority is invading the sovereignty of another in order to clean up a mess that it believes can’t be handled by the authority in charge. The primary reason that the U.S. considers this action “okay” to carry out in Pakistan but not in England, is because it has faith in England’s policing ability and none in that of PakistanÂ’s. That is why I think the analogy to England isnÂ’t an entirely fair one. Similarly the IDF has no faith in the PLOÂ’s ability to reign in militants. In IsraelÂ’s case one could argue (I certainly would) that the collateral damage/collective punishment meted out during its targeted assassinations results in an increased net loss of Israeli life, as it inevitably increases the number of Palestinians that have good reason to hate Israelis and become militants themselves. It is a futile practice which has resulted in an endless cycle of violence. The conflict between Israel and Palestine symbolizes the epitome of why “targeted” assassinations must be weighed more carefully. All we are doing is increasing the number of militants we will one day have to try and assassinate.
KXB – My point had nothing to do with the Canadian government not being guilty of the same crime, rather i was referring to the success of current international efforts to address this issue of inequality in the value of human life..
but the fact that the kidnapping option is not viable on the western hinterlands of Pakistan – hmmm, this seems a bit dubious considering that CIA Special Ops was certainly able to liase with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 80s’ war with the USSR – in fact, the anarchical nature of the NW Frontier areas made infiltration all the more viable…
If targetted assasinations, such as the ones IDF carries out are done with some kind of hopeful political settlement “carrot” (and it must be tangible and in good faith) only then somehow the cycle of violence can be broken.
Unfortunately for residents of NWFP, they dont have a sympathetic ear anywhere in the world. They are political write-offs even for Pakistan federal govt. Due to lack of political clout they are in this situation.
Isn’t it true that they were being tracked for days before being finally bombed? Enough time to plant a mole or send in some operatives. It’s amazing how the reasons change drastically. First it was “intelligence” that Zawahiri was coming..then it turns into a wimpy “well atleast there were some foreign operatives killed”. And this is from their own PR machine. Why should anyone even believe this second apologetic claim?
They can be outsourced to Bihar. There’s a flourishing kidnapping industry there.
Maybe it was timing issue as well — perhaps the Pakistani authorities wouldn’t move as fast as the European authorities, and thus the US said to hell with it; similarly, there are probably more sympathiziers within Pakistan for Al Qaeda, and that’s make’s snatch and grab all the more difficult also.
I agree with Moornam that this operation would never have been carried out in Sindh Club in Karachi or the Gymkhana grounds in Lahore. It has as much to do with American callousness to 3rd world life as it has to do Pakistani callousness to lives in the NWFP. Pakistanis themselves do not particularly care about the pukhtuns in NWFP. They are considered backward, uneducated and too tribal. Musharraf must have been informed about the attack before it took place. I believe his reaction and the reaction of his whole nation would have been much much stronger against the attacks if the attacks had taken place in rural Punjab instead of rural NWFP.
For example : Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian national and Al Queda operative was caught by ground assault:
Its in this article
lessons learned –
1) don’t invite terrorists over to dinner
2) don’t invite terrorists over to dinner if you have children
3) don’t invite terrorists over to dinner if you live in a country where internal govt is so disfunctional that foreign militaries don’t have a very good spectrum of options for grabbing you
Even if a missile strike were absolutely necessary, it would have been nice to see more regret on the part of the US and the American public. If the British had bombed an IRA safe-house in the Republic of Ireland, killing Irish civilians, would we have seen more regret? (Who knows — Brits can be very callous towards Irishmen).
(Even liberal bloggers, like Kevin Drum, seem to have little regret over the loss of life.)
Another (figurative) casualty of the strike was all the goodwill the US built in in PK after the earthquake. Feelings towards the US will go right back in the toilet — no one likes having their country bombed and their compatriots killed accidently.
(I agree with Minnie about HSI — its the best Canadian foreign policy initiative since Pearson invented peacekeeping, but the US will nevwer buy in.)
Vinod Uvacha…
This is an attempt at saracasm. I know that. But still… This is pretty simplistic way to look at this incident. I call it the Fox News logic. The problem with this approach is that you are starting with a conclusion that the strikes were right. This neo-con line of logic does not leave an option for introspection Another big problem with this line of logic is that anybody, including Bin Ladens and his bombers, can successfully use this and rationalize their actions. Like Lessons after 9/11 1) DonÂ’t support Israel Â… [blahÂ….]
But what do you do when the terrorists invite themselves over to dinner (and failure to feed them will result in painful death) ?
My sympathies go out to the innocent men, women and children who died in this bombing. But I’m not so sure that the US had any other options.
We’ll see a lot more of this kind of collateral damage before this is all over.
M. Nam
How about this: a) before you invite anyone for dinner – publish his name/sex/occupation/current length of beard etc to the US embassy, and get his background vetted by CIA ‘intelligence’ guys. b) Also, don’t have children dining at the same table.
I believe Abhi has a analyzed it best in # 11. However, I would also like to add [If queasy, please do no read further]that, in pure economic terms a British or American life does carry more value than a Pakistani [esp, a NWFP life] or an Iraqi life.
“This is pretty simplistic way to look at this incident. I call it the Fox News logic. The problem with this approach is that you are starting with a conclusion that the strikes were right. This neo-con line of logic does not leave an option for introspection Another big problem with this line of logic is that anybody, including Bin Ladens and his bombers, can successfully use this and rationalize their actions.”
Tom,
Let’s try to see how the events were initially presented using the CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/NY TIMES/LA TIMES logic. The overriding theme – America can do nothing right. We were told 18 innocent civilians were killed, and that once again the U.S. bungled an operation. Within 2 days, it started to leak that that in fact some important Al Qaeda officials were present.
As for losing the goodwill we built up, that’s a hollow charge. If we are so unwanted, what would the reaction be if we pulled out all our Chinooks that are still in POK?
This does sound callous, but when our “ally” in the region seems to put more effort in attacking Balochis and keeping rape victims under lock and key, rather than chasing after Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants, it’s not surprising that U.S. patience is wearing thin. Even Portor Goss, the new head of the CIA, stated back in the fall of 2005 that Pakistan was not doing enough. That this was a CIA strike may indicate that Goss is not going to wait for Musharaff.
On a related matter, Bush is expected to visit India during the winter. I think that would be an ideal time for Pakistan to have another of one it’s “major arrests” that always seem to be timed at just the right moment. Usually, it is when Musharaff goes to Washington, or an American official pays a visit to him. But it would allow Musharaff to demonstrate that he is a valued ally, and also steal some of the spotlight from India.
don’t invite terrorists over to dinner if you live in a country where internal govt is so disfunctional that foreign militaries don’t have a very good spectrum of options for grabbing you
I think there are problems with the above argument:
(a) My first problem with the argument is the premise that there were no alternatives for grabbing these terrorists. We do not know that. See post #14. Maybe the bomb alternative was the more attractive one but in light of the (1) Non Immediate threat posed by those terrorists (2) Certain loss of innocent life and (3) Ability to catch these terrorists some other day, I think the balance weighs towards the CIA exercising caution instead of launching the attack.
(b) because of the forseeability of the attack, the innocent victims share some blame. I am inferring this from the emphasis placed on the fact that the villagers should have known that their government could not reign in the terrorists and if they were invite terrorists bad things will happen.
However,
(1) The neighbors got blown away too and they were neither invited to the dinner nor were they intimated about the invitations to terrorists.
(2) The neighbors/the house members themselves might not have this knowledge. We dont know if the villagers were fully aware of the ramifications of associating with these people.
Even if the villagers were knowledgable, this argument is a little too flippant and callous to loss of human life and thus in poor taste.
(3) If the SM meetup in New York was blown away in a terrorist attack, no one in his right mind will say:
Dont hold SM meetups in public places in New York when you are in a city where you know that terrorists have committed massive terrorist attacks before and are likely to do so again.
This is actually an analogous argument if the test of the basic argument was forseeability of the attack and hence placing some burden on the victims because of the forseeability of the attack. The neighbors got blown away in the Pakistan attack and their chances of predicting the attack on a dinner they were not invited to or were aware of is as forseeable as it would be forseeable to the SMers that terrorists would blow up the SM meetup in New York.
(b) The second logic that I can infer is that we can be flippant about the attack because the the Pakistanis who were blown away are: Living in a nation where the government cannot reign in the terrorists or living in a nation which is lawless or living in a nation where your neighbors can invite over terrorists, so somehow your death is an acceptable ‘collateral damage’.
This argument lays the blame on the fact that these people were living in an area where they should not have been. So their fault was of living in the wrong place. This argument places an untenable burden on the Pakistanis. These poor frontiermen whose birth in Pakistan was an accident/by chance are now supposed to move to a different state or a different nation or otherwise we are not going to care about them getting blown away. I am not sure on what moral grounds can we place a mostly impossible burden of moving on these innocent and desperately poor individuals.
This does sound callous, but when our “ally” in the region seems to put more effort in attacking Balochis and keeping rape victims under lock and key, rather than chasing after Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants, it’s not surprising that U.S. patience is wearing thin. Even Portor Goss, the new head of the CIA, stated back in the fall of 2005 that Pakistan was not doing enough. That this was a CIA strike may indicate that Goss is not going to wait for Musharaff.
I think we need to be very careful about holding the poor innocent citizens of a country who cannot migrate accountable for the sins of its undemocratically elected leaders. I do realize that wars are necessary and innocent people will always die in a war situation. Sometimes collateral damage is necessary. So the test is whether the collateral damage on civilians is unavoidable for winning the larger war. I am sorry but the CIA drone attack did not meet that test.
Expose: However, I would also like to add [If queasy, please do no read further]that, in pure economic terms a British or American life does carry more value than a Pakistani [esp, a NWFP life] or an Iraqi life.
Wow – this is exactly the kind of perverted rationale that plays a part in propagating such callousness and indifference on the part of Western military operations in developing states…to counter the above statement on its own terms (I won’t even begin to decry the (a)moral underpinnings of it at the moment)-> the reason why one might say that “in pure economic terms” a British or American life has more “value” than a Pakistani one, or for that matter an Iraqi one, or a Congolese one or a Somalian one or a Cambodian one or a Serbian one is because of systemic lack of capability/capacity development on the part of all the latter peoples. This is exactly what needs to be addressed, and this imbalance in capability lessened. This is why these sorts of conflict situations arise in the first place – the answer is most certainly not to continue to propagate such differences…we won’t be much different from most animals if that is the case.
I wonder if the gung-ho supporters of this strike (those who take the position of “nothing less than complete victory”) regard an attack by Islamists (a terrorist strike) an act of evil or just counter attack of a waring party?
My position is that while attacking the waring party, US must also do introspection and change its foreign policy which seeks to meddle in coutries politics for its own gain.
Dude KXB, My criticism of the missile strike should not be construed as support for Pakistani army and Bushrraf. I was commenting on the civilian deaths and subsequent neo-con justification for this “accident”.
AFAI remember the breaking news was Al Queda #2 “may” be dead in a strike. The mention of innocent lives came a couple of days later.
This is a valid point. American government (not NGOs) should stop all kinds of “assistance” humanitarian or otherwise around the world. It is a lost cause, especially in Islamic states. What we need is reduced visibility and more subtlety.
I am not a Pakistani and not a fan of Busharraf. World knows very little about the Baluchi situation. IMHO Indians should and must utilize the Baluchi situation to balance the Pakistani adventures in Kashmir.
This can happen. I have heard the news about a “high value target” being pursued by Pakistani Army
I’m starting with the assumption that these folks were terrorists. From there, it’s a rather direct line that association w/ an enemy has consequences ranging from the small to the VERY big. if you associate with the enemy of the United States, prepare to face consequence.
Yep, I’m placing a large burden on Pakistani society. For whatever set of reasons, they’ve been unable to create an internal policing mechanism like… oh Brit or Italian society… As a result, individuals living within their society are at far greater risk than individuals living in other societies. Life sucks for them.
And this arg isn’t purely a passive “oh, how sad, Pakistan has a pre-industrial society”, but also an active “they literally invited trouble over for dinner.”
Vinod, by your reasoning, is it then justified, from OBL’s POV, say if he blew in another plane in some Republican majority area (though individually some of them might’ve been against Afghan/Iraq war and would’ve voted red for other reasons)? I am not even talking innocent foreigners/antiBushies dying here. What is your stand on it? And no I am not being sarcastic here.
You know what, actually I agree with the basic premise of your logic here. But I would define it like this: Anyone who actively supports or protects our enemy is also our enemy and in war situation his life is game.
But you are stretching this too far, and as AMfD stated, placing too much of a burden on the ones who died. Do we even know whether they were proMushie/profundie? And what about the children? Going by your logic there would be no fourth Geneva convention and in a state of war do you also then favour an all-out attack on anything remotely associated with your enemy? If so then the Iraq war should’ve started with killing Iraqis in US and “war on terror” should’ve started with killing all Afghan/Pakistani immigrants in US…since it’s clear they left their homelands and came here in search of a better life and did nothing to change their socio-political system. Too bad all you Pakis..life sucks for you and today you happen to be sheltering OBL so you die. BHAM!!
This has been the problem from the very beginning. Soldiers can’t fight a war when they are told “You can kill these people, but not those people, but these ones are ok, unless they look like this, then don’t…” etc. etc. It spreads confusion and has been part of our problem in Iraq. The death of an innocent bystander is indeed a great tragedy, however this is war and it unfortunately does happen. We could have effectively wiped out the insurgency had we not gone this “choose and select” approach which, in the long run, probably would have saved more Iraqi (and US military) lives. But no, we were trying to be careful, and this is what happens.
The hunt for OBL would have ended long ago too, if we didn’t decide to rely on the Pakistani government, just so they could “keep the peace” in their nation so Musharraf wouldn’t get overthrown. The reality is, the government has no ability to keep the peace in these tribal regions. They are lawless areas. We should have gone in aggressively and gotten the job done long ago. Would innocents have been killed? Probably, but this hunt would have ended long ago, and far more would probably have survived. Would Musharraf have been overthrown? Probably, but what is he to us anyhow?….nothing….and to the Pakistani people?….a non-elected leader. So who cares?
I am not sure that one can assume something like this and make that assumption the basis of useage of a blunt instrunment like airstrike, which inevitably results in civilian deaths.
I am not sure that one can assume something like this and make that assumption the basis of usage of a blunt instrument like air strike, which inevitably results in civilian deaths.
You may not realize it but this is the logic that bombers use when they kill civilians.
“Americans elected so and so and who did this and that, so American civilians are fair target.”
See, job of retrofitting a contrived logic on a faulty conclusion is not that complicated. The difference is Fox News (neo-con mouth piece) is verbose and suave with a Christian/Western bias while the Binladens are simple and coarse with Islamic flavor.
You do realize that this is exactly the logic that the other side uses to excuse excessive collateral non-combattant casualies. They say, as do you, that everybody bears some responsibility and guilt for the behavior of those that they are fighting. This blurring between combattants and non-combattants, civilians and non-civilians, is contrary to the logic we use to condemn terrorism.
If this was a case of a dresden-scale carpet bombing, I’d agree with you, it would be excessive. BUT this is NOT. Proportionality flows both ways.
if you’re arguing that you should never strike unless there’s zero risk of collateral damage, then we fundamentally disagree. War is a beeeeyatch and it’s fundamentally messy.
wonderful moral equivalence. You leave out that western mouthpieces are generally supportive of free markets, minority rights, tech progress, women’s lib, freedom of religion, educating & vaccinating little girls, etc. etc. while the Binladens oppose nearly every tenet of that. Oh well. I suppose if you can casually dismiss the “real” root things that make us different, it’s easy to boil the diff down to suave vs. coarse.
well, as Michael Moore famously noted, for whatever reason, Bin Laden attacked an American city that didn’t even vote for Bush in the first place. So apparently OBL doesn’t draw the red state / blue state distinction you’re so quick to assume. Bin Laden attacks Americans because he wants the world to revert back to a medieval theocracy and the USofA is the most emphatic refutation of that lifestyle.
Ultimately, there’s a WORLD of difference between targetting a house with a good # of high value AQ targets(including their chem warfare expert) vs. hitting the WTC. Their twisted POV might have some args that justify it, but those are their args, not ours and the 2 POV’s, just because they exist, aren’t equivalent.
Moral equivalence! I was waiting for that. 🙂 . Vinod. I totally agree on the “virtues” of western civilization and I hope that women in Islamic societies would enjoy the “freedoms” that we all take for granted. The problem is no matter how hard you proselytize the virtues of western civilization. Your message will never reach the ears of those innocent women and children. Coz they are dead. And this thread is about them dead ones. Secondly, no matter how hard you holler about your vaccines and free markets, the only message that neighbors of the dead ones will hear would be the message of mullahs seeking for revenge.
This is where the equivalence is. You think by killing people, even a few innocent ones, you will be able to accomplish the democratization and westernization of these folks. Well, a Mullah also wants to kill all kafirs and Islamize the whole world. You are just a bit polished in your delivery and your side has weapons where the blood of your victim does not squirts on your sleeves.
Right now I’m just a little too tired and emotionally drained to be clever and argumentative, so I’m not going to engage with the conversation as such. I can’t wrap my head around the collateral damage argument as framed.
But if you think this bombing is wrong b/c it killed civilians, OR you think bombing is justified for whatever reason but still feel bad for the civilians who were killed, you can still agree on one thing–we are a wealthy, powerful country that can afford to at least try to make it up to the civilians we maim and the survivors of the ones we kill, and with a duty to at least try and accurately measure the extent of our collateral damage so that we can make informed judgements about what the way we throw our weight around.
So consider taking a look at CIVIC Worldwide, to help take care of the innocent bystanders and free the information.
There’s a great quote from the Bible on the side of Berkeley High—You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free. Always reminds me of India’s mottoo–truth will always be victorious. Regardless on our opinions on the actions we take, we should all be very accurately aware of the consequences of our military actions.
What is more appalling is Pakistan’s lack of nerve to question this despicable action. Would the Pakistani’s react the same way if India bombed a militant training camp? I don’t think so. It seems Pakistani leaders lost their nerve.
If this was a case of a dresden-scale carpet bombing, I’d agree with you, it would be excessive. BUT this is NOT. Proportionality flows both ways.
So you do agree that the level/degree of collateral damage is a factor which can by itself hold a veto on the actual decision to launch an attack in this unending war on terror. This is important because for a lot of people on the right, any means are acceptable.
So the disagreement now is only as to whether in this particular case, the level of collateral damage rose to a level which would warrant restraint.
I think if you look at the factors involved, on balance, restraint would have been the right course of action.
Although a little simplistic, there was a great cartoon that showed how fundamentally different each group (western style nations vs terrorists/insurgents) operated.
Two men, one Israeli and one Palestinian were shown pointing guns at each other. The Israeli soldier was shielding Israeli citizens from the Palestinian gunman by putting himself between the gunfire and civilians, and shooting back. The Palestinian gunman shooting at the Isrealis was using fellow Arabs as a shield, firing over their shoulders, putting THEM between the Isreali gunfire and himself.
There is a fundemental difference in how the two groups operate. The primary purpose of each nation is to take care of it’s citizens first when it comes down to it. Putting your own civilians in the line of fire is simply not thought of in western states.
Also, all this tactical monday morning quarterbacking is futile. None of us are within the decision/information loop, hence we are at a lack of facts to make any valid conclusions on how to do the job.
The only facts that are out in the open are:
By the way, Special Ops takes a bit of planning to execute, especially when you’re not the primary big boss in the territory (Pakistan and tribesmen are), and speed is the element one must focus on. Terrorists were being followed for a certain amount of time with intelligence trickling in. I don’t know, was the strike conducted by a Predator following the terrorists? Were the men being followed, but gave only a small window to really attack them? Too many details are hidden.
Should the US reduce civilian death associated with attacks on terrorists. Definitely. Does the US, with its operational tempo spend time trying to do so, yes. The Military understands that accuracy and lethality, and a healthy amount of PSYOPS plays into a winning strategy, but this is still a game of explosives and death. If there was a way for 6 sigma blackbelts to tune this machine, it would have been done already.
I think Haliburton has them on staff.
Was the european resistance fighting German occupation hiding in cities and villages amon the civilian population or coming out distinctly to shield the citizens. No, I dont agree with the Qaeda manifesto, but I think the bias against the Palestinian resistance shown here has little to do with right or wrong.
Your analogy is not valid. European resistence were fighting German soldiers, not going over to Germany and blowing up Hanz in his bakery. I did not make any claims to say Guerrilla warfare is illegitimate. Terrorists hiding in Pakistan know the United States has very limited options. Palestinian resistence has legit claims, since we’re talking about tactics here, targeting civilians riding a bus or blowing up a bomb in a market is reprehensible. I haven’t made any counter claims about Israeli tactics either. Some have worked, some haven’t. Razing houses with bulldozers is targeting families, which I don’t support either. In a macroscopic viewpoint, my conclusions remain the same. Mature nations do not use their own as shields (hiding in a house or among civlians when you know a bomb will be dropped on your ass – allow the death of your own just to flame the fire).
The United States spends a boat load of money on more accurate weapons and delivery systems. But enemies have to be defeated, and if so called allies won’t take a step in the right direction, hands are forced. The operation could have been botched, it could have went off exactly as planned, who knows.
This is getting really tiresome…
Americans come from Europeans; they are kin…ergo they identify more with europeans and their type Deal with it. Brown skinned muslims will simply never get the degree of sympathy that white christians (or for that matter white muslims like the bosnians) will get. Its called human nature and we are visual creatures…we care what people look like. Its a fact.
“Was the european resistance fighting German occupation hiding in cities and villages amon the civilian population or coming out distinctly to shield the citizens.”
Guy, you need to read history. Resistance was more a sabotage than putting their own people in harm’s way. Another major role was to provide logistics to Allied forces in WW 2.
You will be surprised that often Germans had contact with resistance leaders. In Paris toward the end of WW 2, the resistance leaders met Major General Choltitz and requested him not to turn Paris into Stalingrad. He was later hailed as “savior of Paris”.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_von_Choltitz
Targetting civilians = wrong. we agree.
I am talking about occupations – Pal, iraq, etc., they are not fighting in poland or germany. Resistance leaders hiding in Paris know that the SS has very limited options. I am not defending any actions the supposed targets had committed, I am only talking of the line of logic here, and have no sympathy for people planning operations targetting civilians like AQ. I am talking of resistance against occupation. Resistance always operates by blending in the population. Its the same in occupied europe, algeria, or chandra shekhar azad style indian operations.
Yes, sabotage – destroying the infrastructure of the occupation, and engaging its forces where possible. Putting your own people in harms way happens more in popular intifada type operations – marches, blockades etc. Might be foolish in a realpolitik sense, but the hard left and populist factions think its a necessary component of revolution.
You’re still comparing apples and oranges. There is a significant difference between people who voluntarily (knowingly) put themselves in harm’s way to protect the resistence, and between bystanders who use civilians for cover, almost daring forces to attack them hoping for collateral damage to push their own propoganda (which AQ and Saddamn has done). The civilians are stuck between a rock and a hard place really.
The collateral damage inflicted by the US forces is not systemic. I’m just throwing numbers here, but for every 10 bombs, one takes innocent bystanders with them. WWII bombing raids on civilian populations can be considered systemic in nature, AQ and insurgents forcing civilians to give them shelter IS systemic. So even if the US took care and avoided hurting folks 9 out of 10 times, the one time it does, people jump on it for bad tactics. No process is 100% efficient, and warfare with so many variables never will be. Can one keep trying though? Always. But I’ll circle back to my original point that none here, including myself, know the details of the operation.
I mean to say “and between terrorists who use civilians for cover.”