Stop worrying and love the bomb

[DarkLink]

So, Obama's claimed the authority to drone strike anyone, including US citizens, as he sees fit, so long as he can say they were a threat while keeping a straight face: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-memo-justifies-drone-war-killing-americans-164123578--politics.html

On what's probably a closely related note: http://news.yahoo.com/u-even-more-unpopular-middle-east-under-obama-201400523.html and http://aai.3cdn.net/5d2b8344e3b3b7ef19_xkm6ba4r9.pdf

[heretic marine]

meh, if I get killed by a random drone it would be a cool way to die. not saying that there is a reason to kill me with a drone, I'm a good person. *goes into secret bomb facility*

[Deadlift]

Seems fair enough, if I knew there was a terrorist cell plotting to kill civilians on home soil I would want something done about it by the appropriate means. I would rather see a house full of extremists blown up before they get a chance to hurt innocents.

It's not like your going to see your sky's constantly full of zooming drones in every city. Not unless the Tau have arrived.

[DarkLink]

Except, we have this thing called the Constitution. It's pretty explicit that citizens are entitled to due process, a trial by jury. Nor does the bombing process actually require Obama to have any evidence to prove an actual connection to terrorism even outside of a court. There's a reason there are limits on the power and authority of various members of the government, and not killing citizens is one of those limits the president is supposed to obey.

[White Tiger88]

i want a drone........

[eldargal]

Not to mention that drone strikes are of only dubious efficacy in foreign countries, if only because the US military has an unnerving ability to blow up weddings and nearby schools. However you cut it this is just insane.

[Necron2.0]

You know, sometimes, when I hear what comes out of Washington or out of the mouths of some of my fellow 'Markans, I think of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7mUaKUp8Ho) (warning, not work safe), and think to myself, "Oh, Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ!! Could you just please keep your mouth shut and not make us any more of a pariah than we already are?"

[Mr Mystery]

To be fair, previous administration announced a right to attack anyone who is, was, or may at some point in the future become, a terrorist.

Which neatly encapsulates the globe yes?

[Psychosplodge]

Is the issue that they've defended what they were doing already? or that they're including American terrorists along with the rest?

[Nabterayl]

The best written article I've seen on this subject is The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama (http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812), which I highly recommend. I think it does a good job of dealing with the issue even-handedly.

I have to agree with DarkLink here. The issue isn't even the accuracy of the drone strikes - which, contrary to EG, I expect is pretty good. Suppose an American citizen is planning a terrorist attack. Suppose in our magical hypothetical land we know that with 100% certainty. Like Deadlift, I'd want something done. But killing that person outright? The actual method is irrelevant. Dropping a Hellfire on that person is no more defensible than the police raiding the person's house and shooting him dead rather than arresting him, or the CIA poisoning him.

I don't buy that the American legal system is predicated on uncertainty. Even if you know a citizen is planning to commit a crime, or has committed a crime - even treason - that person is entitled to a trial.

The obvious counterargument at this point, I think, is that you can't always give the suspect a trial. And I am sympathetic to what I believe is the genuine desire of elected officials to stop crimes from being committed. What if the only options are to drop a Hellfire on the suspect citizen or to let him carry out his crime? I think most of us, if our hand was on the trigger, would choose to kill the suspect citizen even before he is found guilty of a crime. I almost certainly would. There are certainly circumstances in which I'd shoot a criminal in the back as he fled the scene if he couldn't be apprehended, (or drop a Hellfire on his head a month after the fact), and the criminal being a terrorist, the crime being the mass murder of my countrymen, and the suspect being overseas planning to do it again almost fits that bill. I imagine it does for most people.

The problem I have is that as far as I know, no such doctrine has been enunciated by this administration or the last. It happens to be the case, for now, that our citizen drone victims haven't been feasibly arrestable. But as I understand it, the claim is not, "The president can assassinate American citizens without a trial when there is no chance of arresting them." That's scary enough, but at least defensible - not clearly correct, but defensible.

But instead, the claim is, "The president can assassinate American citizens without a trial if he thinks it's in the country's best interests."

I don't care if our drone killings to date have been ethical and wise (and I happen to think that most of them have been). That is still not an okay system to set up.

EDIT:

Is the issue that they've defended what they were doing already? or that they're including American terrorists along with the rest?

I think those are two separate issues. The latter is easier to get consensus on than the former, I think. Killing your own citizens without a trial is not the way we are supposed to do things, no matter their crimes (which I assume is true throughout the Commonwealth as well, though I'm not sure what the technical legal basis for it is).

Killing somebody else's citizens without a declaration of war? To be totally honest, it's not at all clear to me that that is un-American, or un-British, or un-<insert global good guys here>. If we kill a Pakistani citizen without declaring war on Pakistan, I wouldn't blame Pakistan for declaring war on us and I would blame the administration for getting us into a shooting war with Pakistan. But I have to be honest, killing somebody else's citizens just because you can't bring them to justice does not strike me as capital b Bad the same way killing your own citizens without a trial does.

[Wolfshade]

And I thought it was stereotyping the "Shoot first ask questions later" attitude.

But this premptive strike is nothing new especially as the plotting of an activity is a crime, not just doing it. So you are free to talk about it as long as the talking isn't plotting...

I would have to say though prevention is better than cure, if there is credible evidence then why not remove them from a situation.

Where I see the issue is if this is metered out justice (in the same way a judge decides) then this method should not be used in states where there is no death penalty. Since if the courts cannot execute people why should the state?

[Deadlift]

To be honest I think this is being implemented as a deterrent more than anything else.

Could be worse, we could live in Syria, just to put things into perspective.

[Necron2.0]

Is the issue that they've defended what they were doing already? or that they're including American terrorists along with the rest?

For me the issue is less that we are killing terrorists, or that we say we're going to kill terrorists. I actually could not care less about that. For me the issue is that the US is doing it in the sovereign territory of someone else, and we're doing it in an overtly aggressive and completely public way with no sense of propriety or tact. It's a bit like your next door neighbor walking into your house in broad daylight and masturbating in front of your attractive wife, while issuing a press release stating he reserves the right to pleasure himself publicly in front of any woman whom he finds arousing.

That's why I have a problem with it.

[Psychosplodge]

That's fair enough, it was DL's inclusion of "including americans" after Obama reserves the right to strike anyone that made me question it, and it's been going at least since Bush, and before him Clinton launched cruise missiles at targets of opportunity iirc...so it's not like a new policy is it?

[Necron2.0]

Nope, and I've never agreed with it - couldn't condone Clinton's "Lewinsky Missiles", couldn't really get behind the cowboy politics of Bush Jr., and I certainly cannot get with Obama's bombing the crap out of our "allies" with a giant flying phallus. I mean seriously, if we want to be truthful with what we're doing, all those predators should be painted pink with a red tip.

[Nabterayl]

You may see a certain divide on this issue along ... conservative and liberal are not the right words; I'm not sure what are. Originalist lines, maybe? Structuralist? I don't know what necron's politics are, but for me there are two issues:

Killing terrorists who are not US citizens.
Killing terrorists who are US citizens.
The reason I divide them into two issues tells you a lot about my politics, and other Americans with different politics may not do so. To me, #1 amounts to committing acts of war because we think we can get away with it (which, apparently, we can). This is, at worst (to me), gross mismanagement of the public trust. #2 strikes at the foundations of American government. This is considerably worse, to me. The Constitution does not guarantee me politically savvy elected representatives. It does guarantee me due process before being deprived of life, regardless of any crimes I have committed or plan to commit. The process outlined by the administration has not been formally adjudicated as falling short of due process, but I think any fair-minded reading has to conclude that it does.

The issue is not one of policy but of structure. "I can kill anybody I want, even those I have previously sworn only to kill under specific circumstances, but I promise not to use this power for evil" may actually be good policy. But it isn't necessarily good structure.

As for why one might care about good policy but bad structure, there are lots of reasons. Maybe it's a feeling of kinship with our founding generation (who rebelled because their "rights" were being violated despite having a higher per capita income than the mother country). Maybe it's a dogmatic love of having rights, regardless of the content of those rights. Maybe it's preferring to take the long view. Maybe it's just a structure fetish. For me, the latter two. For others, who can say?

[Nabterayl]

Update: I see that I was misinformed. The administration's position does require that capture is infeasible, and that the feasibility of capture continue to be monitored. I think that is a much more reasonable position. It is one thing for the police to shoot a suspect because they can't be arsed to arrest him; it is another to shoot a suspect because they see he is about to execute a hostage and there is not time to arrest him.

That said, I welcome congressional scrutiny about the program itself. Formulating a reasonable policy doesn't automatically make your execution of that policy reasonable. And as the OP points out, there is a third analogy that is not so clear-cut to me. Can the police shoot a suspect who has already executed a hostage, if the choice is between shooting him in the back or letting him escape beyond their jurisdiction? Come to think of it, the usual answer to that question is no.

[Gotthammer]

I've got 99 drones but a surveillance drone ain't one (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ReplaceSongTitleWithDrone).

[ElectricPaladin]

I was - and am - an Obama supporter, but I'm not happy with this decision. I really wish that the Republicans had gotten their sh*t together and fielded an opponent who could have pushed Obama on this issue. Not that I'm saying that he should have lost, but having an opponent who can viably push on an issue is one of the ways we achieve political change in our dumb-@ss system.

Anyway.

It's gonna be protest time on this one. I am not pleased.

[Wolfshade]

Of course this is a move towards equality as if they can do this to foreigners then they should be able to do it to residents

[Nabterayl]

I guess ... I know you're being funny there, Wolfshade, but I kind of feel like every nation has assassins, and the necessity of assassination is something a people accept when they decide to constitute a sovereign nation. MI6 assassinating American citizens doesn't strike me as somehow changing the character of the UK. It's just a barbarous atrocity. MI6 assassinating British citizens (dumb American question: is that even the right term? Is there such a thing as a British citizen?) does seem like a fundamental change in the character of the nation. Ditto for the CIA and American vs. non-American targets.

[ElectricPaladin]

Personally, I am entirely comfortable with assassination. Does a targeting killing of one terrorist, rogue state maniac leader, or whatever, ultimately save lives? If so, drones away! I think that the ban on assassination is a holdover from the days of unrestricted leadership by elites, who would rather spend the lives of their subjects in large wars than risk their own to assassination.

The problem with drone strikes - in my mind - is the killing of US citizens, the opacity of the process, and the fact that there seems to be evidence that the drones are not great at avoiding civilian casualties.

[Wildeybeast]

Except, we have this thing called the Constitution. It's pretty explicit that citizens are entitled to due process, a trial by jury. Nor does the bombing process actually require Obama to have any evidence to prove an actual connection to terrorism even outside of a court. There's a reason there are limits on the power and authority of various members of the government, and not killing citizens is one of those limits the president is supposed to obey.

Does the constitution apply outside America? Or is that people just don't give a toss if it gets violated half a world away?


Not to mention that drone strikes are of only dubious efficacy in foreign countries, if only because the US military has an unnerving ability to blow up weddings and nearby schools. However you cut it this is just insane.

Don't forget hospitals, Chinese embassies and British soldiers! :p


MI6 assassinating British citizens (dumb American question: is that even the right term? Is there such a thing as a British citizen?) does seem like a fundamental change in the character of the nation. Ditto for the CIA and American vs. non-American targets.

We are indeed British citizens (citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) according to our passports. Though many of us prefer to be identified by our nationality (English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish).

[Wolfshade]

It was only half amusing. I

I think a 40k quote is apt here:

Destroy the mutant without, purge the heretic within

Every nation has an agency that may act beyond the laws to which its own citizens are held to; to eliminate internal and external threats.
How it does this is possibly hidden in the shades, certainly it is strange in my opinion to announce that you will be using military weapons to do this end to its own citizens and to the world.
We have argument that this is just another step on the slippery slope and not a fundamental change.
First we had government agents working within the law of the land to apprehend those wishing to destabilise the government/every day life.
Then we had government agents taking suspects to other nations where civil liberties are not so well respected, but again not breaking a law when it occurs. Renditions.
Then we had government agents being able to remove people and hold them without evidence, both this sides of the pond.
Now we have government agents being able to remove people.

This is just another step along the way.

[Wildeybeast]

How it does this is possibly hidden in the shades, certainly it is strange in my opinion to announce that you will be using military weapons to do this end to its own citizens and to the world.


It's hard to deny you are doing it when you use weapons that level buildings.

[Wolfshade]

It's hard to deny you are doing it when you use weapons that level buildings.

"Our investigations show that it was caused by an undetected gas leak"

[DarkLink]

Swamp gas from a weather balloon.

[Nabterayl]

Wildey,

It's not tha the constitution's authority stops at the border. It's that it stops at citizenship. While a British (or Pakistani) citizen can certainly argue the US government has no right to assassinate him, the US constitution is not the document upon which to found that claim.

The issue here is one of conflicting constitutional provisions. The constitution explicitly states that the federal government shall not deprive a US citizen of life (among other things) without due process of law. In cases of doubt, the courts are supposed to decide whether due process has or has not been provided. To my knowledge no American drone victim has yet successfully sued the feds (can't imagine why not), but the process claimed is "We have super good intelligence and a senior administration official thought about it long and hard." I really don't think I need a court to say that's not good enough.

On the other hand we have the president's implicit power to defend the country from attack, and (in this case at least) Congressional authorization to use military force to do so. And I think there can be no question that one can be a US citizen and be planning to attack the US. So ... on the one and an explicit guarantee of due process, on the other hand an implicit requirement to defend the country. When these two collide, which wins?

The administration claims they haven't collided, because they do provide due process in the form of super good intelligence and thinking about it long and hard. I call bullsh*t on that. I think a lot of people do. There is, at least, a conflict here.

Some would say that the conflict should be resolved by weighing the lives at stake. Kill one to save many, especially as the one is a scumbag and the many are ... well, probably less scummy. I think that's a defensible position, though I also think it's the wrong one.

I would resolve the conflict (and I expect DarkLink would too) by saying explicit trumps implicit. After all, that is why we make provisions in a written constitution explicit. If you start reading the document with the rule that explicit limitations can be overturned by implicit powers, then there is no point to writing explicit limitations at all. It's like my wife says to me, "Go to the grocery store on the corner but don't spend any gas money." I can't say, "Well my car was out of gas so I filled up! You told me to go to the store; of course that includes authorization to buy gas!" She will say, "What do you think I meant by 'don't spend any gas money, you idiot?'" and she will be right.

[Deadlift]

I am a bit dubious about the implications that many writers in this thread, seem to believe that Drones are constantly hitting anything and everything but the intended target. Of course there has been collateral damage, but on the scale you guys are implying ? I don't think so. A little too much media hype maybe where only accidental deaths get reported in general.

[Nabterayl]

I am a bit dubious about the implications that many writers in this thread, seem to believe that Drones are constantly hitting anything and everything but the intended target. Of course there has been collateral damage, but on the scale you guys are implying ? I don't think so. A little too much media hype maybe where only accidental deaths get reported in general.
Tend to agree. 9 kg of explosives is nothing anybody wants to be close to, but Hellfires are quite reliable. They hit what they're aimed at, and I have a hard time believing the CIA routinely doesn't know what it's aiming at.

But regardless, is the issue really the collateral damage? Before we even talk about how it's acceptable to assassinate somebody, we new to agree that it's okay to do it at all, and I don't think anybody is really there yet.

[ElectricPaladin]

I am a bit dubious about the implications that many writers in this thread, seem to believe that Drones are constantly hitting anything and everything but the intended target. Of course there has been collateral damage, but on the scale you guys are implying ? I don't think so. A little too much media hype maybe where only accidental deaths get reported in general.

I am dubious, myself. I have yet to see data that clarifies the situation one way or the other.

[DarkLink]

Drones are extremely accurate. But even when you blow up the right building, you still blow up a building. If your target happens to be in the room with other people, that's collateral damage. Considering how secretive the program is, we don't really know, nor can hold those responsible accountable, for whatever degree of collateral damage that has occurred.

Basically, Congress needs to act on two things: clarity and accountability for the choice of targets, and for collateral damage. Currently, they can call almost anyone a "threat to national security", without the need to present evidence, and carry out the strike with little to no accountability. They can also take down a building regardless of who else happens to be in it, again with little or no accountability.

[eldargal]

I am a bit dubious about the implications that many writers in this thread, seem to believe that Drones are constantly hitting anything and everything but the intended target. Of course there has been collateral damage, but on the scale you guys are implying ? I don't think so. A little too much media hype maybe where only accidental deaths get reported in general.
Actually it tends to be more that the media doesn't report them. There was a particularly bad one during the Iranian riots a couple of years ago that killed 90 odd people in Iraq or Afghanistan and the day after Obama was condemning Iran for shooting dead a single protester. I've seen reports by some think-tanks that up to 25% of total drone strike victims are civilians and around 10% children. The main issue with drone strikes is they are viewed as the tools of bullies and cowards, and this is of course correct. Especially when you are firing them at people who have no kind of anti-air capacity.

The fact is when you are trying to win the 'hearts and minds' of a country and make yourself seem like the good guys, one wedding blown up is too much. The issue isn't the drones accuracy, the issue is any detonation of high explosives in an high density urban area is going to kill a lot of people beyond the target. Then you have the fact that the CIA do seem to have a habit of blowing up weddings and parties because gunfire=terrorists to them, which is rather ironic.

[Psychosplodge]

"Our investigations show that it was caused by an undetected gas leak"


Swamp gas from a weather balloon.

Reflecting off Venus.

[DarkLink]

Does the constitution apply outside America? Or is that people just don't give a toss if it gets violated half a world away?

It applies to what authority the President (and other branches as well) have. Ordering the killing of US citizens without due process is definitely one of those things


The main issue with drone strikes is they are viewed as the tools of bullies and cowards, and this is of course correct. Especially when you are firing them at people who have no kind of anti-air capacity.

In war, if you're not cheating, you're not trying.



The fact is when you are trying to win the 'hearts and minds' of a country and make yourself seem like the good guys, one wedding blown up is too much. The issue isn't the drones accuracy, the issue is any detonation of high explosives in an high density urban area is going to kill a lot of people beyond the target. Then you have the fact that the CIA do seem to have a habit of blowing up weddings and parties because gunfire=terrorists to them, which is rather ironic.

Why do you think that Obama is so unpopular in the Middle East? For a while they liked him, because he sounded promising, but then he not only kept up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but started dropping drone strikes left and right.

[Necron2.0]

I am dubious, myself. I have yet to see data that clarifies the situation one way or the other.

I've worked on drone controllers. The systems I'm familiar with are for surveillance only, mind you. I've not worked on any weaponized systems, but I do know a little about the conops of those. My experience tells me those drones usually hit what they're targetted at. Drones are at least as accurate as piloted aircraft.

EG is right, though. It's a hand grenade to kill a cockroach in a daycare school - nobody's idea of a brilliant scheme. I'm actually not opposed to the killing of terrorists (real ones, not the maybe-somehow-someday ones). I just think doing it via carpet bombing is dumb, lazy, economically ill-advised, morally offensive and ultimately counter productive.

[Nabterayl]

"Carpet bombing" is not really fair. The Hellfire II is pretty much the smallest air to ground missile in the inventory. It's extraordinarily reliable and has a very small warhead. A 9 kg warhead is not a lot of explosives.

I don't mean to minimize the collateral damage that a Hellfire can cause. You can kill a lot of people with a 9 kg warhead even in the open, let alone detonating it inside a building. I think it is totally fair to say that if the least destructive way to assassinate somebody is with a Hellfire, the risk of collateral damage is too high and the target should simply be allowed to escape. But comparing a Hellfire to "carpet bombing" - or even an AGM that is designed to destroy buildings - is way hyperbolic.

[Wolfshade]

In every war there are casualties on both sides, these are regrettable. Doubly so when the casualties are your own. And again when the victims are not active participants (I would use the turn non-combatants but that has a specific term) and even more so when these are your own people.

Civilian casualties are inevitable, the Red Cross estimates a ratio of 10:1 civilian to military deaths in all conflicts in the 20th Century, drone attacks in Pakistan for instance is closer to 1:5.

I suppose the real change is where the military/intelligence decides this is acceptable, rather than to be avoided.

In 40k we would not be surprised to see entire populations wiped out to remove a (relatively) few heretics, and yet this is by extension what we are seeing proposed.

[DarkLink]

I just think doing it via carpet bombing is...



dumb,

I'm not sure why you'd think so. It is extremely effective at killing terrorists. The part that's at question is who gets labeled a terrorist, and if there are adequate measures to ensure you're not blowing up innocents along with the terrorists. If it's stupid, but works, it isn't stupid, and no one can really question that the drone program is very effective at killing terrorists.



lazy,

The lazier the better. Would your rather put men at risk with a high-profile assault like the one that killed Osama, every single time? One of the big plusses of drones is precisely the fact that you're not putting boots on the ground at risk, or even a pilot at risk. It's just a little money if a drone gets shot down, which is far less valuable than a human life.



economically ill-advised,

Again, human lives are more valuable than drones, both figuratively and literally. Sending in a team of SEALs or Rangers would cost just as much (you still have to fly the team in), and would come at a higher risk both to the team itself but at the danger of escalating into a large-scale firefight. If your goal is to kill a particular terrorist, again, a drone is highly effective.


morally offensive and

Specifically in the cases of collateral damage and killing inappropriate targets. Which is what this whole thread is about. Are there adequate checks on the drone strike program to ensure that the targets are legitimate threats to the USA, and are there adequate checks to ensure that the strike will not cause collateral damage? If you can satisfy those two conditions, then you're only left with the question of killing a terrorist, or not killing one.



ultimately counter productive.

This, on the other hand, is very much true, at least in the case of building a US friendly government. To build up such a government, you need a populace that mostly likes the USA. Blowing up seemingly random buildings without warning is not a great way of accomplishing this. And even if your focus is just on killing terrorists, you need human intelligence to track down low-tech groups like Al Qaeda, and an unfriendly populace makes this more difficult, but the benefits can still outweigh the drawbacks. So it really depends on your goals.

[eldargal]

In war, if you're not cheating, you're not trying.
Drone strikes on civilians in honor obsessed cultures isn't cheating, it's losing. Which is exactly what is happening of course. Iraq is now an Islamist puppet state of Iran and Afghanistan will fall to the resurgent Taliban because we are regarded in many areas as worse than the Taliban.

Britain learnt this lesson in Ireland among other places. The way to win hearts and minds is through gentrification and avoiding civilian casualties. No heavy weaponry in urban areas, no bomb/drone strikes in urban areas and a very, very cautious approach to using those tactics in rural areas.


Why do you think that Obama is so unpopular in the Middle East? For a while they liked him, because he sounded promising, but then he not only kept up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but started dropping drone strikes left and right.
I know, the sad thing is no matter which president you have you will continue to fail in the MidEast because, no offense intended, you haven't a ******* clue what you are doing.


I'm not sure why you'd think so. It is extremely effective at killing terrorists. The part that's at question is who gets labeled a terrorist, and if there are adequate measures to ensure you're not blowing up innocents along with the terrorists. If it's stupid, but works, it isn't stupid, and no one can really question that the drone program is very effective at killing terrorists.
But for every terrorist and civilian you kill you create several more. It's called martyrdom and it's quite big in some areas of the Mid East.


The lazier the better. Would your rather put men at risk with a high-profile assault like the one that killed Osama, every single time? One of the big plusses of drones is precisely the fact that you're not putting boots on the ground at risk, or even a pilot at risk. It's just a little money if a drone gets shot down, which is far less valuable than a human life.
Except done strikes failed to deal with Osama several times, and indeed to be sure you need to send troops in to kill/capture and ID the body to make sure they didn't escape.

Done strikes have their uses, the problem is they are being used in ways which are completely counterproductive to the stated goals.



Civilian casualties are inevitable, the Red Cross estimates a ratio of 10:1 civilian to military deaths in all conflicts in the 20th Century, drone attacks in Pakistan for instance is closer to 1:5.
This is technically true, but misleading. In WWI civilian casualties were very low. In WWII civilian casualties were very high because they were deliberately targeted by both sides. Post-WWII virtually all modern conflicts were ethnic cleaning campaigns were civilians were the primary target. I don't recall precisely but civilian casualties made up around 28% of WWI casualties and that was due mostly to famine and disease.

I recommend reading William S. Linds 'On War' column (http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Lind_Index,00.html)if you want to understand why perception and morality are absolutely vital in winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and how the US is singularly failing. Some of his views on things like cultural conservatism can get a little wacky but his views on the military are sound. He lectures at Quantico Marine base, so he isn't just some random blogger.

[Necron2.0]

I recommend reading William S. Linds 'On War' column (http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Lind_Index,00.html)if you want to understand why perception and morality are absolutely vital in winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and how the US is singularly failing.

Or you could read Sun Tzu (http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html). According to Sun Tzu, first of the five precepts which govern war and the decision to engage in war is The Moral Law - that which causes the people to be in accord with their leader.

[eldargal]

Yes but Lind is writing with a practical view on counter-terrorism which Sun Tzu was not.:p

Lind wrote an article in 1989 predicting the rise of Islamic extremism, one of the first to do so if not the first.

[Wildeybeast]

So here's a question inspired by what DL said. How would putting in combat teams go down over there? It would be much morally acceptable given that you could capture your intended target with a greatly reduced chance of killing bystanders and if the dude's start shooting back your can legitimately justify killing them and it would avoid that whole pesky violation of the constitution/human rights. But would the average American accept the increased body count of US soldiers in order to protect the rights of a few traitors and some Muslim children (which is how it will be spun by the pro-drone camp)? My guess is they wouldn't but I'd like to know the views of our colonial cousins.

[DarkLink]

We're not in the prisoner-takin' business. We're in the terrorist-killin' business.

Just as importantly, you're handwaving the difficulty in raiding places we don't fully control. There's a reason the raid on Osama was called daring. You're like 'oh, let's just fly in and they'll give up and we'll arrest them peacefully and everything will be all fine'. Raids are much more risky than a drone strike is. Question the morality all you want (which is the whole point of this thread, but just don't fall into some bull**** pacifist crap), but you have to understand that the efficacy of drone strikes is not something you should be questioning. There are a time and place for raids, and there are a time and place for drone strikes, assuming the mission is to kill X terrorist.

Also, the populace doesn't look on midnight raids by armed men any better than drone strikes.

Either way, the hangup here is mainly on the President's violation of the Constitution, and the rights of American citizens. Raids might go over a little bit better, but until Obama starts incorporating some sort of legal process in the program the core issue won't really be addressed. The media loves Obama anyways, they'd never dare besmirch his name with something like this.

[eldargal]

We're in the terrorist-killin' business.
Which is why you are losing, because that isn't how you win against a resistance. It would be different if you were just striking at terrorist targets in foreign countries with the agreements of their guvmints (more or less*) but you aren't, you have two (well, one really) puppet states that you are trying to stabilise and you don't do that by blowing random crap not.


Just as importantly, you're handwaving the difficulty in raiding places we don't fully control. There's a reason the raid on Osama was called daring. You're like 'oh, let's just fly in and they'll give up and we'll arrest them peacefully and everything will be all fine'. Raids are much more risky than a drone strike is. Question the morality all you want (which is the whole point of this thread, but just don't fall into some bull**** pacifist crap), but you have to understand that the efficacy of drone strikes is not something you should be questioning. There are a time and place for raids, and there are a time and place for drone strikes, assuming the mission is to kill X terrorist.
This is true, the irony of the Osama raid is that it was one of the few occasions where a drone strike would have made perfect sense as the compound was relatively isolated and could have been hit without collateral damage.


*Pakistan is a problem. If permission is asked for a drone strike in their sovereign territory word usually leaks out because of it and the targets scarper and people get cranky with their government acting like an American lapdog. But if permission isn't asked the Pakistani government loss legitimacy in the eyes of it's people because even a country that claims to be a friend simply violates their sovereignty whenever it feels like it. The result either way, thanks to drone strikes in the tribal areas, is a weakened Pakistani government with a population who do not respect it. Which enhances the position of those with a political agenda that revolves around getting the US out of the MidEast.

[Denzark]

None of you have more than the slightest clue about which you talk. I can state that with some confidence because professionals with access and knowledge of how intelligence works don't blab about it on blogs. When they do Bradley Manning happens.

So, you don't know if the CIA or whoever has a method of giving a percentage certainty of a target being that target. You don't know if that method was given an approval by a legally formed qurom of judges or some such other structures. You don't know what legally the US senate or congress, or whatever, has agreed in closed session, so that 100% of drone activity is actually by a ratified law of the US. Maybe POTUS has executive powers and it is legal for him to call time on some nasty mother jihadi. Maybe there was a secret 13th amendment to the constitution allowing the pres to sign death warrants in time of war.

Basically, the average armchair general citizen doesn't have the slightest foggiest idea about these things. As I said, professionals in the intelligence community wouldn't gab about these things. So actualy all you need to know is that soemone makes these harsh decisions for you so you in the main, stay safe.

Someone takes a risk assessment that the damage done by acidentally brassing up a wedding with Hellfire, in terms of reputation and generating new jihadis etc, is worth the prize of beheading one more part of the hydra. Soft power does not work anywhere near as effective as hard power. I say this as someone who has served in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. All you need to remember is what that other commie George Orwell had to say:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

[Wildeybeast]

We're not in the prisoner-takin' business. We're in the terrorist-killin' business.

Just as importantly, you're handwaving the difficulty in raiding places we don't fully control. There's a reason the raid on Osama was called daring. You're like 'oh, let's just fly in and they'll give up and we'll arrest them peacefully and everything will be all fine'. Raids are much more risky than a drone strike is. Question the morality all you want (which is the whole point of this thread, but just don't fall into some bull**** pacifist crap), but you have to understand that the efficacy of drone strikes is not something you should be questioning. There are a time and place for raids, and there are a time and place for drone strikes, assuming the mission is to kill X terrorist.

Also, the populace doesn't look on midnight raids by armed men any better than drone strikes.

Either way, the hangup here is mainly on the President's violation of the Constitution, and the rights of American citizens. Raids might go over a little bit better, but until Obama starts incorporating some sort of legal process in the program the core issue won't really be addressed. The media loves Obama anyways, they'd never dare besmirch his name with something like this.

I'm not saying raids would be easy, far from it, I'm just asking how viable an alternative would it be? From the POV of the foreign govt. I don't see any difference between blowing up a few buildings and landing troops without permission. In terms of legal process, if you can capture people they can stand trail (or you could lock them up in Guatanamo forever [how does that one fit with the constitution?]) but at least there would be some effort to stick to vaguely adhere to human rights if you at least try and take them alive. My question is would the American people prefer this to drone strikes? From an outsider POV, it seems like Obama has gone for drone strikes because the American public have had their fill of bodybags coming home.

[eldargal]

None of you have more than the slightest clue about which you talk. I can state that with some confidence because professionals with access and knowledge of how intelligence works don't blab about it on blogs. When they do Bradley Manning happens.
Actually I do.:p But that's beside the point, as the issue here isn't how intelligence operates but what drone strikes actually do.


Someone takes a risk assessment that the damage done by acidentally brassing up a wedding with Hellfire, in terms of reputation and generating new jihadis etc, is worth the prize of beheading one more part of the hydra. Soft power does not work anywhere near as effective as hard power. I say this as someone who has served in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. All you need to remember is what that other commie George Orwell had to say:
Except for every terrorist it kills they create another one and for every civilian they kill they create several more. Drone strikes would be fantastic if we were fighting state militaries, but we aren't.

[Denzark]

Actually I do.:p But that's beside the point, as the issue here isn't how intelligence operates but what drone strikes actually do.

I think how intelligence operates is key to the legal isssues which were covered at the start of this debate.


Except for every terrorist it kills they create another one and for every civilian they kill they create several more. Drone strikes would be fantastic if we were fighting state militaries, but we aren't.

I no more subscribe to this theory than I do that building a school creates an ally for every child that goes there. Drones would be useless against state militaries, beyond precision

One of the things I love about the States is a 100% uncompromiisng attitude to the protection of its citizens. The will and balls to follow through 'harm ours and we WILL find you and take you out no matter where' is fantastic. It links to the gunboat diplomacy of Palmerston, one of our better PMs who made damn sure that the Pax Regina would stand over any citizen.

And to say 'listen sovereign nations, you harbour them, we will enroach at our will' is brilliant. If Pakistan had taken Bin Laden rather than colluding with him, there would not have been sneaky beaky choppers from another country cutting around, dropping off nose cutters who spent time kicking in doors.

People should be happy that their state will consider the needs of their tribe before those of others.

[eldargal]

But it isn't the intelligence or the reasoning behind the strike that is the issue, the issue is what the actual accomplishment will be beyond dead bodies. Drone strikes do not defeat terrorists, they just kill them. Why does anyone think that conducting them on US soil will be any more effective? Hell to me it seems like an admission that the US can't even guarantee security within their own borders that they have to resort to bombings.


I no more subscribe to this theory than I do that building a school creates an ally for every child that goes there. Drones would be useless against state militaries, beyond precision
We will never turn the populaces of these countries into allies, but we don't need to. All we need is for them to not actively support terrorist groups, and you don't do that by blowing them the hell up because a terrorist may have been living in the apartment above them. Precise strikes against command and control and logistics targets are the only thing drone strikes are good for. Terrorist groups don't have those.



One of the things I love about the States is a 100% uncompromiisng attitude to the protection of its citizens. The will and balls to follow through 'harm ours and we WILL find you and take you out no matter where' is fantastic. It links to the gunboat diplomacy of Palmerston, one of our better PMs who made damn sure that the Pax Regina would stand over any citizen.


Hardly, private secuty is one of the fastest growing areas in the US (and Britain) because the state is failing to provide order and security. Gunboat diplomacy worked on states with a solid, material presence to target. No one likes having their palace shelled. Terrorist/resistance groups do not have that weakness, they can blend in with civilians and move around far more easily than a parliament building/palace/whatever.

And to say 'listen sovereign nations, you harbour them, we will enroach at our will' is brilliant. If Pakistan had taken Bin Laden rather than colluding with him, there would not have been sneaky beaky choppers from another country cutting around, dropping off nose cutters who spent time kicking in doors.
It's brilliant for the terrorists because it makes the state seem weak and gives non-state players more legitimacy. Look at Pakistan. The Islamists are stronger than they have been in decades because we made the state look weak and foolish. As for Pakistan taking Bin Laden, why would you think they had that capacity when the might of the US army failed to do it in Afghanistan?

[Nabterayl]

Precise strikes against command and control and logistics targets are the only thing drone strikes are good for. Terrorist groups don't have those.
Sure they do. You can't have any kind of organization, terrorist or otherwise, without people in charge. You can drop Hellfires on individual cell leaders if you want to; it's not like we don't have enough of the things. The issue isn't whether there are terrorist leaders to kill, it's whether they can be killed with explosives without killing people you don't want dead. Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes no.



As for Pakistan taking Bin Laden, why would you think they had that capacity when the might of the US army failed to do it in Afghanistan?
We did it and we don't even live in Pakistan. I'm willing to bet that the DEVGRU team that carried that out is better than anything Pakistan has on offer, but I'm also willing to bet the Pakisanis didn't fail to apprehend Bin Ladin because they decided the odds of him escaping were so high they shouldn't even bother. I mean, come on :P

As to the question about raids ... certainly that's on much stronger constitutional grounds. The police always have the right to shoot you dead if you resist enough, even for a jaywalking ticket; the important constitutional point is that they tried. But as for public reception ... I don't think it would fly. The truth is these wars aren't popular enough to prosecute with casualties. It's one thing when the SF casualties are masked by the casualties of the war in general. We lost operators in Iraq when they were running daily or near-daily "sneak into your house and shoot you dead" raids, and by and large that didn't dampen public morale because it got lost in the noise. But I think even the most anti-war American feels that a suspected terrorist in a country known for harboring terrorists is not worth the life of even a single SF operator. We have developed great faith in our SF community recently and are proud of their seeming invincibility, but a lot of that is tied to their seeming invincibility. I think, honestly, the country as a whole would rather let American terrorists walk free and kill innocent Americans than start losing operators on capture raids. It would probably be fine for a while, maybe even a PR coup. Then an operation would go south, good servicemen would die, and the public would be in an uproar.

[eldargal]

Sure they do. You can't have any kind of organization, terrorist or otherwise, without people in charge. You can drop Hellfires on individual cell leaders if you want to; it's not like we don't have enough of the things. The issue isn't whether there are terrorist leaders to kill, it's whether they can be killed with explosives without killing people you don't want dead. Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes no.
The issue is dropping a bomb on one group of terrorists achieves little because they are so de-centralised. Of course cells have leaders but they aren't at all important in the scheme of things. Even bin Laden had very little operational significance after 2001, his value was entirely symbolic.


We did it and we don't even live in Pakistan. I'm willing to bet that the DEVGRU team that carried that out is better than anything Pakistan has on offer, but I'm also willing to bet the Pakisanis didn't fail to apprehend Bin Ladin because they decided the odds of him escaping were so high they shouldn't even bother. I mean, come on :P
You took ten years with the most advanced intelligence apparatus on the planet looking for him.:p For quite a few of those years he was believed to be dead by the intelligence community. The point is just because you managed to do it eventually doesn't mean the Pakistani guvmint had the capacity to do it. We continue to ask them to do the impossible or take actions that would destroy their domestic support and then get indignant when they don't do it. Demanding the Pakistani go into the tribal lands to further our agenda would be like demanding the US government forcibly disarm Texas.

[Wildeybeast]

As to the question about raids ... certainly that's on much stronger constitutional grounds. The police always have the right to shoot you dead if you resist enough, even for a jaywalking ticket; the important constitutional point is that they tried. But as for public reception ... I don't think it would fly. The truth is these wars aren't popular enough to prosecute with casualties. It's one thing when the SF casualties are masked by the casualties of the war in general. We lost operators in Iraq when they were running daily or near-daily "sneak into your house and shoot you dead" raids, and by and large that didn't dampen public morale because it got lost in the noise. But I think even the most anti-war American feels that a suspected terrorist in a country known for harboring terrorists is not worth the life of even a single SF operator. We have developed great faith in our SF community recently and are proud of their seeming invincibility, but a lot of that is tied to their seeming invincibility. I think, honestly, the country as a whole would rather let American terrorists walk free and kill innocent Americans than start losing operators on capture raids. It would probably be fine for a while, maybe even a PR coup. Then an operation would go south, good servicemen would die, and the public would be in an uproar.

I guessed that would be the response. So my follow-up question is: would Americans rather violate the constitution and blow up their own citizens without any sort of legal process or would they rather let suspected terrorists go free?

[Nabterayl]

You took ten years with the most advanced intelligence apparatus on the planet looking for him.:p For quite a few of those years he was believed to be dead by the intelligence community. The point is just because you managed to do it eventually doesn't mean the Pakistani guvmint had the capacity to do it. We continue to ask them to do the impossible or take actions that would destroy their domestic support and then get indignant when they don't do it. Demanding the Pakistani go into the tribal lands to further our agenda would be like demanding the US government forcibly disarm Texas.
That's true. I take it from your response that you don't find it facially implausible that the government didn't know that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad. I'm willing to admit the possibility, but I certainly find it facially implausible. He was so close to the Pakistan Military Academy that army helicopters overflew his compound on a regular basis - one of the facts that may have contributed to the success of the raid, which was forced to fly helicopters directly to the compound.


The issue is dropping a bomb on one group of terrorists achieves little because they are so de-centralised. Of course cells have leaders but they aren't at all important in the scheme of things. Even bin Laden had very little operational significance after 2001, his value was entirely symbolic.

To be perfectly honest, I think most of the terrorist killings are entirely symbolic. I don't get the impression that the average American feels at all threatened by al-Qaeda anymore, let alone the Taliban (the major target of our drone strikes these days). But as this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone) estimates, we're still targeting a large number of low-level combatants with drone strikes alone, and the public is generally fine with that. Why? Partially, I think, because it's fairly safe, fairly cheap, and gives the sense that "something is being done." But mostly, I suspect, for the reasons that were alluded to earlier - we want them dead. We don't want it enough to, say, stay in Afghanistan hunting Taliban for kicks. But as low-level as it is, there's still a simmering sense of, "They f*cked with us, so f*ck 'em" in this country. I really don't think the public sentiment is about defeating an enemy at this point. As far as most of the country is concerned, I think, the "enemy" has been defeated, in that they have failed to carry out a significant attack within the borders of the fifty states for more than ten years running. It's about revenge, and about feeling like nobody can point a gun at the United States and be allowed to live.


I guessed that would be the response. So my follow-up question is: would Americans rather violate the constitution and blow up their own citizens without any sort of legal process or would they rather let suspected terrorists go free?
To be honest, I'm not sure. I am very interested in how the Senate handles this, because I think it could be an interesting indication of how the public feels on this issue. I think the answer ultimately may depend on timeframe. I think Americans have an instinctive, mostly-unexamined sense that the constitution sometimes has to be suspended for short periods in crisis. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, which is another thing that You Cannot Do under the constitution, and he's still probably our most popular president because he abolished slavery and prosecuted our civil war to a preserve-the-republic finish basically through sheer force of will (granted, he's seen differently in the states on the losing side of the civil war even now). Similarly, I think that the truth is that most Americans are willing to suspend the constitution in the case of citizen suspected terrorists as long as (i) it doesn't go on for too long and (ii) it doesn't happen very often. I cannot imagine that we'll be okay with it if this is still going on in ten years - maybe not even five, maybe not even in two. I also can't imagine that we'd be okay with it if American citizens were being blown up left and right. Since they aren't - since there are only a handful - it still feels like a question of fine political principle vs. pragmatic reality.

[Denzark]

EG it would seem from some of what you say, that you don't fully appreciate how much legal and diplomatic input goes into fighting COIN. Every shot fired (drones included) is subject to a legal interpretation - unless Troops in Contact has been called. The drone shots will almost always have a lawyer of some sort having approved them. Also, the FCO will have agreed (in our case) that the net benefit to UK PLC is on the positive side, rather than the negative, when drone killing a terrorist. The shots taken in urban areas will have had the collateral assessed against the benefit of removing that link in the chain.

It will have therefore been assessed that the chance of little ahmed taking up the jihad to avenge his father, is well worth the cost of removing the old scumbag in the first place. And actually, the sort of target the intel led drones strike against, are not surrounded by innocents but supporters who will suppoprt and hide them. Seriously, the areas where they congregate, are not friendly to us but then will turn because of a hellfire - they are enemy territory where everything is inimical to us and is fair game. It matters not whether the locals are in thrall by fear of the opposition who has their families hostage - or whether they are in hock to their own imam who preaches against us.

Either way, someone higher up the food chain has used a legal process, and a risk assessment, to state that making that omelette is worth breaking a few (non-terrorist) eggs.

And seeing as I don't recall UAVs doing strikes into other sovereign territories PRIOR to 11 Sep 2001 I reckon I will sleep alright with the concept.

[eldargal]

That's true. I take it from your response that you don't find it facially implausible that the government didn't know that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad. I'm willing to admit the possibility, but I certainly find it facially implausible. He was so close to the Pakistan Military Academy that army helicopters overflew his compound on a regular basis - one of the facts that may have contributed to the success of the raid, which was forced to fly helicopters directly to the compound.
I'm sure some elements of the Pakistani government knew roughly where he was if not exactly, it doesn't change the fact that for various reasons the Pakistani government simply doesn't have the capacity to deal with the islamist threat within its borders the way we want them to. The more we make demands and the more we simply flout their sovereignty the weaker the governments position becomes and the worse the problem gets.


To be perfectly honest, I think most of the terrorist killings are entirely symbolic. I don't get the impression that the average American feels at all threatened by al-Qaeda anymore, let alone the Taliban (the major target of our drone strikes these days). But as this CNN article estimates, we're still targeting a large number of low-level combatants with drone strikes alone, and the public is generally fine with that. Why? Partially, I think, because it's fairly safe, fairly cheap, and gives the sense that "something is being done." But mostly, I suspect, for the reasons that were alluded to earlier - we want them dead. We don't want it enough to, say, stay in Afghanistan hunting Taliban for kicks. But as low-level as it is, there's still a simmering sense of, "They f*cked with us, so f*ck 'em" in this country. I really don't think the public sentiment is about defeating an enemy at this point. As far as most of the country is concerned, I think, the "enemy" has been defeated, in that they have failed to carry out a significant attack within the borders of the fifty states for more than ten years running. It's about revenge, and about feeling like nobody can point a gun at the United States and be allowed to live.
I don't disagree with any of that, and it goes back to what I've been saying that drone strikes and the way we are conducting operations in Afghanistan and other places is more about symbolism than actually making those nations secure. Drone strikes look fancy and make people feel safe but ultimately they are helping the Islamist cause, not ours. The Taliban will control Afghanistan once we leave, within a short space of time unless they really get their act together. Then the Islamist groups will have free reign to plot against us again.
There was an excellent article I read once that said the entire Iraq invasion was just about revenge because Afghanistan fell so quickly the American people and particularly the neo-cons didn't feel like justice had been served. I don't think it is quite that simple but I'm sure it is at least partly accurate.


EG it would seem from some of what you say, that you don't fully appreciate how much legal and diplomatic input goes into fighting COIN. Every shot fired (drones included) is subject to a legal interpretation - unless Troops in Contact has been called. The drone shots will almost always have a lawyer of some sort having approved them. Also, the FCO will have agreed (in our case) that the net benefit to UK PLC is on the positive side, rather than the negative, when drone killing a terrorist. The shots taken in urban areas will have had the collateral assessed against the benefit of removing that link in the chain.
I am aware, but you are missing the point. The issue isn't legal vetting or whether or not people think the strike is worth it, the problem is the criteria they are basing that decision on.


And seeing as I don't recall UAVs doing strikes into other sovereign territories PRIOR to 11 Sep 2001 I reckon I will sleep alright with the concept.
You might, but given that letting Islamists run rampant in the 90's in Afghanistan led to 9/11 I'm not so blase about them taking over Afghanistan and probably Pakistan one day. Especially Pakistan, on account of their nuclear capability.

[Psychosplodge]

You might, but given that letting Islamists run rampant in the 90's in Afghanistan led to 9/11 I'm not so blase about them taking over Afghanistan and probably Pakistan one day. Especially Pakistan, on account of their nuclear capability.

I wouldn't worry about that, India will vaporise Pakistan long before it effects us.

[Denzark]

You might, but given that letting Islamists run rampant in the 90's in Afghanistan led to 9/11 I'm not so blase about them taking over Afghanistan and probably Pakistan one day. Especially Pakistan, on account of their nuclear capability.

Problem with that being, there is a wide body of academic thought that Islam is going through its very own 16th century now. There is another body of thought that much of extreme Islam is not Quranic (sharia law, Burqas etc) but is misinterpretation handed down through verbal tradition, and based on arabic tribal custom as opposed to what is actually wrtitten by yon prophet. Between the 2, where you will probably find the truth, is the fact that the extremists have a different view of life - they don't value it, we are kaffurs (sp?), we are supposedly (although not in the Holy Book itself) fair game. They understand nothing beyond the establishment of the Caliphate. The only way to stop this is not to reason with them, but to eliminate them.

If letting Islamists run riot in the 90's led to where we are, and givne the above, what actions could have been taken to stop them? The only ones that come to mind seeing as they aren't much in the fashion of liberal debators, is to smash them with extreme prejudice. Thus more interfering cross border in Sovereign Nations.

Either take them at arms length, or curtail civil liberties back here?

[eldargal]

Except the way to eliminate them is through marginalisation and gentrification, if we kill them and cause collateral damage we make martyrs and more extremists. The issue with the way we are prosecuting the 'war on terrorism' (something that we do need to do) is that we are doing it wrong and making things worse. The primary issue is not with Islam, it just used for legitimacy.

What should have been done was the invasion of Afghanistan* being followed with genuine nation building to show the Islamic world we really intended to help it as we claimed and that the fundamentalists were wrong about the West. Instead we went into Iraq for no good reason at all and validated everything the fundamentalists said about us. Then for the best part of the next ten years the focus on was on Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, the hub of fundamentalist activity, was neglected. Since then the only real success story has been Indonesia, oddly enough, where they have done very well in marginalising the extremists and eliminating them in police operations with no collateral damage.

The best thing we could do now is give one last big push to actually build up the Afghani state into something which can survive on it's own. But we won't because all we want to do is cut our losses and run, to hell with the long term ramifications.

*Which was a just war and thus not a violation of a sovereign nation in the way as launching military operations without permission or notice in the territory of a country we claim is an ally.

[Denzark]

I can't see how you can marginalise the Talib. Build a school, educate females, and hope pretty please that once they stop the kids flying kites, they then don't behead the girl children?

Gentrification? You need a security buffer to do this. Part of maintaining that buffer is to smash the buggers from on high, keeping the hierarchy in Pakistan to try to drive a wedge between the rank and file on the ground. The measure of effect is how much responsibility has been handed back to afghan police and army.

[eldargal]

You do need security buffer, and we know how to do that (we did it in Ireland and Malaysia earlier in the century) the Americans just chose to ignore our advice 'cos it was epxneisve (take all their police and military forces out of the country to train was big one, when they get back they are much more effective because they have no idea who the local bigwigs are anymore). Remember I'm not against fighting terrorists, I'm against drone strikes which make us look like cowards in an honor obsessed country and routinely kill lots of civilians which just makes the situation worse.