US Airstrike in Pakistan

[Pangloss]

Some background here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm

 

A number of things bother me about this incident. (Or if I may borrow a phrase from Senate Democrats last week: "I find these things puzzling.")

 

- Statements by locals that they observed the UAV hovering around the area for several days before the attack (so much for the element of surprise)

 

- Statements by State Department officials to ABC News that even if they had killed Zwahiri then it would largely be only a "symbolic blow" in the war on terror

 

- Lack of permission from Pakistan

 

- The deaths of innocent people, including women and children

 

- Yet more antagonism of local population for questionable (if any) actual gain

 

 

(Just as an amusing-if-it-wasn't-so-serious side note, when the Pakistanis decided to complain about the incident, they didn't have to go very far. A US delegation happened to be present in the country. The head of the delegation? Senator John Kerry. So Kerry shows up for a high level discussion with the foreign minister and ends up getting an earful about a US attack on their sovereign territory. I don't mean to suggest that Bush planned it that way, but it would certainly be a fine way to rub salt in your former opponent's political wounds!)

[Jim]

Some background here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm

 

A number of things bother me about this incident. (Or if I may borrow a phrase from Senate Democrats last week: "I find these things puzzling.")

 

- Statements by locals that they observed the UAV hovering around the area for several days before the attack (so much for the element of surprise)

 

- Statements by State Department officials to ABC News that even if they had killed Zwahiri then it would largely be only a "symbolic blow" in the war on terror

 

- Lack of permission from Pakistan

 

- The deaths of innocent people' date=' including women and children

 

- Yet more antagonism of local population for questionable (if any) actual gain

 

 

[/quote']

 

I'm sure the news shows tomorrow morning will have a lot of discussion about the attack. I am puzzled by it as well, primarily because I thought Pakastan had been cooperating with us. If so, why not get their permission? Perhaps there were some contacts but we were worried about leaks?

 

If we were rebuffed in some way, it presents an interesting issue.

 

Of course, if the attack could not have been expected to yield gain and if we lose Pakastani cooperation in this process, this is a bad deal all the way around.

 

OTOH, what if it had been Bin Laden and Pakastan was dragging its heels for some reason. Or suppose the Pakastanis did approve of the attack.

 

Would you have risked the deaths to children? It's easy to say what should not have been done. As Sen. Kerry found out, it's much more difficult to say what we should do.

[gcol]

The news hit the U.K. papers this morning. My first reaction is unprintable, my second is that it was a barbaric act of state sponsored murder. Those who excuse or condone it probably believe that "might is right", the subject of another recent thread.

 

Scenario: A Chinese drone commits a similar act against a small midwestern town, because a Chinese designated terrorist may, or may not, be hiding there. I can just imagine the outraged squeals of The Guardians Of Democracy and Freedom.

What goes around comes around. Do as you would be done by.

[5614]

The US military has denied knowledge of the attack, which US media reported had been carried out by the CIA.

Does the US military not know what the CIA are doing??? Or are they just denying it?

 

Shame they missed him is my POV.

[insane_alien]

why didn't they just ask the Pakistan authorities to send in a few of thier troops to capture/kill him. would have been a lot less death and no damage done when they found out he wasn't there.

[gcol]

why didn't they just ask the Pakistan authorities to send in a few of thier troops to capture/kill him. would have been a lot less death and no damage done when they found out he wasn't there.

 

I presume it is because they are riddled with informers.

[Skye]

Does the US military not know what the CIA are doing??? Or are they just denying it?

 

Shame they missed him is my POV.

There's no good reason for the US military to be told and it wouldn't be surprising if the CIA kept it as quiet as possible.

[patcalhoun]

A Chinese drone commits a similar act against a small midwestern town' date=' because a Chinese designated terrorist may, or may not, be hiding there. I can just imagine the outraged squeals of The Guardians Of Democracy and Freedom.

What goes around comes around. Do as you would be done by.[/quote']

 

Just checking. Does your scenario anticipate a United States under an unelected military autocracy dealing with pro-terrorist relationships rampant throughout the intelligence agencies? Are we to assume the anti-Chinese sentiment is ripe throughout the interior wilderness and dilapidated or non-existent transportation infrastructure leaves much of American territory virtually inaccessible? I just wanna make sure, because it'd be a shame if you were to compare a hypothetical Chinese attack on the US we know and love with American operations in the remote wasteland of Central Asia.

[Jim]

The news hit the U.K. papers this morning. My first reaction is unprintable' date=' my second is that it was a barbaric act of state sponsored murder. Those who excuse or condone it probably believe that "might is right", the subject of another recent thread.

[/quote']

 

What do you think of those who want to wait until all of the facts are in and do not give a lot of credence to first reactions based on limited information obtained through the media?

[gcol]

Just checking. Does your scenario anticipate a United States under an unelected military autocracy dealing with pro-terrorist relationships rampant throughout the intelligence agencies? Are we to assume the anti-Chinese sentiment is ripe throughout the interior wilderness and dilapidated or non-existent transportation infrastructure leaves much of American territory virtually inaccessible? I just wanna make sure, because it'd be a shame if you were to compare a hypothetical Chinese attack on the US we know and love with American operations in the remote wasteland of Central Asia.

 

I did not quite understand the first part, so until you make it easier for me, I'll respond from "it'd be a shame if......." Reassure me that you did not mean 'what happens in the remote wasteland of Asia don't mean a damn, because they are only ignorant unwashed peasants anyhow'. Because if you did, the world-wide approval rating for the "US we know and love" campaign will drop some serious points.

 

Or to paraphrase the great 'Rabbi' Burns; Wouldn' it be great if we could all wake up one morning and see ourselves as others see us

[Pangloss]

Some interesting points raised.

 

I don't share gcol's opinion at all. My main concern is much like the concern I had about the invasion of Iraq. The justification is perfectly reasonable. I'm questioning the decision itself on the level of overall strategy. Was this really a good idea? Regardless of the reasoning and justification, once again we've made a unilateral decision to take lives based on faulty information with the certain knowledge of negative diplomatic consequences. These things carry a price. It would be nice to know that we've actually purchased something useful.

[gcol]

What do you think of those who want to wait until all of the facts are in and do not give a lot of credence to first reactions based on limited information obtained through the media?

 

I'd say they were wise enough to wait a bit before deciding on what sort of spin to put on the impending damage limitation exercise.

[gcol]

Some interesting points raised.

 

I don't share gcol's opinion at all. My main concern is much like the concern I had about the invasion of Iraq. The justification is perfectly reasonable. I'm questioning the decision itself on the level of overall strategy. Was this really a good idea? Regardless of the reasoning and justification' date=' once again we've made a unilateral decision to take lives based on faulty information with the certain knowledge of negative diplomatic consequences. These things carry a price. It would be nice to know that we've actually purchased something useful.[/quote']

 

For the purposes of cool discussion, that seeme a perfectly reasonable position to take, if you think the action in question can be reasonably justified, which I doubt, seen from a global point of view.

[patcalhoun]

I did not quite understand the first part, so until you make it easier for me, I'll respond from "it'd be a shame if......." Reassure me that you did not mean 'what happens in the remote wasteland of Asia don't mean a damn, because they are only ignorant unwashed peasants anyhow'. Because if you did, the world-wide approval rating for the "US we know and love" campaign will drop some serious points.

 

As should be perfectly obvious after 9/11, what happens in the remote wastelands of Asia--or in any other area of the world characterized by failed states and barbarism--matters a great deal. That's besides the point. You decided to frame a moral and factual equivalency between American operations in the unpoliced territory of a nearly failed state with a hypothetical attack by a Communist autocracy on secure, enduring and peaceful democratic state of the West. Or put another way, if conditions in the US mirrored those in Central Asia, if China was a powerful force for good in this world, and if I were something better than an unwashed, ignorant peasant with a hard on for beating women and slaughtering infidels, then I most certainly would appreciate such an intervention.

[zyncod]

As should be perfectly obvious after 9/11, what happens in the remote wastelands of Asia--or in any other area of the world characterized by failed states and barbarism--matters a great deal. That's besides the point. You decided to frame a moral and factual equivalency between American operations in the unpoliced territory of a nearly failed state with a hypothetical attack by a Communist autocracy on secure, enduring and peaceful democratic state of the West. Or put another way, if conditions in the US mirrored those in Central Asia, if China was a powerful force for good in this world, and if I were something better than an unwashed, ignorant peasant with a hard on for beating women and slaughtering infidels, then I most certainly would appreciate such an intervention.

 

So not only do the women of Pakistan get subjugated and stoned as a direct result of their government's policies, it's also ok for the US to collaterally kill them as a result of same's policies. What a wonderful force for good are we. We're allied to their (horrible) government in the "War on Terror," and we also apparently think very little of causing innocent deaths, as long as it happens in Asia. We wouldn't do the same were the seventeen-millionth Al Qaida "number two" hiding out in London.

[Pangloss]

I'm disappointed in the way discussions on this subject always devolve into absolutes and extremes. Isn't it just possible that sometimes it makes sense to use that kind of force, and other times it does not?

 

Isn't the great revelation of western democracy the way we can work together to achieve gradual improvement toward a common goal, instead of endlessly tearing our hair out and demanding that things be the way we require them to be?

 

What do you think is easier, Zyncod: Convincing the entire world to lay down its arms and all get along together happily ever after, or coming up with some restrictions to the use of force that are generally acceptable to most parties, and some gradually better-defined guidelines as to when they might be applied in certain specific cases?

[Helix]

Most of what we say is speculation because I highly doubt Bush will be completely forthcoming with what exactly happend the motivations behind it.

 

But what I can say is that it was an ill thought out move by the U.S. First, as has been said, why not ask for approval? It's not like this was Saudi Arabia or Iran; Pakistan is an ally of the U.S (one of the few left, actually). We could have gotten permission to storm the mountain or simply surround it and then work our way in. Bad thinking...

 

On the moral hand, why are we bombing villages? We can't say how good the intel. the U.S. had was, as I doubt they'll tell us. But if we are "Champions of Democracy" and the "Ambassadors to Jesus" as the Bush admin. is so quick to say, why would we take the risk with the lives of people? They weren't terrorists, they were children. Where are the terrorists? It seems this "War on Terror" is a War for Terror.

 

On the whole, the event was embarrasment and more specifically, it shows how unconcerned Bush is with people's lives and how ineffective this Smart War really is.

[Jim]

I'd say they were wise enough to wait a bit before deciding on what sort of spin to put on the impending damage limitation exercise.

 

 

Spin? Sounds to me as if you believe anyone failing to give an immediate and negative response is disingenuous.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think we have enough information to really evaluate the situation, and I doubt we ever will - getting this administration to actually volunteer information is much like pulling teeth while a team of elite advertising executives spread false rumors about your lack of credibility and patriotism. Clearly somebody messed up, though, and I'd bet anything those responsible were not particularly concerned. If nothing else, it's indicative of the larger trends and priorities of the Administration, which seems to think that killing as many people as possible is a good way to keep people from hating you.

[zyncod]

What do you think is easier, Zyncod: Convincing the entire world to lay down its arms and all get along together happily ever after, or coming up with some restrictions to the use of force that are generally acceptable to most parties, and some gradually better-defined guidelines as to when they might be applied in certain specific cases?

 

Maybe we can still be realistic and disagree on the level of force that should be used. What it really comes down to is that some people believe that the lives of Westerners are worth more than that of people who live in third-world countries. The reason that bombs are used rather than ground troops is that soldiers' lives are apparently valuable. Fine. But we better make damn sure that killing these people is worth the collateral cost. Is it? Is it really?

 

I take offense at the implication that I am a 'silly liberal' who doesn't understand the threat these people pose. But do you remember the hue and outcry over Waco? Apparently, such force is almost never acceptable in ours and other industrialized countries. And it's all too acceptable in third-world countries. I don't doubt that they didn't mean to kill those children, but this type of thing happens far too often, and there is never going to be any accountability on the part of the people responsible.

[gcol]

Spin? Sounds to me as if you believe anyone failing to give an immediate and negative response is disingenuous.

 

Sorry, not quite what I meant.

 

1. I don't think it is in any way morally justifiable, but it may be justifiable in terms of Realpolitik. For that, it would be wise to get the story straight initially to avoid too much backtracking and position shifting.

[Jim]

Sorry' date=' not quite what I meant.

 

1. I don't think it is in any way morally justifiable, but it may be justifiable in terms of Realpolitik. For that, it would be wise to get the story straight initially to avoid too much backtracking and position shifting.[/quote']

 

I'm confused. How can it be justifiable in terms of Realpolitick while not morally justifiable?

 

I like to pose hypotheticals because they can find areas of common ground, or at least define the differences, if answered candidly.

 

Let's assume the facts were follows:

 

1. Osama Bin Laden was being sheltered in a private home in Pakistan.

 

2. For what ever reason, we believed going through Pakistan was destined to fail.

 

3. The adults in the house were actively supporting Osama's agenda and providing him support. The children, obviously, are blameless.

 

 

What would you do as President?

[Skye]

I wouldn't attack. I think you lose more than you gain by acting illegally.

[zyncod]

1. Osama Bin Laden was being sheltered in a private home in Pakistan.

 

2. For what ever reason, we believed going through Pakistan was destined to fail.

 

3. The adults in the house were actively supporting Osama's agenda and providing him support. The children, obviously, are blameless.

 

 

What would you do as President?

 

This is typical. Like the "ticking time bomb" situation in torture, it is completely unrealistic and an untenable argument. If Bin Laden was in a house in Pakistan, Pakistani police would be falling over themselves to get to him, and to allow US agents in. You'll find that in most situations where there is significant collateral damage, the target was not that important in the first place. Nearly all important targets have more value alive than dead.

[patcalhoun]

So not only do the women of Pakistan get subjugated and stoned as a direct result of their government's policies, it's also ok for the US to collaterally kill them as a result of same's policies.

 

Yes, at least as permissible as it was for the Allies to "collaterally kill" far more liberated women in the process of beating back German aggression in Western Europe. Far more so, since civilian cost of war has dropped measurably since. As far as I'm concerned, that's an admirable standard to meet.

 

What a wonderful force for good are we.

 

At least as good as the Allies sixty years ago, and probably far more so in that the West has innovated and applied military means to better discriminate between military targets and civilians. Also a measure of the admirable humanity of the Western warfighter.

 

We're allied to their (horrible) government in the "War on Terror," and we also apparently think very little of causing innocent deaths, as long as it happens in Asia.

 

That's where the bad guys are.

 

We wouldn't do the same were the seventeen-millionth Al Qaida "number two" hiding out in London.

 

We wouldn't have to because the UK is not the lawless frontiers of Central Asia. Your analogy could only be more specious if it invoked government sponsorship of al Qaeda and Jerusalem as a central nervous system of international Islamic terrorism.