Obama orders air strike on Pakistan

[JohnB]

I don't have any evidence to dispute this but "any" is an awfully big, all encompassing word.

It's just how it is. Western intel know that AQ read the papers. Any statement is made in the sure knowledge that the enemy will read it. Hence you always slant the story.

I respect your opinion but disagree with it.

That's nice, but the article clearly called it a village, not a base or encampment.

 

For the rest, I do (to a degree) agree with you. The big caveat here is that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and bombing anything inside it's borders is an act of war. So far Pakistan hasn't made noise about it. Perhaps Mushareff is happier for his people to be p*ssed at the US rather than him. However, if he falls, the situation could change radically.

 

I would also point out that the Pakistani military has been and is engaging Taliban fighters in the region. There's an Al Jazeera news piece here concerning the fighting in Bajour.

 

You might try this piece from the Boston Globe.

While stepping up their campaign against government troops, the insurgents also employed extreme forms of cruelty to intimidate civilians in the tribal areas.

 

Hospital authorities in Khar, the main town in the Bajaur tribal district, said over the weekend that militants had cut off the ears of five captured members of a local committee organized to keep the Taliban out of town.

It's that type of tactic that prevents me from assuming that just because militants are in a house, the householder has welcomed them in. An attack that kills the hostages as well as the bad guys is not a success in my book.

[padren]

Well that's an interesting point. They say they're an ally, and they do go out and attempt to do various anti-terrorism activities, many of which promptly fail for various reasons. If we stop calling them an ally, do you think that will help them to fight terrorists better, or make it harder? And what sort of signal do you think it will send to the other faction groups currently vying for power in Pakistan?

 

Well, instead of declaring them "not an ally" we could always put them on notice

 

I think we definately need some shades of gray - it's not all "with us or against us" when you look at their performance - so you are right it's an interesting point.

 

I think they should be put "on notice" (in so many words) privately, and publicly we should criticize them and acknowledge they often hinder progress, while acknowledging we are hopeful to improve the situation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nukes?

I never said anything about nukes.

I can count the tiles on the roof of my house with Google Maps/Earth.

Therefore it is logical to assume that the military can count the the blackheads on my nose when I am in my back yard.

If they can't drop napalm on poppy fields and hit other strategic targets with that intel, Lord help us all.

Burn the poppy fields and you cut off the head of the snake.

Then bomb the snake's body.

That may not be a complete solution, but it's a dang good start.

 

You do realize where a large portion of the $$ is coming from right?

 

Opium production was very very low during the Taliban, it was the rebels we allied with that started up production - we turned a blind eye so they could fund themselves and aid us as allies.

 

I suppose if you ensured they were unoccupied you could keep worker deaths down. I do agree we should take the opium situation on, and not play favorites between factions that are with/against us.

 

Getting more specific with your analogy though - the hard part isn't getting a view of your house where you can count the shingles. That's easy - it's picking out that square 500 feet of Earth as a worthwhile target to photograph at a given time - that's the intelligence nightmare. It's also very hard to tell what you are looking at much of the time (not so much with poppy fields) and we've actually been duped in the past into attacking caravans based on intelligence that was completely false, but some group wanted a hit out on them based on a personal grudge.

Civilian activity and paramilitary activity can be pretty hard to distinguish at that altitude. It's even harder if you don't have a specific target location already in mind.

[john5746]

For the rest, I do (to a degree) agree with you. The big caveat here is that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and bombing anything inside it's borders is an act of war. So far Pakistan hasn't made noise about it. Perhaps Mushareff is happier for his people to be p*ssed at the US rather than him. However, if he falls, the situation could change radically.

 

Musharaff is no longer in power. Asif Ali Zardari is the elected President. But, your main point remains.

[bascule]

Well that's an interesting point. They say they're an ally, and they do go out and attempt to do various anti-terrorism activities, many of which promptly fail for various reasons. If we stop calling them an ally, do you think that will help them to fight terrorists better, or make it harder? And what sort of signal do you think it will send to the other faction groups currently vying for power in Pakistan?

 

The situation is a bit different than it was under Bush/Musharraf, and it's perhaps entirely coincidental that A.Q. Khan recanted his previous confession contemporaneously with Musharraf exiting office. As far as I'm concerned Musharraf was harboring a dangerous criminal selling nuclear secrets to hostile nations at the same time Bush was touting Pakistan as an ally.

[DrDNA]

Right... I see you're not about to grant me some rhetorical license. My point remains. Broad based/non-specific strikes will plant a motivational seed of future resistance and more violence and blood shed.

 

vs

 

Nukes?

I never said anything about nukes.

..........

...................

If they can't drop napalm on poppy fields and hit other strategic targets with that intel, Lord help us all.

Burn the poppy fields and you cut off the head of the snake.

Then bomb the snake's body.

................

 

"Rhetorical license" is one thing but your are twisting, and in this case even reversing my statements.

1. I said nothing about Nukes (as you countered with your right to the use rhetorical license).

2. This time, iNow, I said STRATEGIC STRIKES (because they can do it, at least in part because they can see the blackheads on my nose with satellites)....NOT "Broad based/non-specific strikes". See the difference?

Why you wanna do that?

 

Showing restraint and working in more civilized fashion with patience has a greater likelihood of leading to lasting change.

Yep.

Like I said, just send them chocolates and flowers.

I hear pajamas are big this Valentine's Day. Maybe they will work.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Opium production was very very low during the Taliban, it was the rebels we allied with that started up production - we turned a blind eye so they could fund themselves and aid us as allies.

I think you're on to somethin here.

I've read about this also

It smells a lot like sneaking heroine inside the US in the body bags with those poor dead Vietnam War soldiers to fund 'Cee I Ate one' covert ops; doesn't it?

Heroine addiction was nearly a non-existent issue in the US before that....

 

Getting more specific with your analogy though - the hard part isn't getting a view of your house where you can count the shingles. That's easy - it's picking out that square 500 feet of Earth as a worthwhile target to photograph at a given time - that's the intelligence nightmare. It's also very hard to tell what you are looking at much of the time (not so much with poppy fields) and we've actually been duped in the past into attacking caravans based on intelligence that was completely false, .......

So why don't we hit the poppy fields?

Ever see an IR satellite image of a marijuana field??

You can pick out the plant growth immediately and even specific plants by using spectral filtering.

Edited February 5, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

"Rhetorical license" is one thing but your are twisting, and in this case even reversing my statements.

1. I said nothing about Nukes (as you countered with your right to the use rhetorical license).

2. This time, iNow, I said STRATEGIC STRIKES (because they can do it, at least in part because they can see the blackheads on my nose with satellites)....NOT "Broad based/non-specific strikes". See the difference?

Why you wanna do that?

 

Ah, yes. Of course, I was just making things up. How COULD I be so deceitful?

 

Err... wait a second. You said this when I engaged you on this point:

 

My personal take on this is, if the US spent 1/100th the effort

bombing the crap out of Pakistan and Afghanistan

that is being spent [doing these other things].............

.....well, then this mess would long be over.

 

Yeah. You're right. That comment just reeks of precision targeting and me putting words in your mouth about lack of discrimination of targets.

 

 

 

Yep.

Like I said, just send them chocolates and flowers.

I hear pajamas are big this Valentine's Day. Maybe they will work.

My discussionary engagement with you on this topic is done, now. Ridicule is not a valid form of argument.

[Pangloss]

Not declaring them an ally is a good start

 

.....

 

The situation is a bit different than it was under Bush/Musharraf

 

In what way?

[DrDNA]

My discussionary engagement with you on this topic is done, now. Ridicule is not a valid form of argument.

 

You're right.

Ridicule is not a valid form of argument.

I apologize.

 

From the Salary Cap Bailout Thread:

Oh pull-eez. When did our membership become such a bunch of whiny drama queens?

.................................

Oh no! The sky is falling! I think this looks a little like something I heard socialism was like, and THAT's scary!

 

..............

 

------------------------------------

 

 

 

RE:

My personal take on this is, if the US spent 1/100th the effort bombing the crap out of Pakistan and Afghanistan that is being spent trying to turn perfectly good warriors into policemen.............

 

Yeah. You're right. That comment just reeks of precision targeting and me putting words in your mouth about lack of discrimination of targets.

 

You **may have a **minor point.

Therefore, I'll clarify my stance for anyone that happens to be paying attention and in case my statement was universally unclear or seemed contradictory to my other statements.

 

I should have implicitly stated:

......bombing the crap out of Pakistan and Afghanistan using precisely targeted conventional air-to-ground and/or ground-to-ground missiles and/or precise bombing raids against targets which are known with 100% certainty to house or harbor known terrorists, terrorist groups and/or anti-US militants, but in all cases avoiding areas where innocent civilians might be present...........

Edited February 6, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

I like how you left out my actual argument in that post over in the Salary Cap Bailout thread. Clever way to try making a point.

 

 

I'm not against striking high value targets which are confirmed. I just took issue with this idea that we could bomb our way into a better future, or that heavy bombing was some sort of solution. Fair enough?

Edited February 6, 2009 by iNow

[DrDNA]

I'm not against striking high value targets which are confirmed. I just took issue with this idea that we could bomb our way into a better future, or that heavy bombing was some sort of solution. Fair enough?

 

Bombing strategic targets and bombing them heavily is a LOT better solution than perfectly good boots on the ground = unfortunate young people having their limbs blown off in a no win situation.

 

We don't need another Vietnam/Iraq/Russia in Afghanistan situation.

 

I don't understand what the problem is.

I definitely don't want to kill anyone, injure anyone or even hurt anyone's feelings and would rather my country not do so either.

But they want to kill me, kill my family and destroy my way of life.

Under those circumstances only a crazy person would try to sit around a camp fire and sing Kum Bay Yah with them.

So, when I know where they are, my only logical and rational response is to eliminate them as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

[JohnB]

Musharaff is no longer in power. Asif Ali Zardari is the elected President.

Thanks John, I had forgotten.

I definitely don't want to kill anyone, injure anyone or even hurt anyone's feelings and would rather my country not do so either.

But they want to kill me, kill my family and destroy my way of life.

Under those circumstances only a crazy person would try to sit around a camp fire and sing Kum Bay Yah with them.

So, when I know where they are, my only logical and rational response is to eliminate them as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Nobody wants to sing with the bastards. We're trying to get you to understand that some actions have long term consequences.

 

Hitting the house they are in (and they may have forced their way in) shows the rest of the village that you don't give two fetid dingos kidneys for the lives of the villagers. "We want those guys dead and we don't really care how many of you villagers die in the process."

 

Waiting a bit and taking out their vehicle as soon as they are clear of the civillian area sends a much better message "We want those guys dead but we don't want to hurt innocents in the process."

 

Play it the first way and you make enemies. Nobody will believe civillian casualties are "accidents" because you've shown you don't care about civillians. Play it the second way and people will still get upset, but are more willing to forgive you because you've shown yourself to be making an effort not to hurt the innocents.

 

The Gung Ho way plays right into the hands of the recruiters. "See, the Americans don't care about you, you are dirt to them. They blow up your houses, kill your families and destroy your crops. etc, etc etc."

 

Far better to keep the bad guys afraid of leaving the village. It restricts their movement and keeps them where they can be picked off at leisure.

[DrDNA]

Nobody wants to sing with the bastards. We're trying to get you to understand that some actions have long term consequences.

 

I understand that completely.

I'm trying to get you to understand that inaction and half arse action have long term consequences.....which BTW have resulted in the current situation.

 

PS: I like to get looped and sit around the campfire singing Kum Bay Yah more than anybody.

[bascule]

In what way?

 

To copy and paste from my last post:

 

As far as I'm concerned Musharraf was harboring a dangerous criminal selling nuclear secrets to hostile nations at the same time Bush was touting Pakistan as an ally.

[DrDNA]

Hitting the house they are in (and they may have forced their way in) shows the rest of the village that you don't give two fetid dingos kidneys for the lives of the villagers. "We want those guys dead and we don't really care how many of you villagers die in the process."

 

Waiting a bit and taking out their vehicle as soon as they are clear of the civillian area sends a much better message "We want those guys dead but we don't want to hurt innocents in the process."

 

??

That works great in the movies and on TV.

And of course that is the preferred option.

But, unfortunately, I do not believe reality is always so simple.

 

Play it the first way and you make enemies. Nobody will believe civillian casualties are "accidents" because you've shown you don't care about civillians. Play it the second way and people will still get upset, but are more willing to forgive you because you've shown yourself to be making an effort not to hurt the innocents.

People will be "upset" no matter what you do.

 

I'm not worried about making enemies out of people that want to kill us.

Or their next door neighbors for that matter.

If my neighbor is shooting rockets into the strongest military on the planet's helicopters, I have approximately 4 options:

-assist him

-assist the guys in the helicopters

-do nothing

-or pack my family and anything I can grab on my donkey, on my cart or on my back and get the heck out of there.

The later is the safest and the preferred option I believe.

If it was in my neighborhood, I (and my family) would be out of there in a heart beat.

I don't care if we had to eat lizards and sleep on stones.....outa there.....

 

The Gung Ho way plays right into the hands of the recruiters. "See, the Americans don't care about you, you are dirt to them. They blow up your houses, kill your families and destroy your crops. etc, etc etc."

 

Maybe you missed my earlier point.

I do want to destroy their crops (opium) because that is what is funding their operations to a large degree.

 

Far better to keep the bad guys afraid of leaving the village. It restricts their movement and keeps them where they can be picked off at leisure.

I'm confused now.

You want to keep the bad guys "afraid of leaving the village" so they are imbedded with the innocents?

Or you want to get them out of the villages so they can be picked off?

Which one?

 

Re: Picking them off at leisure.

I really don't understand this part.

Are you implying that flooding Pakistan with snipers is the (or an) answer?

 

 

EDIT:

Never mind.

I've made my point ad nauseum.

Edited February 7, 2009 by DrDNA

[bascule]

HOLY CRAP.

 

Of all people to finally pay some attention to A.Q. Khan, Hillary Clinton is expressing her concerns.

 

Wow. For the time being I take back my criticisms about Hillary being Secretary of State.

[Pangloss]

Mission accomplished!