This is, as far as I can tell, the only public pronouncement from the administration regarding the bombing missions in Af-Pak that are producing horrifying numbers of civilian deaths:
U.S. airstrikes aimed at al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have been “very effective,” with few civilian deaths as a result, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Monday in a rare public acknowledgment of the raids.
Asked about criticism of the missile attacks by counterinsurgency experts, Panetta said he did not want to discuss specifics, “but I can assure you that in terms of that particular area, it is very precise and is very limited in terms of collateral damage.”
“Very frankly, it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership,” Panetta told the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles.
***Two leading former advisers on counterinsurgency warfare, David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum, wrote in The New York Times over the weekend that the strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders in the past three years — but Pakistani sources say the civilian death toll could be as high as 700.
Putting aside the fact that we are killing innocents, I think it is important to look at what is going on from the perspective of the people being bombed. What would happen if, over the course of the last three years, Soviet drones based in Mexico had killed up to 700 American civilians while allegedly taking out fourteen terrorists? How terrorized would the American public be? What would the media do? Look what happened with swine flu and the DC Sniper. After 9/11, liberals like Jonathon Alter were discussing the merits of torture. Can you imagine the rhetoric coming from Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity? The National Review? Even better, you and I would probably agree with them. How would we feel about less savory elements in our society who were discussing a patriot jihad to strike back at Soviet interests everywhere in the world? How many nuclear missiles would have been launched at Moscow?
And yet, every day, this is what is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and not only are we not really acknowledging what we are doing and what the long term implications of this policy might be, but we are instead patting ourselves on the back for our successes. This is madness.
vishnu schizt
John,
Those are brown people who pray to Allah. Quit setting up false equivalents.
Punchy
You stupid libtard. They wrote in the liberal communist Nazi NYT! Clearly these authors are liberal Nazi communist Democrats bent on hating America, and they’ve obviously usurped the Pakis into making up a huge number for shock value.
An appropriate response is to ignore the Pakistanis. Or maybe nuke their sorry asses.
cleek
this is just the birth pangs of a Democracy omelette, and they are messy; they aren’t free; and you can’t make one without breaking a few bad eggs.
Bill H
How come, when Gaza is firing rockets into Israel, killing less than a dozen, that is a horrific crime? When we are firing milliles into Pakistan, killing hundreds, that is “the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership.”
peach flavored shampoo
Obama puts the “error” in “War on Terror”
jon
Anyone who takes a terrorist leader into their home isn’t an innocent. I’m not saying that there hasn’t been collateral damage, but I would bet out of those supposed 700 “civilian” deaths, 500-600 at least have been “civilians” harboring people they knew who they were. I don’t have much sympathy for them.
Laura W
It looks like your unnerving brush with stark-naked, mop-related death made you realize how much you would miss us if you unplugged for a few days.
I’m thinking of getting a Life Alert thing. It’s not safe for single people to live alone with just pets and try to do risky things like mop. I can tell you that is the number one reason why I never mop.
Ash Can
I agree, this is a real problem. What’s Obama thinking, anyway? Is he too distracted by the economy and health care reform? I’d have thought that he’s too smart to allow a situation like this to continue. I don’t get it.
Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse
Naked? Mop? LINK??
El Cid
Classic conservatives and establishment hawks would respond to your very idea of comparing the US’ bombing of worthless, nonexistent people in dark lands with Soviets bombing actual real people in America as “moral equivalence“, and from then they could change the discussion into shouting about how you think the USA is the same as Stalin.
Look, although, yes, it does matter who inhabits the leadership of the U.S. political offices, there still remains the matter of an ongoing U.S. foreign policy establishment which operates largely under the same principles it has operated for a century, particularly in the 3rd world.
If it ever can be achieved, it’s not going to be easy to change the establishment norm to it being considered really controversial and perilous to kill 3rd worlders for whatever impulse anyone may have.
John Cole
In many circles, this is known as “MAKING SHIT UP” or, alternately, “PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF ONE’S ASS.”
Well played. I would bet that 90-95% of what you think on this subject is stupid as shit. I don’t have much sympathy for your opinion.
SimplyOn
Our light shines from the highest of hills. Those below us can only stare and be blinded in admiration.
Anton Sirius
I’m hoping the appointment of McChrystal ends that shit. He seems to be a little more hands-on, in an Ahnold-in-Commando sort of way, about dealing with the baddies.
Of course I’m also kinda secretly hoping he goes Col. Kurtz on us out there, because that would just be too awesome for words.
Napoleon
@jon:
Man are you a moron. Even assuming that the terrorist was in their home (which I would be willing to bet is a minority of the cases) I am sure it is not because, you know, he is a terrorist that is armed and has not compuction killing the home owner if they don’t go along. I know if a gang of thugs showed up at my door with guns I would just tell them to go f— themselves if they asked to come in.
Tom G
jon –
Easy for you to make assumptions about strangers, i guess.
Especially ones “over there” who the media hasn’t bothered to really discuss (by which I mean the average daily life of Pakistani civilians).
I am too suspicious of our government to take for granted its estimate of the real threat from Al Qaeda. Ron Paul may have a few faults, but he has a much more optimistic attitude about the threats from supposed terrorists than most other people.
I have sympathy for any civilian in those troubled areas, and don’t appreciate the way people like you are so SURE that most of them harbor terrorists. I bet that you have not spent any time over there, have you? Got any definite evidence other than your disdain?
I haven’t been to Pakistan but I try not to make generalizations about people I’ve not met.
Laura W
@Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse: Start at #42.
It was horrifying, Mary.
Bad enough he leaves us with images of him mopping on his knees on NY’s Eve, if I recall? Now this imagery. I barely slept.
sgwhiteinfla
Not that it makes it any better but lets not forget that the government of Pakistan not only is approving these bombings behind closed doors, they also want their own drones so they can do the bombings themselves.
Comrade Dread
John, it’s pretty simple.
1. All Muslims are terrorists. We’re just preemptively taking out likely future threats.
2. Civilians are unimportant to the State and its goals.
3. All is fair game if it means killing one terrorist.
4. Or the most cynical: It’s okay for nation states to kill and terrorize civilians in the course of pursuing their goals, but when individuals do it, it’s called terrorism.
Ugh
The bombing raids will continue until morale improves.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, the National Review? If Soviet missiles were killing hundreds in America? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-HA! They’re soiling their underoos because North Korea has a liquid-fueled missile that takes four days to prepare, out in plain sight, and can reach the Aleutians and possibly the Alaska peninsula with a minimal payload, which might, just might be a nuclear device which they have tested once, or maybe faked; if it was real, it was a miserable, abject failure.
They’re expecting us to get hit with this any day now. I can’t even imagine what their reaction to an actual, physical threat like those Soviet missile would be, but it wouldn’t be pretty, that’s for sure.
Face
For the love of sweet Jesus, please no pictures of naked mopping. By Cole. By Laura….well, bring the goods!
andrew j
These things get blown out of proportion. We say “oh we surgically targeted one guy!!!~~11eleven!” and they say “you killed thousands and a wedding party!!!!~~one!” and undoubtedly neither is true.
Why does the word of anonymous “Pakistani sources” get taken as gospel truth? Why is this unsourced 700 number somehow more accurate? If I were a pakistani official who wanted to drum up outrage from the rest of the world, I’d be coming up with big numbers too, just like if I ran the CIA i’d emphasize how small the collateral damage is. Panetta at least put his name on his statement.
As for the “respecting sovereign borders” thing, well, there’s some degree of U.S. cooperation with the Pakistani government going on here, so it’s kind of a false equivalence to have soviets gunning down people over the border of Mexico.
Persia
@jon: Yes, Jon, you fucking genius, there’s nothing more guilty than a six-year-old who willingly took in a terrorist.
More to the point, anyone who’s ever read a history of Vietnam or Cambodia in the 20th century will probably be able to tell you, in detail, why this shit does not work. Why aren’t any of these people in charge at the Pentagon?
gnomedad
@Laura W:
Better still, Tunch needs a live webcam on his collar.
joe from Lowell
A maaaa-aaaaaa-aaaaaannnnn
Neeeeeds a maid.
Cromagnon
So John Cole what is your alternative solution? Just leave altogether and let AQ have free sanctuary to organize, train, and plan attacks on us or the Pak nuclear facilities? Not launch any attacks if there is any chance that civilians might be killed? Wouldn’t that pretty much mean we could never launch any attacks? Depend on the Paks to do the job even though they show little appetite for it and would likely cause far more civilian casualties than us since they don’t have the access to precision munitions or the same level of training? Send in the super-secret Ninja squad? What?
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@Persia:
Cuz we’ve got them smart bombs now that kin read people’s minds afore they kill ’em and only get the bad guys. Don’t you know nothin’?
flukebucket
Understood and point well taken.
But just saying that our government is working with your government to kill your people is not going to win friends and influence people. In the end the population turns against both governments involved.
It is a strategy that is guaranteed to fail.
Shawn in ShowMe
Hold up, wait a minute.
The number of civilian casualties could “be as high as 700” over the last “three years”. Those are, for all intents and purposes, Bush death toll numbers, an administration that famously didn’t even acknowledge civilian deaths.
What we need to know is if the raids have indeed been “very precise” and “limited in terms of collateral damage” since our guy took over. It’s not like we didn’t know Obama was going order these targeted strikes. He said as much during the campaign.
Lavocat
And if I were a terrorist, I’d be in Pakistan right now, trying to get me a loose nuke.
And then I’d set it off in the belly of the beast, for maximum impact. Shock and awe redux, if you will.
gnomedad
@Laura W:
Better still, Tunch needs a live webcam on his collar.
anon85
The larger question is, what the hell is blowing up wedding parties supposed to accomplish? America’s actions are not securing or protecting Pakistan-a ludicrous idea anyway. They are making Pakistan demonstrably less stable. Frankly, the justification for the Iraq war made more sense than escalation in Af-Pak, although it was a tissue of lies. Some dudes with cellphones, AKs, and trucks in central Asia are a threat to America? And our strategy is to antagonize the local population and drive them into the arms of the taliban? This is an imperial war, period.
less is more
Now when are we going to see the documents proving that these murdered people are terrorists? I’d like to see weapons equal to the number killed. ID cards that show rank, such as #2 Al Quada in Kabul. Otherwise it is just bloody damn murder for murder’s sake. Yes, war lovers, people who have cell phones do carry IDs.
schrodinger's cat
Some of the blame for these civilian deaths also lies at the door of Pakistan’s ruling class, both military dictators and democratically elected leaders like Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. They have nurtured the crazy fundamentalists like Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba (sp?) as tools to be used against India. Now they have gotten out of hand and are undermining the stability of Pakistan itself and of course these bombings undertaken by the Obama administration make the civilians in these areas more anti American and anti Pak government, who they are suspicious of in the first place, since the tribal areas and northwest frontier province have always gotten a raw deal from the Punjabi dominated army and central government, as have the other provinces.
In today’s editorial NYT has urged the new Indian government to tackle Kashmir, even if India were to cede its part of Kashmir to Pakistan (which will never happen), Pakistan’s internal contradictions will not go away, it is the problem child of South Asia, so Obama tying his success to success in Pakistan makes me wary, because I don’t see much good coming out of this engagement.
wilfred
I spent a lot of time in Swat Valley years ago. Nearly every family had given half of its house to Afghan refugees. Tough and decent people, deeply conservative but not rigid. I have great memories of those people and hope they send the proxy punjabi Army out in 10,000 coffins.
Killing people’s relatives makes for blood feuds, not terrorism; look up Pukhtanwali, the way of the Pashtun.
Now there’s a good question.
someguy
Pakistani nukes, even in the hands of the Taliban, are only a threat if we keep acting like a threat to them. Act like a decent citizen of the world, and you’ll get treated like one.
The efforts to throw the bathwater out with the baby in AF and PK are interesting, but what makes you think you can bomb a couple countries forward into the stone age? This is a Bush created mess that nobody can be expected to clean up. So why the big AF surge? I hope it’s just being done out of political expediency, so that Obama can say, “Look, we tried really hard, but even I can’t fix it, now let’s get out of here.” Still, I think that when you’re in a hole and trying to figure out how to get out of it, it’s probably good to stop digging first.
dmv
Well, the military is supposed to be taking a harder look at its use of airstrikes and drone strikes. Let’s hope they seriously do.
Incidentally, this is yet another reason why CIA needs to get out of the operational side of business. It was originally set up to be a purely analytical and clandestine intelligence gathering organization. Read: spying, nothing else. It went off track in, oh, 1948 or 1949. We need to go back to the original plan for CIA.
Svensker
It’s American Exceptionalism. We are good. They are bad. If we have to kill lots of Them to make Us safe, that’s not a problem. If one of Them kills one of Us, that’s an unbelievable horror. If you disagree, you hate America.
A pastor friend of mine calls American Exceptionalism blasphemous idol worship. (Of course, he also refuses to have a flag in his church because he says God has no country — guess he hates America, too.)
Ash Can
@Svensker: But that’s just it — I (for one) would have thought that this kind of thinking, while sadly not banished from federal government altogether by the change in administrations, would at least be marginalized at this point. And, at the highest levels, that does seem to be the case — which is what makes this situation so frustrating.
The Moar You Know
@jon: Awesome. When the EU nukes the US for harboring Dick Cheney I’m sure you’ll have no objections.
Tim H.
It could be that in order to justify spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, we must start a blood feud with every nation on earth.
Besides, if Al-Qaeda’s going to plot and train, I’d rather they did it at the ass-end of nowhere, rather than places like, oh I don’t know, Florida flight schools.
joe from Lowell
Where does Dick Cheney live again?
Texas?
Wyoming?
Where in Texas?
MAD
John,
Making this comparison is always apt, but you have to make it proportional: the population of Pakistan is about 170 million compared to 300 million in the US. So, in effect, it would be like Soviet drones based in Mexico killing around 1230 Americans in order to kill 14 terrorists.
Anton Sirius
@Cromagnon:
That was essentially Obama’s decision, yes. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with what McChrystal did in Iraq before you spout off and make yourself look a wee bit foolish.
Jon
@Persia: I didn’t say they were all guilty. A child in the firing line is sad. And we’re not carpet bombing indiscrimately with B-52s like we did in Cambodia or Vietnam. Any student of history could tell you that. We’re obviously getting very good information of the AQ/taliban leadership’s whereabouts(my guess would be from another wing of the Taliban). Hell, we even put a Hellfire missile through the front door of an AQ member’s home which shocked the hell out of the Taliban.
@Tom G: I’m not disdaining any Pakistanis at all. They’re taking people into their homes(or living in a structure) with people who are known(and are open) about who they are in these networks. You know who the local Taliban leadership is in Pakistan. You also know that the non-Pastun Arabs hanging around aren’t there for the tourism.
@The Moar You Know: Thats a terrible analogy. Cheney is scum of the Earth, but he’s not a terrorist in the same way as AQ members and we aren’t nuking anyone.
@Napoleon: Considering how open they live in that part of Pakistan, thats a terrible assumption on your part.
@John Cole: I didn’t say it was definitative, but considering how accurate those drone strikes are, the possibility of hitting the wrong home/structure is about nil. And there’s been no reports where we hit a target that didn’t have any AQ or Taliban members in it, QED most civilians who are in the building with the AQ/taliban members aren’t innocents. I’m sorry that Obama is continuing a good policy that you disagree with, but I’d love to hear your opinions on how to kill terrorists/Taliban without getting one’s hands dirty. The options are:
1-Drone strikes(which are rather effective)
2-Invading Waziristan(if you thought Afghanistan would be tough, its nothing compared to there).
3-Do nothing and hope they leave Waziristan for an area where we can get the local authorities to arrest them
4-Hope Pakistan doesn’t pussy out.
If you’re expecting wars against insurgent groups who hide among a civilian population to be conducted with zero civilian deaths, then your opinions on this topic shouldn’t be seriously.
srv
This isn’t about AQ or nukes. This is about a drug-war and civil-war by proxy (if you accept that Pakistan was ever really a nation). AQ is just the boogeyman to be trotted out as justification for whatever.
McChrystal’s job is to go big, and see if bombing enough villages and a more aggressive Phoenix Program in Afghanistan and Pakistan will bring enough of them back to the table. If not, there will be plenty of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques practice.
Olliander
I don’t support the Pakistani drone attacks either—it’s a flawed strategy, to say the least.
And the chances of the Taliban getting its hand on any of the nukes is more remote than the media is leading us to believe.
But if it were to happen, do you really believe that the Taliban will play it coy, low-key and not be “acting like a threat”? These people stone women for letting men into their homes. They mutilate young girls because that’s “how it is”. They behead people with machetes.
The implication that we’re the ones that would be uncivil to them is ludicrous, no matter where your political affiliations lie.
anonevent
@less is more:
Today’s anecdote brought to you by the ads on the left side: My son has a cell phone and no ID.
And why would these guys want to carry IDs? One more dead body that can’t be identified counts as a civilian, which then looks bad on us.
Tsulagi
Lot of wiggle room in that statement. “Some sources (unnamed) say” (isn’t that a Fox News specialty?) and “could be as high.”
Not defending collateral damage or dismissing it lightly. While Obama’s Iraq campaign statements (especially the longer answers) left enough caveats and wiggle room (most only heard 16 months) to drive armored divisions through, I agreed with his statements and intended course in the AF-PAK region. It’s what should have occurred seven years ago instead of gutting our operations there so we could go off on some retarded incompetent nation building adventure in Iraq to pleasure our neocons.
A link to another article at the one linked above in this post has stuff like this…
Aside from AQ in Pakistan, nukes in the control of Islamic Rapture Riders would not be a good thing. Those whackjobs make Iran’s Khamenei look like a San Francisco sprout eating elitist liberal.
TenguPhule
And all reports come from the military press briefings.
You know, the ones caught LYING to the American public on several occasions.
What, do we need to draw you a picture with fluffy bunnies on it?
Anton Sirius
@srv:
Source, please. At least about the ‘bombing enough villages’ part; I’m well aware of his apparent track record from Iraq when it comes to the treatment of prisoners.
TenguPhule
He ordered the torture of civilians and possibly POWS, some of them to death.
Does this mean we look the other way when Spain does a snatch and grab in the middle of a Republican fundraiser that leaves dozens dead?
TenguPhule
Sure we are, provided you’re willing to believe without verifiying anything.
TenguPhule
1. We don’t know that for sure, ground hamburger in a hole in the ground is a bitch to identify,
2. Our intelligence in Pakistan on the Taliban is worth about as much as the grudges/powerplays our informants have against other rivals.
3. How many times have we willed Number #2 again?
Jon
@TenguPhule: If Cheney was hiding out in a part of America we had no actual control in, but there were legitimate, legal reasons for countries to want him for trial, then the analogy would be close(and any country with the means could go and get him if we refused to do anything about it). Thats the flaw in the comparison: Pakistan can’t just arrest AQ members if there’s a warrant for his arrest.
@TenguPhule:
1-We aren’t attacking caves, we’re attacking buildings and we’re not missing.
2-Thats the thing: ISI wouldn’t give us any info either way on the whereabouts of the Taliban or AQ. This info has to be coming from inside Waziristan and we’re batting about 1.000
3-See #2.
@TenguPhule: Obviously we are verifying since we are hitting AQ leadership and Taliban leadership.
srv
@Anton Sirius:
Take it up with Jon, he says we’re batting 1000.
In other news, McChrystal’s first op is a dud. Or a warning that he isn’t sharing the profits enough.
Where the hell is Air America?
Shawn in ShowMe
srv, how do you expect to convince anyone of the validity of your position when you make one tin-foil allegation after another? Maybe you’re right on both counts regarding McChrystal but where’s the evidence?
TenguPhule
After a missile strike, it’s a hole in the ground and good luck trying to identify who was in it.
And a pony.
JFCNTZYM, you can’t be that stupid.
See also, Tautology.
someguy
Agreed. The Republicans are fucking all high on something and got us into this mess, and it’s a continuation of their war on that part of America that doesn’t buy their bullshit.
That was your point, correct?
srv
@Shawn in ShowMe: Funny, y’all buy what Gen. McChrystals “specialty” is, but somehow it only involves nameless bad guys who are terrorists, and since there are never any investigations on his Phoenix Programs, it’s always win-win.
The onus isn’t on me to prove anything, it’s on you. If all these Hellfires are delivering the awesome – PROVE IT.
You can’t, because they’re making all this shit up as they go. Why the good soldier on 60 Minutes told me a week ago that THEY NEVER GET IT WRONG. EVER!
Riddle me this: why, exactly, if kin-Karzai is an announced drug lord by the unnamed US National Security apparati whose talking points are repeated endlessly in the MSM, is he NOT a target? For you to make any sense, he’d have to be … our drug guy.
Anton Sirius
@srv:
No, srv, I’m not going to “take it up with Jon.” You made a clear statement about what McChrystal’s mission in Afghanistan will be: to
Either source where you got that ‘bombing enough villages’ part from — which I’m very curious to see given that it runs completely counter to what McChrystal’s mission in Iraq was, the job that presumably got him picked for the Afghanistan gig, as well as given that it would get in the way of the ‘more aggressive Phoenix Program’ part of the equation — or admit that you’re just making shit up.
Jon
@TenguPhule:
1-You can believe that if you want, yet we can confirm specific names of people who were killed in those strikes.
2-AQ and the Taliban have confirmed the IDs of the people we’ve hit as members/leaders of theirs. I can’t find a drone strike reported that didn’t hit militants(which are never disputed by the other side). But I understand in your rush to push your agenda, you’ll ignore facts and decide what to believe(regardless of what the facts are). I guess the world media, US army and the Taliban are wrong about who we are hitting(and are engaged in a giant conspiracy to convince everyone that we are hitting AQ/Taliban members) and you’re right that we’re not hitting anyone relevant. *rolleyes*
TenguPhule
Irony of the day.
TenguPhule
Which other side? The people on the ground complaining that they’re not militants? The Taliban who has every interest in making their numbers seem as large as possible? The Pakistani military which has a vested interest in keeping the US military sugar daddy happy?
Jon
@TenguPhule: Newsweek reported on a drone strike with a Taliban commander who confirmed the results recently.
And thanks for only responding to one blurb of mine, I guess you concede the rest of my points?
srv
@Anton Sirius:
Predators are dropping bombs on villages (see post) and you want me to source that… Really. No, I can’t provide you the new generals operational plans, but I will explain reality to you. In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t have the ability to do Phoenix mano-e-mano in much of Afghanistan and all of Pakistan like we could in Iraq. And even when we could, we still didn’t go toe to toe with Zarqawi. We will tagging-and-releasing various guys, and when the gather together in large enough quantities (villages), multiple 500lb visitors will be crashing their party.
They will kill some “terrorists” (as all Taliban and their sympathizers are terrorists, according to Jon) and win the hearts and minds of the smoking village in one stroke.
Except not. The model of cajoling Pashtun and various other tribes will not work like it did with the Sunni (and it didn’t really work there either, but that’s another topic).
And you are ignorant about bombing and Phoenix being “completely counter”. Perhaps you make the common mistake of conflating “Counter Terrorism” with COIN. COIN is out. We’re just in the killing business now. That’s what McChrystal does. He just doesn’t crawl through the mud and do it himself like they did in Vietnam. He’s got drones.
Brachiator
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Is your point that there should not be any US military activity in Afghanistan? Or that any military action should be limited to ground troops?
I might tend to agree with you that our policy is shambolic, but for different reasons. Civilians — innocents — are at risk when war is waged. And in Afghanistan, unlike some areas of Iraq, anybody who says that they can easily disentangle civilians from fighters in tribal areas, is lying to you.
But given some of the awful stuff happening in the region, to focus on the US seems mighty narrow. You’ve got the Pakistan army tearing their own country to shreds as they supposedly root out the Taleban. You have the terrible final (perhaps) stages of the wars in Sri Lanka. All with a terrible toll in civilian suffering.
TenguPhule
And based on that one interview, this somehow translates to 1.000 confirmed success?
You keep ducking and weaving with tautology and silly games.
We don’t have perfect intelligence in the area.
Shit goes wrong.
Pretending otherwise doesn’t help.
TenguPhule
As it is one of the few things there we can control, not really.
The air strike campaign is counterproductive to longterm goals.
Jon
@TenguPhule: No, I’m not using that one example to show we’re striking almost all legit targets. When the AP/BBC/etc reports come in from local waziristani officials confirming the targets were in the strike, thats good confirmation. Whether you like it or not: our drone strikes-while they have killed some civilians(innocent or not)-have almost always hit legitimate terrorist targets. The only way we could be doing this well in our targeting is that we’re getting real time humint(because they know to stay off of the air) inside of Waziristan about the locations of AQ/Taliban members.
If you have proof that we’ve hit only innocents, feel free to show it. Otherwise, you can stop talking about Tautology until you clear up your own crap. You’re not providing any evidence, just feebly trying to poke holes in my comments and claiming that as proof.
omen
i thought i’ve read that the US pays reparations to families of civilians we’ve killed. that’s not so?
via npr:
In a remote corner of western Afghanistan, a team of high-ranking Afghan officials on Tuesday made reparation payments to survivors of U.S. airstrikes last week.
[…]
Relatives are being paid the equivalent of $2,000 for each person killed and $1,000 for each one injured. It is a small fortune by Afghan standards.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104061892
surely we can afford to give more than 2 grand. life is very tough for women who’ve lost husbands.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
“Oh, yeah, that’s right, Mr. American Intelligence dude! You got them all for sure, for sure! One shot, one kill! No need to hit here again! They all DAID!”
And you whackaloons swallow this shit? Words fail me.
omen
via an image bagnews covered, i was struck by this plaintive plea:
One man who lost seven members of his family asked angrily, “Why do they target the Taliban inside the village? Why don’t they bomb them when they are outside the village?”
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/05/15/world/0516FARAH_7.html
it’s a question that deserves a hearing on tv.
srv
@omen: If I know we’re tagging-and-releasing “terrorists” for tracking, then they do to. It’s sorta like the apologists for bombing Gaza – they talk about what cowards “terrorists” are for not painting big bullseyes in the middle of nowhere and standing in them, so they can be courageously bombed from 10000′. Just amazing.
And it’s not like it isn’t their village too.
Next up, it’s the victims fault for not having moved out.
srv
And if you though Bushism were gone, JCS Chairman Mullen has picked up the logic and is for bombing the villages before he is against them.
And today, he says if they keep killing civilians, that endangers US strategery…
I know how this guy got promoted, he speak with forked tongue out both sides of his mouth.
Brachiator
@TenguPhule:
And our longterm goals are?
@schrodinger’s cat
:
Huh? What is the point in playing the blame game? It’s a poor substitute for thoughts on what our foreign policy should be. But even here you miss the mark, especially when you talk about Pakistan’s ruling class, and leave out the Pakistan military intelligence, and cadres of officers. And of course, you omit the US and the former Soviet Union as players in the region.
These groups are not particularly crazy. They have clear national or religious objectives. Further, the aims of the Taliban are often very distinct from the aims of other groups. Observers, as well as government officials, make a huge error when they fail to distinguish between the specific aims of various groups in the region.
These people are on drugs. “Tackling” Kashmir and ceding territory to Pakistan are not the same thing at all. And even here, the Times conveniently ignores the homegrome Kashmir Muslim movement for independence as opposed to annexation.
I heard on an NPR radiocast that the Obama Administration had not yet appointed an ambassador to India, and that Special Representative Richard Holbrooke specifically does not have Kashmir on his diplomatic plate.
I know that Obama has a lot that he has to pay attention to, but he has to get the diplomatic as well as the military resources into play if he is going to have any success in the region.
Jon
@srv: Gaza is not a similar situation. Thats a heavily dense urban environment where you probably don’t know where the hidden Hamas facilities and safe houses are on a day to day basis. We very rarely strike more urban areas in Pakistan/Warizistan. For the most part(based on all the reports), we’re attacking smaller cities/villages. Civilians who let terrorists into their home aren’t civilians anymore.
And the Israelis have been using this limited spread tungsten munition in their strikes on Gaza to limit collateral damage with good results.
wobbly
“but I would bet out of those supposed 700 “civilian” deaths, 500-600 at least have been “civilians” harboring people they knew who they were. I don’t have much sympathy for them.”
If a bunch of guys with AK-47’s and Taliban turbans asked me to “harbor them”, I’d probably harbor them precisely because I’d know who they were.
Terrorists. I’d be terrified, and neither I, my children, or my granny in the attic would deserve death by pilotless drone for the crime of being unarmed and helpless.
The Moar You Know
@Jon: I call spoof. No one could be this stupid and remember to breathe.
TenguPhule
You have now moved from Tautology to Straw Man.
Well done.
TenguPhule
Not to be the biggest dick on the planet that everybody wants to kick.
TenguPhule
As opposed to the people in the village/town, often in the same articles who complain that they hit the wrong guys?
TenguPhule
omen
isn’t that interesting. this jogged my memory. there is a carlyle group member who sits in nyt board of directors.
http://www.nytco.com/company/board_of_directors/William_E_Kennard.html
gee, is nyt is pushing policy that would enrich board members? color me shocked.
Mjaum
I was about to attempt to reason with this “Jon” character, but seeing the results the rest of you got… Him not too smart, neh?
If all it takes for a civilian to not be a civilian anymore is to be coerced into harboring a gun-toting maniac in his house, then the people in the twin towers were voluntary, tax-paying, wage-earning, voting members of the US military-industrial complex, and thus legitimate targets.
Which goes to show what kind of stupidity Jon’s kind of “logic” leads to. At his level of understanding, there is “us” and there is “them”, and “them”‘s the enemy, and “us” are the good guys. Anything is allowable, and the only reason the holocaust was a problem was that it was done to the jews, while reasonable people would say that it was wrong because it was done to humans.
In short, Jon’s an ethically and morally challenged person of very low intelligence and understanding. “Idiot” works well, too.
Jon
@The Moar You Know: Feel free to google it rather than try some dumb attempt to insult me. Here, I’ll save you the effort: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/mystery-weapon/
@TenguPhule: Yawn. Yet another non-answer answer.
@TenguPhule: Again, show proof. It is hilarious that you’ll automatically take anyone’s word that we screwed up, but won’t believe it when all sides confirm…not that you’re actually discussing the issue because you just want to push your agenda.
@TenguPhule: Again, show proof of your paranoia. You’ve set yourself up a mental construct that no matter who says whom was killed, you can’t possibly believe it. Its the hallmark of a small mind.
@Mjaum: For someone who accuses me of being an idiot and spends more time insulting me than discussing the issue, your post is absurd on the face of it. If you let a felon on the run from charges in the US into your house, you can be charged with a crime. If someone harbors a known member of Al Queda or the Taliban, they’re no longer an innocent. This is not to say everyone in a house that’s hit with a strike is guilty(I never said that), but anyone who consents to host an AQ or Taliban isn’t an innocent(if they put their kids into danger by harboring an AQ member, any harm to their children is at least partially the responsibility of the people who let the terrorists in). Thats not your false choice you’re trying to accuse me of. And I won’t sink to your level and play the holocaust and 9-11 cards though(which is as pathetic as it gets). In short, you can’t actually discuss what I wrote, and all you are reduced to is inflammatory rhetoric and juvenile insults that show how far above your head any intelligent discussion truly is.
windy
“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that.”
Mjaum
And Jon keeps stepping in it…
“Can be charged with a crime” is somewhat different than “summary execution”, no? And that is if one even acknowledges the US as an example to be followed when it comes to laws. Which after the last eight years is a laughable proposition. And you keep using the words “let in”. You assume on the face of it that the civilians *have a choice*.
Your rhetoric *stinks* of all the assumptions you glibly make, which it seems you are not even aware of making. The US military can always be trusted. The US media and that of its client-states is “the world media”. The “Enemy” is always easy to identify, except when the rhetoric requires that he not be. The self-confessed war-criminal and mass-murderer-by-the-instrument-of-illegal-war Cheney is better than your average AQ-soldier because… …?
The Twin Towers and the Holocaust are routinely trotted out by the right and its “we’re leftists, really” stooges. They were the impetus for the Iraq war and the reason the right claim for wanting to hit Iran. To claim that they have no room in the discussion of these matters is ever so slightly insane.
Yub, you’re an idiot.
schrodinger's cat
Brachiator:
I am not playing the blame game, all I am saying Pakistan’s leaders also need to take responsibility for their own actions, it is their country after all. Both Musharraf and the new President sound like whiny children when they give interviews on TV saying how the US hasn’t helped them enough.
I had implicitly include them when I said Pakistan’s leadership both military and civilian, perhaps I should said that more explicitly
I was thinking about Pakistan as a whole not just with respect to US foreign policy.
These groups Taliban, Lashkar are religious zealots. Remember the destruction of priceless Buddhist artifacts such as the Bamian Buddhas, That counts as crazy in my book. The Taliban version of Islam is not one widely practiced in the sub-continent, the less said about how they treat woman the better. The Indian or the South Asian version of Islam is of much more kinder and gentler variety.
The home grown movement for Kashmir’s independence started by the JKLF(Jammu and Kashmir Liberation front) which was strong in the late eighties and early nineties has been mostly supplanted by organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, funded by ISI, who want an Islamic republic.
I did not mean India should cede territory to Pakistan, all I was saying let us consider a thought experiment where India agreed to each of Pakistan’s demands over Kashmir, Pakistan’s internal problems will not go away. The idea behind the formation of Pakistan, is flawed in my opinion, the idea that all you need to be a strong vibrant country is a common religion. The formation of Bangladesh in 1971 and the current problems in the NWFP and tribal areas prove this point I think.