Drone Groaning

Young Master Poosh asked me yesterday to check out a new study on the wisdom and effectiveness of the US’s use of drone strikes in Pakistan and other places.  I had my doubts because it sounded like something a Soros-affiliated group would come up with, but I’m always up for a good read.  Or even a bad one (send me shit!  I need ideas!).

Anyhow, I was right.  It’s a left-wing academia thing assisted by Reprieve, known to me as a progressive grievance group.   But that got me more interested in reading it, not less.  After all, the Left has been pretty quiet about US tactics in the Global War on Terror (whatever that is) since, uh, well, I’m not entirely sure when they lost their curiosity about the appropriateness of our methods.   Weird.  At any rate, these fine liberals decided to start asking some questions that Congressional Democrats and their news media aren’t.

You can read all about it in this PDF called Living Under Drones.  It’s lengthy, but the major points are:

1. Drone strikes are killing civilians

2. They are terrorizing the civilians who don’t get killed

3. They don’t really work that well

4. They’re probably illegal

I think their research is actually quite good, assuming that their anonymous sources aren’t lying or fabricated.  I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt though.  At any rate, I am pleased to see that Obama and the press aren’t getting a pass from the same people who used to scream about Bush doing things like this.  On that basis alone, I take it on good faith.

If I have one problem with the report, it’s that it offers no alternatives to using drones to hunt militants in Pakistan.  The entire report criticizes their use, but spends no time saying what (if anything) might work better.   What they ironically failed to note is that the same reasons why drones are the only option for knocking off militants in Pakistan are the exact same problems that hindered their own research for the report.

Primary research in FATA is difficult for many reasons.

First, it is very difficult for foreigners physically to access FATA, partly due to the Pakistani government’s efforts to block access through heavily guarded checkpoints, and partly due to serious security risks.

Second, it is very difficult for residents of Waziristan to travel out of the region. Those we interviewed had to travel hundreds of kilometers by road to reach Islamabad or Peshawar, in journeys that could take anywhere from eight hours to several days, and which required passing through dozens of military and police checkpoint stops, as well as, in some cases, traveling through active fighting between armed non-state groups and Pakistani forces.

Third, mistrust, often justifiable, from many in FATA toward outsiders (particularly Westerners) inhibits ready access to individuals and communities.

Hmm.  It’s almost as if an area where the host government is uncooperative, road travel is insanely difficult, and the populace loathes outsiders might be ideal for covert, unmanned air operations.

What the authors really want is more transparency on this program, so they say.   How are targets being selected?  Who are we really killing?  How did the Administration come to the conclusion that this was allowed by international law?  Good questions, but there’s no way that either the Obama Administration or Pakistan’s government can answer those questions and still have the program work effectively since we’re officially not really doing it to begin with.

The drone program is one of those few things that the Obama Administration has done that I like.  When you blow the bad guys up, you get no messy problems that go with capturing them like indefinite detention, interrogation, and trials.  The same people who complained about those activities were either unaware of or willing to accept the fact that killing suspected terrorists on sight was the only thing that could be done if we were to keep the GWoT going.

Unfortunately, this method may be too perfect for the US government, you know?   Total secrecy, no risk of losing any pilots and having to explain why one is on Pakistan television with a gun to his head, no explanations of who was killed or why; just an assurance that “he was a militant and we totally didn’t kill any innocent people.”   Note that this has even been done to an American citizen (and total dirtbag, but still).  I don’t think we should give the Administration a complete license to kill on the soil of countries we’re not at war with (yet) with so little accountability or oversight.

Above all, I’ll say that the report has me convinced that the drone strikes probably have killed plenty of innocent people and are both legally and ethically questionable.  However, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to stop doing them.  Americans approve of drone strikes–and the rest of Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy–in principle, like it when al Qaeda and Taliban guys get zilched out, and see no risk in doing any of it.   But at least somebody’s asking questions.  Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate what we’re hoping to accomplish over there and how we’re doing it.  When you ask me to believe that this Administration should be trusted on terrorism matters, remember that Benghazi has shown us that it simply cannot.

  1. How are targets being selected?

    We know that!!!!!!! Obama has a Kill List, and uses a complex D20 dice system. Facial hair also increases your chances of being targeted.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  2. Because I haven’t got the time to spend a week reading the article and looking at the methodology (I have my own graduate research to worry about) so it’s impossible to see if it’s honest or not, BUT an inference can be made on some of the people involved in the study though, and I wouldn’t take them on faith, not by a long shot. You mentioned the Lancet report I think, (For anyone interested in the discipline of Logic, this is an example of how an ad hominem attack can actually be beneficial to a point and is not, actually, a fallacy.)

    But I think it’s safe to say drones do cause collateral damage, or at any rate, cause resentment and are used as a recruitment tool (then again, what doesn’t/isn’t). I think what we have here is a split between how this War Against Jihadism/Islamic Imperialism/Terror is fought and how to take into account this type of asymmetrical global war. I think many conservatives, such as myself, are very dubious of drone warfare and prefer them to be a tool you bring to the arsenal. My point of view – and I think it’s shared by some conservatives – is that where possible these conflicts and campaigns should be quick and too the point. Iraq for example, was a bloody two weeks (yes civilian casualties were inflated for propagandist reasons) but afterwards, at least on paper, you could draw a line under it. Things didn’t quite work out as planned but none-the-less there were two major campaigns in that war, the invasion, then the surge. We’ll bracket out peace-keeping.

    With drones, it’s not a sustained two weeks of bloodshed and bombing, then respite: it’s small conflicts every year at huge cost over time. In a clearly defined campaign the hurt is hard (see operation shock and awe) but it ends. With this its day in day out with civilian deaths (accidental, collateral damage, sure) going up daily. One does wonder when it will end? You’re taking out people who deserve to die, great, but sometimes you’re just replacing them with even smarter leaders. And sooner or later the enemy adapts and you’ll have to change tactics. Your dealing with religious fanatics so it’s hard to say if you’re damaging their moral, as well.

    But then, sometimes you can’t have your quick easy battle. I DO wonder what the hell our troops are doing over in Afghanistan right now, there seems to be a media black out. Have to check up on the military blogs I guess. I do disagree with you on it being always better to kill the terrorist leaders. It’s problematic because they tend to be good sources of intelligence. But that in itself can create some issues, as well.

    I do suspect the Pakistani government has given unspoken consent for these attacks. A lot of Pakistani soldiers have died trying to clear out these terrorists, the attrition levels were something Americans and Brits etc would probably be shocked by and, as awful as it sounds, makes our own losses in the war seem very mild from what I recall.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  3. If I have one problem with the report, it’s that it offers no alternatives to using drones to hunt militants in Pakistan. The entire report criticizes their use, but spends no time saying what (if anything) might work better.

    Should they, though? Provide alternatives, I mean. I think that’s asking a lot. But there are other methods. Some of them might be less efficient. Others might cost more. Or they might be less safe in other regards. But there are alternatives. And then there’s the alternative to continue using drones but doing it even more carefully. That would probably make them less efficient, but it’s an alternative.

    The drone program is one of those few things that the Obama Administration has done that I like. When you blow the bad guys up, you get no messy problems that go with capturing them like indefinite detention, interrogation, and trials.

    You are actually pretty much summing up my problems with drone warfare, right there. The messy problems you are talking about are fundamentals of society to me. I understand that drastic times sometimes need drastic measures, but the GWoT doesn’t make that list. Not in my book.

    I can’t help to think that the use of drones might be so widely accepted, because they are used where they are. A terrorist cell discovered in an apartment in New York City would not likely be droned. Even if that would mean the least risk for your own police. Americans would never accept that kind of collateral damage. Nor would Europeans. But when it happens in Yemen or in Abbottabad, we can distance ourselves.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  4. Americans would never accept that kind of collateral damage. Nor would Europeans. But when it happens in Yemen or in Abbottabad, we can distance ourselves.

    Very much correct. I also think it quite unlikely that the Obama administration would have dared to assassinate a white, “proper” American and his son in the same way. Of course, with the slippery slope in full effect, that may well have changed now, or nearly so; all the arguments against have already been ceded.

    Now what the other side will claim, of course, is that there is no need to drone strike NYC or Europe, because terrorists can be arrested; whereas Pakistan does not have it’s territory under control, and thus has to be treated like a war zone. They are not entirely wrong of course.

    But in the end, it seems that even though supporters are often perfectly willing to admit that the “war on terror” they are fighting has no end in sight, they are, as usual, happy to just defiantly retreat into a cage of diminished morals, ala “we’ll just keep killing more of them, who cares if we have to do it for centuries”.

    The world, and frankly, in particular the Europeans, were able to deal with 70s terrorism quite successfully, without drones, and generally without abandoning it’s values, despite terrorist cells protected by Middle East dictators, training camps etc. not very different from now. I don’t see why it shouldn’t work again.

    So what to replace drone strikes with? With nothing, and some good old fashioned police, diplomatic and intelligence work.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  5. BUT an inference can be made on some of the people involved in the study though, and I wouldn’t take them on faith, not by a long shot.

    This study favors the assessment made by a journalist organization that about 881 civilians have been killed by drone strikes and around 3,325 people (god, bad, and unknown) overall since 2004. I’m willing to accept those numbers since they don’t strike me as wildly exaggerated as certain other flawed studies.

    One does wonder when it will end? You’re taking out people who deserve to die, great, but sometimes you’re just replacing them with even smarter leaders.

    I doubt it ever ends for us, unless the government of Pakistan takes it over, somehow. However, killing leaders does work quite well. Al Qaeda has never recovered from the loss of experienced planners like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

    I DO wonder what the hell our troops are doing over in Afghanistan right now, there seems to be a media black out.

    I’m with you there. My preference is that we start leaving now.

    I do disagree with you on it being always better to kill the terrorist leaders. It’s problematic because they tend to be good sources of intelligence. But that in itself can create some issues, as well.

    Well, yeah. We spent a lot of time arguing about those issues here. Where do you incarcerate them? How are they questioned? What information do they have to give us? How long can we hold them? Do we have to file charges? What sort of court do we try them in?

    The Bush Administration didn’t like the answers it got on those questions, so it decided that it was better to just disintegrate them. Obama just took it beyond.

    I do suspect the Pakistani government has given unspoken consent for these attacks.

    Oh, definitely. And that’s why the Administration can’t give the transparency that the Stanford Clinic wants. It would undermine and embarrass the Paki gov’t.

    Gotta run. I’ll get to the other comments shortly.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Should they, though? Provide alternatives, I mean. I think that’s asking a lot. But there are other methods. Some of them might be less efficient. Others might cost more. Or they might be less safe in other regards. But there are alternatives. And then there’s the alternative to continue using drones but doing it even more carefully. That would probably make them less efficient, but it’s an alternative.

    Ummmm yes. If they are going to break down why its “bad” why wouldn’t they try and find a better solution?

    War is bad, sometimes its the best option, even though its bad.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. Maybe I am being unfair to say that the authors should have proposed alternatives, but they must have realized when they were writing the report that the transparency they want would kill the program. I just felt that I was taking it to its logical conclusion.

    The study did make some observations that came really close to suggesting some other alternatives, but fell short:

    It is important to note that segments of the Pakistani population, including in FATA,
    support drone strikes that kill terrorists. This is primarily because of the significant toll
    that terrorists and armed non-state groups take on the civilian population. In the
    absence of other effective government action, some support military efforts to attack
    and kill terrorists

    But on the other hand:

    However, it is clear that the majority of the population oppose current drone practices.
    A Pew Research Poll conducted in 2012 found only 17 per cent of Pakistanis favor the US
    conducting “drone strikes against leaders of extremist groups, even if they are
    conducted in conjunction with the Pakistani government. Of those familiar with the
    drone campaign, the study noted that 94 per cent of Pakistanis believe the attacks kill
    too many innocent people and 74 per cent say they are not “necessary to defend
    Pakistan from extremist organizations.”

    So they went to a lot of trouble to note that the Pakistanis do like seeing terrorists get killed, but they don’t like the drone strikes. What then?

    I wish I could share mrblume’s belief that diplomatic, intel, and law enforcement methods would be enough, but I just can’t see it. These lawless, uncontrolled areas demand a military solution. I’m tired of the wars, but don’t know what else to do either.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. So what to replace drone strikes with? With nothing, and some good old fashioned police, diplomatic and intelligence work.

    Stupidest and most ignorant thing I’ve read all week.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  9. Al Qaeda has never recovered from the loss of experienced planners like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

    Yes, and also we killed a lot of them in Iraq, sheer numbers game. But as the years go on it’s not impossible for better leaders to rise through the ranks. Look at want happened on 9/’11 this year. Someone made that shit happen. And he deserves respect.

    Well, yeah. We spent a lot of time arguing about those issues here. Where do you incarcerate them? How are they questioned? What information do they have to give us? How long can we hold them? Do we have to file charges? What sort of court do we try them in?

    I don’t see that as a problem. for me. Gitmo has served as an excellent solution. It has has a very good track record.

    I don’t think the authors should have given alternatives. And if they did, they’re probably dumb enough to say “this should be done diplomatically, or as a police action” or those sort of moronic notions. I think a study – in and of itself – is fair enough. These terrorists have also blown apart innocent Pakistanis in the market … a pattern constant throughout the world. The goal is killing people not Muslim enough for their liking. Keeping in mind the Pakistani population is divided with a great number of fanatics in the common ranks.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  10. So what to replace drone strikes with? With nothing, and some good old fashioned police, diplomatic and intelligence work.

    you mean those police that were aware the OBL was sitting in pakistan for years in a house but never reported it?

    That type of police work?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  11. you mean those police that were aware the OBL was sitting in pakistan for years in a house but never reported it?

    That type of police work?

    I feel that’s really a terrible counter, since whatever approach *is* being taken led to that very situation you are complaining about.

    Aside from that, I’m fine with OBL sitting in Pakistan, as long as any danger he may pose is being limited in some other fashion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  12. Aside from that, I’m fine with OBL sitting in Pakistan, as long as any danger he may pose is being limited in some other fashion.

    That’s an interesting take on it and you’re probably going to catch hell for it. Don’t you think that justice demanded that OBL be killed or captured for his terroristic acts? Congress passed the AUMF for the express purpose of doing that.

    His continued existence was a source of inspiration to his followers. I think there was great value in demonstrating to them that there is no place in the world you can hide if you plan the massacre of thousands of Americans.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Aside from that, I’m fine with OBL sitting in Pakistan, as long as any danger he may pose is being limited in some other fashion.

    It’s really just worth laughing at than giving hell. But I’d just like to say it was a good thing Bin Laden had been phased out and was just sitting in his room wanking over Phat CoEds 18, rather than , you know, planning a second 9/11.

    The only reason Bin Laden wasn’t an issue, outside justice and retribution, was because of CHANCE i.e for the terrorists he was old news put out to pasture.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  14. I can’t help to think that the use of drones might be so widely accepted, because they are used where they are. A terrorist cell discovered in an apartment in New York City would not likely be droned. Even if that would mean the least risk for your own police. Americans would never accept that kind of collateral damage. Nor would Europeans. But when it happens in Yemen or in Abbottabad, we can distance ourselves.

    I don’t like drones for the same reason I don’t like police having tasers. Because you get rid of having the implications of sending people into conflict, it makes hostile actions more palatable and therefore likely to be abused.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. Aside from that, I’m fine with OBL sitting in Pakistan, as long as any danger he may pose is being limited in some other fashion.

    You may have really been OK with that – yes, I am calling you out and pointing out I think that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here – but the left has spent the last decade telling us that the ONLY target we legitimately should have gone after was OBL. In fact, Obama spent months spiking the football and stealing the thunder from the people that did the real work. Remember all the insane talk about GM being alive and OBL being dead because of “Teh One” we where subjected to, constantly, by the DNC and LSM (same thing, I know)? I am sure they did all that because these leftards felt OBL sitting in a room watching porn wasn’t all cool and shit. Shit, we had a convention where they told us al Qaeda, and by extension all terrorist organizations, were dead and done for because they got OBL. Unlucky for all of us, a week later we had the first ambassador in over 30 years, along with 3 others, murdered by terrorists. Lucky for them the LSM covered their asses to help them over the finish line.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Because you get rid of having the implications of sending people into conflict, it makes hostile actions more palatable and therefore likely to be abused.

    Eh, I see where you’re coming from. It’s true that the use of drones does make it easier for the Administration to hide the true costs of its methods, BUT we also owe it to the people who are fighting these wars (and law enforcement in the US wrt Tasers) to allow them to do the job demanded of them as safely as possible.

    mrblume is a lot closer to the point you may prefer when he says that NONE of it is any good and the war aspect should be ended.

    That makes more sense to me than choosing methods that place Americans at greater risk in order to accomplish the same goals–even if I don’t agree.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. And the study did address your concern quite well, briggie:

    The ways in which the US has used drones in the context of its targeted killing policies
    has facilitated an undermining of the constraints of democratic accountability, and
    rendered resort to lethal force easier and more attractive to policymakers. The decision
    to use military force must be subject to rigorous checks-and-balances; drones, however,
    have facilitated the use of killing as a convenient option that avoids the potential
    political fallout from US casualties and the challenges posed by detention. Senator
    Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
    stated: “[The Obama administration’s] policy is to take out high-value targets, versus
    capturing high-value targets. They are not going to advertise that, but that’s what they
    are doing.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Shit, we had a convention where they told us al Qaeda, and by extension all terrorist organizations, were dead and done for because they got OBL.

    It seems it me, if something happened that proved al Qaeda was still live and kicking, and actually capable of doing attacks on military targets that never happened under Bush, I don’t know, like killing an ambassador or taking out six harriers… maybe on the anniversary of the most famous Islamist terrorist attack ever when security is at its highest all year… , it seems to me that would be something to hide from the American people – certainly hide it before an event like an election, it seems to me. That would never happen though.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  19. mrblume is a lot closer to the point you may prefer when he says that NONE of it is any good and the war aspect should be ended.

    I was actual going to add something else like “Yes, sending troops into harms way sucks, but how about not going to war in the first place.”, but mrblume had already made the point. The paragraph you quoted made the point I was trying to make quite well.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. And it REALLY is only a matter of time before the Islamists, like the Borg, adapt to being taken out by drones. Like they adapt to everything else.

    I’m solidly on the “Bush” method of using limited drones when it’s appropriate and it’s the best or only option.

    Trying to scare terrorist leaders via Drones, people who welcome death and think being killed by the Great Satan is a one-way-ticket to heaven is not going to work if it’s your primary method of war.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  21. I was actual going to add something else like “Yes, sending troops into harms way sucks, but how about not going to war in the first place.”,

    The problem with this haughty philosophy is that you sometime have no choice. If the other side wants war you are either going to have war, or you are going to have your people getting killed while you do nothing or react in ways that only encourage the other side to do more of the same.

    I hate to say this, but pacifism has done more to create never ending low key wars, and by extension more wars and deaths that are ignored because they come in dribs and drabs, than anything else. Not wanting wars is a great thing to aspire to. Not fighting when you have to, is the sure fire way to guarantee you will have more and bigger wars. Shit we no longer even declare war because it is stigmatized. Instead we have “kinetic actions”. Somehow this is a better thing, because we would rather have “peace” (that’s in quotes because we have not had peace for decades).

    Our desire to avoid conflict is precisely why I believe we will soon end up with a huge global war. The people that want it are encouraged by our weakness. And yes, they see it as weakness because it is exactly that. Those that refuse to defend what’s right and good are going to pay the price. Always.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. I think that the GWoT was wrong to begin with, and that time has served to make that point. Wars, any wars should have some kind of reasonably known limitations. A war on terror is almost by definition something endless. Providing government with war-rights, forever, just can’t be good. It usually leads to torture, indefinite holding of prisoners, warrant-less wire taps and dito surveillance. And we wouldn’t want any of that. Wait…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  23. I think that the GWoT was wrong to begin with, and that time has served to make that point.

    I can argue with you that you are dead wrong, but you won’t care so I won’t bother. You may have a point that we went about the execution the wrong way, but the fact remains that radical Islam, which controls the Islamic world despite our pretenses to the contrary, is at war with us. We can pretend that their claims to want everyone to bow to Allah, be a dhimmi, or die are not serious, but we do so at our own risk. Of course, those that do not want to see this, will never see it. They are too focused on the evil Christians that want to ban free contraceptives for the sluts of the world, deny women abortions too, or whatever other nonsense they can bring up to make a bunch of wusses look bad.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  24. I think that the GWoT was wrong to begin with, and that time has served to make that point.

    Has it though? It has achieved its primary objective of keeping the American homeland safe. You can absolutely say that the methods were wrong or that there was a better way, but has it achieved its objective or not? I say yes.

    A war on terror is almost by definition something endless. Providing government with war-rights, forever, just can’t be good.

    I am increasingly in agreement with that point of view. I wondered about people who complained of the NDAA when all it did was confirm the powers that the WH claimed with the AUMF. We need to revisit the AUMF, at least periodically. The current Congress would probably approve it again, but yeah, we are missing some serious oversight here.

    It usually leads to torture, indefinite holding of prisoners, warrant-less wire taps and dito surveillance. And we wouldn’t want any of that. Wait…

    But all of those things were addressed by Congress and SCOTUS. They were outlawed or limited (except technical surveillance) and the end result was just to make more killing.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  25. The problem with this haughty philosophy is that you sometime have no choice. If the other side wants war you are either going to have war, or you are going to have your people getting killed while you do nothing or react in ways that only encourage the other side to do more of the same.

    That was just a snarky paraphrase of a something I was going to write but didn’t. I am not a pacifist by a long shot. War is acceptable in some cases, but it shouldn’t be something that is taken lightly either. That is the biggest reason I do not like drones. It makes the decision of going into conflict easier and more likely to be abused.

    And yes, you are correct on your last point. Avoiding a problem can make things worse down the road.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  26. Don’t you think that justice demanded that OBL be killed or captured for his terroristic acts? Congress passed the AUMF for the express purpose of doing that.

    We’ve always believed that criminals may go free. Going after Bin Laden is fine, but not if the price is my liberties and values. Which isn’t even to say that I oppose the Bin Laden killing; this is just my general response to Poosh’s argument, which I interpret as saying that any strategy whose main concern isn’t finding Osama is by definition invalid.

    but the left has spent the last decade telling us that the ONLY target we legitimately should have gone after was OBL.

    Your actually being quite generous here, presumably unintentionally, because if the left has had this vision for a decade, and once in power, actually did what they said they would, then that’s pretty good. It be more accurate to say that they’ve been spinning this ever since it happened. Regardless, I have no interest in partisan hackery of any denomination, and that’s certainly what all the “Romney wouldn’t have done it” and “Obama said from the start he was going to get OBL” is.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  27. A war on terror is almost by definition something endless.

    This is a semantic error, but one I cannot blame people for falling for, after all it was the Bush government who called it a war on terror, for politically correct reasons. The point of a declared state of war is that we understand some liberties must be withheld for the duration of the war. Sadly this has led to a total mess as it was never actually declared a global war against Jihadism, the paremeters were never agreed and governments – the state – as is typical abused laws created to fight MULSIM terrorism, and, to take the UK, are using anti-terrorism laws (laws designed to be used during this war) to stop-and-search animal rights activists.

    I’m noting in the news feeds that homegrown Jihadists were arrested in the good ol USA recently.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  28. That was just a snarky paraphrase of a something I was going to write but didn’t. I am not a pacifist by a long shot. War is acceptable in some cases, but it shouldn’t be something that is taken lightly either.

    You bring up one of my biggest pet peeves. War is taken so lightly today because we let the pacifists sanitize it. Suddenly we go all stupid over innocents, so the troops, at least on our side, now work under ROEs that are not just down right insane, but IMO suicidal. We don’t tollerate casualties and freak out if things are not resolved in 30 mins like our average TV attention span allows. We switch to drone strikes, small diameter bombs and other precision guided munitions, and cruise missiles. It’s become like a computer game. So now we have a lot more of it, and a lot more often. And the sad thing is that it is often way, way too ineffective for the cost.

    I liked war when it was all out and brutal. As ugly as possible. You break the enemy’s things and kill them until they cry uncle and do whatever you tell them, or they do that to you. When the ugly was taken out of war, we didn’t make it better. We only guaranteed conflicts that will never end and a lot more war. My betis that in the long run it will also take far more lives than if war was kept ugly and we fought very few, if any of them. The Cold War ended the way it did because both sides remembered the destruction of WWII and saw that with nukes it would be far, far worse. Even though the Soviets were chomping at the bits to go at it, they never did because they knew it would be the end.

    Meh, I believe China will remind us all how to fight wars in the near future. That or those of us unlucky enough to survive will all be their slaves after we lose.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  29. This is a semantic error, but one I cannot blame people for falling for, after all it was the Bush government who called it a war on terror, for politically correct reasons.

    Calling it “war against radical/militant Islam” would have made the people saying that calling it “war on terror” was bad, insane. Just like being reminded of Gitmo and how evil we were for locking up the villains that wanted our annihilation up there made them pissed when Bush was president but barely, if ever, registers these days for some inescapable reason. It’s not as bad as calling a war a “kinetic action” though, but you hear neary a peep on that either.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  30. I feel that’s really a terrible counter, since whatever approach *is* being taken led to that very situation you are complaining about.

    Of course you would tlike to think that, because it blows your idiotic argument out of the water.

    Thanks try again.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  31. I don’t think the chinese people, now that they’ve tasted the fruits of capitalism, will be up for a war to be fair.

    The Chinese people might not all want it Poosh, despite the fact they have been indocrinated almost as hard as the Palestinians are to hold negative feeling stowards their neighbors and the US, but the new Chinese princeling Xi that just took over, is a hard core natonalist with a boner for conflict that will distract from the corruption and other problems China has.

    Besides, after decades if the one child policy, China has 100 million young men that will not find wives. That’s a recipe for war over resources – poong tang (yeah that’s Vietnamese, not Chinese because 阴道 is not as powerful a word)- if I ever heard one.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Indoctrination is harder to inflict on people who have internet access etc and the full fruits of the west open to them but then again, the Chinese government does control their internet.

    I am not sure all chinese are subject to much indoctrination or education at all, more just slaves (including for western companies if we are fair). I have seen these super chinese nationalists though, and they seemed to be very young and very tech-savy. Confusing eh.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0