US Airstrike in Pakistan

[patcalhoun]

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.

 

Out of curiousity, where did you get that idea?

[patcalhoun]

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.

 

Unless you'd care to reveal some closely held knowledge of not only the inner thoughts of the command authority behind the attack but also the those of the case officers who collected the targeting information and their sources, how can you tell us "what it really comes down to?"

 

The reason that bombs are used rather than ground troops is that soldiers' lives are apparently valuable.

 

Or, perhaps, the intelligence provided was sufficiently time critical to warrant an air strike. The point is you've pieced this whole narrative together out of whole cloth, with nothing more substantial than an unexplained deep contempt and disrespect for the shooters and authorities involved.

 

Fine. But we better make damn sure that killing these people is worth the collateral cost. Is it? Is it really?

 

The risk of killing innocents to protect the US is nowhere near as brutal as it was sixty years ago, despite facing an elevated risk attack on US soil. Exercise your judgement as you see fit, but I sincerely doubt you can make a stronger moral case that further restraint is necessary absent a convincing argument for a less costly, risk neutral alternative.

 

I take offense at the implication that I am a 'silly liberal' who doesn't understand the threat these people pose.

 

You suggested that the Pakistani security forces are sufficiently reliable or trustworthy to police their western and northern frontiers when they've singularly failed to do so prior to 9/11 (a responsibility they continue to eschew in Kashimir). I don't impugn President Musharrefs motives or the fundamental interests of ISI, but your incredulous faith in the ability of Pakistani police to control its pourous and lawless hinterlands is hard to take seriously.

 

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.

 

Perhaps that's because industrialized countries have functioning institutions for preserving law and order, whereas failed states or teetering ones like Pakistan do not. This is why your London analogy sucks.

 

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.

 

How often is far too often in wartime?

[Sisyphus]

Clearly Pakistan is an entirely different situation than Britain, but I'm not sure the London analogy is entirely pointless. Say there was intelligence that al-Zawahiri was possibly in some village in rural America or Britain, but that if he's there, then he'll be back underground and out of reach in minutes, and there's no time for authorities to arrive, making our western institutions of law and order irrelevant. You really think we'd launch a missle strike? I really doubt it, don't you? The only thing that's changed, though, is that we'd be killing innocent westerners. Certainly, the public outrage would be enormous.

 

I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't justified, by the way. I have insufficient data to make that call (although I do find it troubling). I'm just saying that we definitely do value western lives much more than, say, Pakistani lives, even if both are supposedly our allies. To claim otherwise seems pretty naive.

[Jim]

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

 

What law was violated?

 

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.

 

Typical of what? Neanderthal right wingers who disagree with you?

 

Hypotheticals, by definition, ask that certain facts be assumed. It is a device used to try to strip away the clutter and get to the guts of an issue.

 

If you will, please assume my hypothetical is realistic. Osama is there waiting for us and that we can’t capture him alive. Assume the only possibility is to lob a cruise missle at his haven killing not only the complicit adults but also innocent children being used as a shield.

 

Would you push the button? If you don’t want to analyze the question, just "don't wanna go there," no worries; however, I promise to diligently and honestly answer any counter hypothetical you wish to pose.

[Jim]

Unless you'd care to reveal some closely held knowledge of not only the inner thoughts of the command authority behind the attack but also the those of the case officers who collected the targeting information and their sources' date=' how can you tell us "what it really comes down to?"

[/quote']

 

Excellent point. What hubris for those who have never come close to making this kind of hard command decision (and I am certainly in this category) to blithely assume they can mind read what happened based in this case based on a few words in a newspaper.

 

In war, some things are left for history to sort out. The bombing of Dresden is an example of an event that many Americans would have heartily supported but which, in hindsight, can been questioned on moral grounds.

 

The reverse is equally possible. There can be events which Americans condemn at the time but which are seen as justified with the benefit of history.

 

 

The risk of killing innocents to protect the US is nowhere near as brutal as it was sixty years ago' date=' despite facing an elevated risk attack on US soil. Exercise your judgement as you see fit, but I sincerely doubt you can make a stronger moral case that further restraint is necessary absent a convincing argument for a less costly, risk neutral alternative.

[/Quote']

If we develop a standard that we can't act without perfect intelligence or without risk of offending other countries, our liberties are doomed. Technology is going to ramp up this coming century along an exponential curve. See, e.g. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

 

If we are reduced to playing defense or if we cripple those trying to protect us with impossibly high standards, we will suffer such damage that the ensuing restrictions on our liberties will make the ACLU pine for the good ol' days of the Patriot Act.

 

I’m not optimistic. We have less chance of emerging from the 2006-2056 time period unscathed than did Americans who lived from 1906-1956. At the beginning of WWI, military planners couldn’t anticipate a simple thing like what a machine gun would do to a battle field. Ditto for armor in WWII. We had the application of low level computing power, of a sorts, to a hate-filled world vision resulting in what has rightly been termed “the worst thing that ever happened.”

 

When have things not gone calamitously wrong in war? Burnside mounted full frontal assaults on entrenched positions at Fredericksburg. Three union regiments rushed into a 30 feet deep, 70 feet wide, and 250 feet long crater without the benefit of ladders during the siege of Petersburg. The result was carnage.

 

Decisions have to be made in a compressed time frame, in a far different setting than us sitting at our computers lobbing off another SFN post. We should, of course, hold people accountable for their actions. We can’t excuse an Andersonville or an Abu Ghraib.

 

At the same time, we have to recognize that it is human beings making these decisions in a setting for which most of us have no frame of reference.

[patcalhoun]

Clearly Pakistan is an entirely different situation than Britain, but I'm not sure the London analogy is entirely pointless. Say there was intelligence that al-Zawahiri was possibly in some village in rural America or Britain, but that if he's there, then he'll be back underground and out of reach in minutes, and there's no time for authorities to arrive, making our western institutions of law and order irrelevant.

 

Then you run into the same problem as you have with the London analogy. If our Western institutions of law and order (and CONUS forces, apparantly) are for whatever reason less capable than...say Canada's..., then we are no longer living in reality. We're living in a parallel universe where either the US government has the circumscribed domestic power and reach of a third world kleptocracy or the country has managed to slip into a second civil war.

 

You really think we'd launch a missle strike?

 

Why not? We've bombarded our own shores in time of war before, and with the heaviest naval gunfire we had at the time. We used to slaughter other Americans by the thousands just to take a field, burn entire villages and the agricultural base of entire counties to the ground.

 

I really doubt it, don't you? The only thing that's changed, though, is that we'd be killing innocent westerners. Certainly, the public outrage would be enormous.

 

I imagine there would be some outrage; we've definitely had our fair share of it during the Civil War, the Indian Wars and various insurrections as a result of violent Federal action. On the other hand, for the most part the public accepted that the United States was in a state of war within its own borders. What you're analogy asks us to accept are the conditions of a lawless, wartorn US interior without public acknowledgement of that fact.

 

I'm just saying that we definitely do value western lives much more than, say, Pakistani lives, even if both are supposedly our allies. To claim otherwise seems pretty naive.

 

Does your conclusion rest entirely on this nonsensical analogy where we magically transport al Qaeda to some Western country and pretend that the public doesn't notice, doesn't care, is unable to do anything about it, but is unwilling to admit its impotence for one reason or another. If so, the what exactly isn't naive[/i] and frankly slanderous about you accusing Westerners of generally devaluing Pakistani lives vis a vis their own.

[bascule]

The administration's foreign policy in Pakistan has always left me scratching my head.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

I think that's an excellent point, and very well put.

 

And I don't think you're a "silly liberal" at all.

[patcalhoun]

The administration's foreign policy in Pakistan has always left me scratching my head.

 

It's very simple. Pakistan is a country of over 160 million people, one of two available land thrusts into Afghan territory and the only available point of entry available to US general purpose forces by sea and air. With that in mind, and the fact that Pakistan is dependable enough to swallow the meat and potatoes of Enduring Freedom's objectives if not the vegetables, then the Administration's measured reliance on Pakistani cooperation and willingness to occassionally act without it is entirely understandable. After all, the alternatives are to buy into zy's fantasy of a Pakistan committed as our Western allies on the global war on terror or view Pakistan as a hostile. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether or not the Administration has deftly or incompetently handled Pakistan, but there's nothing profound about mulling over a characterization of US-Pakistani relation that is so blatantly obvious.

[patcalhoun]

I think that's an excellent point, and very well put.

 

What's so excellent about it? Zy's remarks basically pigeonhole the operational thinking of competent professional warfighters as "my soldiers are more valuable than foreign civlians." That's a pretty strong accusation, and yet zy doesn't present a single shred of evidence to make it up beyond an analogy.

 

I could say "it all boils down to silly liberals valuing their self-perceived profundity over genuinely parsing through the facts," although I doubt you'd pat me on the head for it. And even though I'd have posts in evidence--a far cry more than zy has--what would I have to back up such a sweeping generalization other than an obvious prejudice?

[Skye]

What law was violated?

I meant in the sense that it would be an act of aggression, so the UN Charter, Article 2, part 4.

[patcalhoun]

I meant in the sense that it would be an act of aggression, so the UN Charter, Article 2, part 4.

 

"Aggression," "aggressor" or any other variation of the term isn't used in any of the Articles. If by aggression you mean transboundary use of force, then walk us through 1) the injury to Pakistan's territorial integrity or political independence. 2) a framework that would permit a court to find this operation unlawful when it recognizes the legality of similar transboundary acts carried outside UN auspices in Uganda, Grenada, Panama, Syria, Lebanon and Sierre Leone, and 3) any other operative law should your Article 2 arguments fail . In other words, let's not play lawyer when only Jim is apparantly qualified to do so.

[Skye]

"Aggression," "aggressor" or any other variation of the term isn't used in any of the Articles.

It is used sometimes when refering to that part of the UN Charter. However the term is older than the UN, and it was used in similar ways in other forms of international law, so there's a history of the concept. I didn't mean to use it as a perjorative, in case that's what offends you. I was trying to distinguish what aspect of the scenario I was refering to from others that could be possible (such as the killing of civilians).

If by aggression you mean transboundary use of force, then walk us through the injury to Pakistan's territorial integrity or political independence that draws a difference between, say, the US invasion of Guam, the Israeli attack on Entebbe, or French operations in Western Africa.

I'm not sure why you want me to walk you through the differences between those situations. They never came to a court (as far as I know) so they don't have much to tell us about how the Charter should be interpreted.

In other words, let's not play lawyer when only Jim is apparantly competent to do so.

I'm not playing lawyer, I am just relying on my interpretation of the law. Ordinary people have to interpret laws to be able to consciously abide by them.

 

I'll point out that I didn't mean that the legal consequences would be of any concern but rather that apparent breaches of international law form a strong base for propaganda.

[patcalhoun]

It is used sometimes when refering to that part of the UN Charter.

 

It is, and in a court of law it would be used with a lengthy explanation as to why the said act is a violation.

 

However the term is older than the UN, and it was used in similar ways in other forms of international law, so there's a history of the concept. I didn't mean to use it as a perjorative, in case that's what offends you.

 

Don't sweat it, I'm not offended by anything you said. I'm just looking at your post and wondering how you determined that this act was illegal.

 

I was trying to distinguish what aspect of the scenario I was refering to from others that could be possible (such as the killing of civilians).

 

You could uniquely reference hypotheticals if you choose to create new case law, and if you actually had some international criminal statute that for all intents and purposes broadly treating the entire spectrum of transboundary acts of violence the same way--in simple enough terms for a jury to decide--you might have a point. In this case, you do not. This is why counsel couches principles advocated in specific case law. This is why motions are not decided in trial phase in most judicial systems and why international law is never ajudicated by a defendant's peers.

 

I'm not sure why you want me to walk you through the differences between those situations. They never came to a court (as far as I know) so they don't have much to tell us about how the Charter should be interpreted.

 

International case law joining states over Article 2 issues is threadbare compared to non-binding briefs available. It stands to reason that when courts do get involved, they refer to those briefs to develop opinions. That would be a starting point to make the case that the US acted illegally.

 

I'm not playing lawyer, I am just relying on my interpretation of the law. Ordinary people have to interpret laws to be able to consciously abide by them.

 

US intelligence agencies are not "ordinary people," and they have as extensive access to counsel as law enforcement bodies. I think its safe to say we're in a whole new ball game here.

 

I'll point out that I didn't mean that the legal consequences would be of any concern but rather that apparent breaches of international law form a strong base for propaganda.

 

Since there are widespread accusations of illegality whenever Western states commit transboundary acts of violence (up to and including the whole concept of international operations in Afghanistan), then what makes this case so pernicious and risky as to outweigh the objective of killing al Qaeda's top leadership?

 

On the other hand, this last point of yours is definitely a more suitable line of discussion. I'm certainly no legal authority. You say you aren't. It'd be nice to get some expert point of view on the issue. Absent that, we'd best stick broader evaluations of air strike and the judgement in areas we better understand.

[bascule]

patcalhoun smells like revprez

 

ts use in these kinds of forums is as pedantic as throwing around "meme."

 

Meme meme singularity meme.

 

P.S.

 

Meme

[patcalhoun]

Meme meme singularity meme.

 

P.S.

 

Meme

 

God, God, Jesus, Evolution is evil, God.

 

Word ta ya Virgin Mary.

[Skye]

I'm just looking at your post and wondering how you determined that this act was illegal.

I'm not going to write on the courts procedure because it's wandering away from the heart of the matter. The heart is that I think that the use of force on another states territory is prohibited under the Charter, and that this case would constitute that. There are people that read the Article 2 as being more constrained than that, and there are people who would look at the exceptions as covering that, but that's how I read it. This situation fits into that category as there's clearly a use of force.

US intelligence agencies are not "ordinary people," and they have as extensive access to counsel as law enforcement bodies. I think its safe to say we're in a whole new ball game here.

Ok, sure, but I'm just responding to a hypothetical without the benefits of counsel or actually being President.

Since there are widespread accusations of illegality whenever Western states commit transboundary acts of violence (up to and including the whole concept of international operations in Afghanistan), then what makes this case so pernicious and risky as to outweigh the objective of killing al Qaeda's top leadership? Second point, can we use another word besides propaganda? Its use in these kinds of forums is as pedantic as throwing around "meme."

First, I do think there's value in killing Osama as part of fighting terrorism, and that it wouldn't simply be symbolic, but I place more value on acting with a very strong emphasis on being principled. The reality is that terrorism was around before Osama and it'll be around after he's dead. People are driven by events like this towards terrorism. So this isn't a matter of this case as much of overall strategy.

patcalhoun smells like revprez

He loves us so much he keeps coming back.

[patcalhoun]

I'm not going to write on the courts procedure because it's wandering away from the heart of the matter. The heart is that I think that the use of force on another states territory is prohibited under the Charter, and that this case would constitute that. There are people that read the Article 2 as being more constrained than that, and there are people who would look at the exceptions as covering that, but that's how I read it. This situation fits into that category as there's clearly a use of force.

 

Just so we're clear that the above is simply your point of view and not an expression of legal authority. In that case I don't think we have much more to discuss on this tangent. I hold a different view, obviously, and neither of us is apparantly equipped to say much more than that.

 

First, I do think there's value in killing Osama as part of fighting terrorism, and that it wouldn't simply be symbolic, but I place more value on acting with a very strong emphasis on being principled.

 

I would say the exact same thing, yet we obviously disagree. I'm not sure if this will go into another area where we have no authority beyond our gut feelings and fuzzy notions of how the world works, but let's jump on it.

 

The reality is that terrorism was around before Osama and it'll be around after he's dead. People are driven by events like this towards terrorism. So this isn't a matter of this case as much of overall strategy.

 

This is a far broader line of discussion than I'm prepared to swallow in this thread, but I'd just point out that US and her allies have articulated a single common, tangible strategic objective: the defeat of a unique Islamist threat centered in the Near East and Central Asia. This enemy is far more shadowy and decentralized in organization and operation than your classic state, but it is identifiable, measurable and presumably assailable in itself and its dependency on failed states, anti-Western autocracy and need for funds, travel documentation, and access to weapons, explosives and other harmful devices. Also, I'm not so sure what value there is in critiquing the "War in Terror" insofar as the phrase itself is concerned.

[Skye]

I'm not critiquing the War on Terror. If you want it a little less fuzzy, I'll try, but I think it's all pretty fuzzy. The thing is that there's a variety of different views within the US on how the war should be fought. You have people treating as an ordinary war and applying existing military doctrine (which is immense in any case) and people who see counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency as different, such as the fourth generation warfare folks. I haven't read much about the CIA, but there's a fairly interesting speach at the bottom of the post. I like this: We do not make policy. We do not wage war. I am emphatic about that and always have been. We do collect and analyze information. So I think that it's almost impossible to critique the war in terms of it's underlying doctrine, because it's not spelled out coherently and perhaps not really followed anyway.

 

Anyway, I'm mainly influenced here by the new draft USMC Small Wars Manual, although I can't find it online right now. It bases the principles of small wars on existing US military doctrine for conventional war plus on the principles used to the Malaya Emergency by the British, drawing similarities between the two. One of those principles is to act within the law. That's a simple concept, and one that runs into all the problems we've had here. I think the best way to avoid that in reality is to be cautious, read the law in a braod sense and obey the spirit of it.

 

4GW site:http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

CIA site:http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/Goss_testimony_02162005.html

USMC site:http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/

[Pangloss]

What's so excellent about it? Zy's remarks basically pigeonhole the operational thinking of competent professional warfighters as "my soldiers are more valuable than foreign civlians." That's a pretty strong accusation' date=' and yet zy doesn't present a single shred of evidence to make it up beyond an analogy.

 

I could say "it all boils down to silly liberals valuing their self-perceived profundity over genuinely parsing through the facts," although I doubt you'd pat me on the head for it. And even though I'd have posts in evidence--a far cry more than zy has--what would I have to back up such a sweeping generalization other than an obvious prejudice?[/quote']

 

I don't believe he does that within the confines of the quote that I was responding to. He may be doing that in the larger framework of his responses in this thread, but that's not what I was responding to. I was very clear on this.

 

I hope that's just an honest mistake on your part.

[Sisyphus]

Does your conclusion rest entirely on this nonsensical analogy where we magically transport al Qaeda to some Western country and pretend that the public doesn't notice' date=' doesn't care, is unable to do anything about it, but is unwilling to admit its impotence for one reason or another. If so, the what exactly [i']isn't[/i] naive[/i] and frankly slanderous about you accusing Westerners of generally devaluing Pakistani lives vis a vis their own.

 

Actually, my analogy presupposes that the public knows exactly what's going on. The particulars are irrelevant, but the basic scenario is that the U.S. government has a one shot chance at possibly killing a known, high-ranking terrorist at the expense of probably killing a significant number of innocent American or British civilians. Maybe they'd do it and maybe not (although I douibt it). Maybe it's worth it and maybe it's not - I haven't taken any position on that. But I think it's quite fair to say that there would be a lot more outrage about it.

 

Is it really so far-fetched that Westerners value their own lives more? How could they not? It's inevitable. Obviously we value our own soldiers' lives more than the lives of foreign civilians, the lives of our countrymen more than the lives of foreigners, and the lives of westerners more than non-westerners. It's inevitable and true of every culture, and not really worthy of too much condemnation. All we have to do is be aware of our biases to help keep us in perspective and more fairly judge what is and is not worth the cost. What's ridiculous and naive is pretending the biases don't exist. That's all I'm saying.

[Pangloss]

Starting to look more and more like some top Al Qaeda officials were killed in the bombing. ABC News is reporting that the group included their top bomb-maker.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

 

I think those who said we should wait and see what developes were smart.

[bascule]

Slate is also running a cool article: "Were the Missile Strikes in Pakistan Illegal? - The laws of war, explained"

[philcandless]

Actually, my analogy presupposes that the public knows exactly what's going on. The particulars are irrelevant, but the basic scenario is that the U.S. government has a one shot chance at possibly killing a known, high-ranking terrorist at the expense of probably killing a significant number of innocent American or British civilians. Maybe they'd do it and maybe not (although I douibt it). Maybe it's worth it and maybe it's not - I haven't taken any position on that. But I think it's quite fair to say that there would be a lot more outrage about it.

 

Look at it this way. Consider the conditions necessary for a high ranking international terrorist to openly cavort with large numbers of people in a rural village in Pakistan. Our terrorist friend cavorts with a population that is fluid transboundary, isolated from law enforcement and security institutions, and for cultural and political reasons sympathetic or otherwise supportive of the aims of our perp (this sort of interaction can be modeled using network theory, see Petersen, R. D., 2001). Consider what happens when our enemy chooses to reside amongst us; within six days of the 26 February 1993 World Trade Center attack a key conspirator was under arrest, and within a year the bulk of the cell responsible was in custody and on trial. And all that before America took the warfooting before 9/11 in what was arguably one of the most mishandled follow ups to a terrorist attack. The point is that in this country, you can be watched, you can be collected, and you can be deported with relative ease. Even if you do escape, you take enormous risks to do so. We can say what happened to Mohammed Khalifa (who is still free in Saudi Arabia) and Ramzi Youssef (who's been in American custody for ten years). We cannot say the same for Pakistan's detainees. So, you see, the particulars are relevant.

 

Is it really so far-fetched that Westerners value their own lives more? How could they not? It's inevitable. Obviously we value our own soldiers' lives more than the lives of foreign civilians, the lives of our countrymen more than the lives of foreigners, and the lives of westerners more than non-westerners.

 

I think its far-fetched to declare something an obvious fact when cynicism and prejudice are the only two things supporting it. While it may border on tautological to say that Westerners value other Westerners, it is a dubious step to take that and conclude, based on simple language and cultural identification, that we value the life of a Western stranger more than a non-Western one.

[philcandless]

Woops, repost.