8 CIA Spooks Murdered in Afghanistan-Reaction?

I was listening to the BBC report on this-the reaction of the local Afghan people was quite illuminating. Basically, most of them though the murders were justified, as the CIA had been plotting drone attacks upon muslims.
With this kind of reaction, WHY are we still in Afghanistan?
Clearly, we are not winning many “hearts and minds”.
They also interviewed an ex-CIA officer (25 years in the CIA). His recommendation: we should leave tomorrow.
Not very encouraging. What is your take on this?:confused:

This sounds more like a Great Debates topic. Moving from MPSIMS.


Can you explain how ‘murder’ is the right word choice here, ralph?
It seems like a pretty straightforward enemy attack to me.
People die in wars, and we’re in one, so some of our people will die.
Are all deaths in war murder in your eyes?

Maybe we need to bomb them harder until they learn to love us. Worked like a charm in Vietnam, you know.

Well, since we are now holding criminal trials instead of holding them as POWs or as unlawful combatants (whatever that means), doesn’t that make it a murder case instead of a military attack?

I’m not going to get into the semantics of “murder” vs. “act of war”, but I’m not sure what the OP expects to get out of this thread.

Why would it surprise anyone that the death of employees of a occupying power’s spy agency would get little sympathy from the local population?

If we have a strategic interest of value in being in Afghanistan, then the deaths of 8 intelligence agency employees does not materially change the situation. If we have no strategic interest of value, then we should have been gone from that place long ago.

All due sympathies to the families of the slain personnel, but this incident by itself changes more or less nothing.

No, why would it?
You want to go ahead and decide that war is nothing but organized murder, you better be ready to try all our own troops too. Of course, I’m certain you lack the balls for that.

No personal barbs, please. Stick to arguing about the contents of what people are posting. Thank you.

**Squink **- not sure what I posted to piss you off so much.

My point was that we have had several debates around here about what someone is guilty of when caught in the war zone that is Afghanistan. If we pick up an enemy combatant, are they now a POW or are they a captured criminal?

If they are a POW, we hold them under the Geneva Convention and the only actual crime would be if they are guilty of a war crime. Of course, we can also then hold them until hostilities cease - which could be a very long time.

If, instead, we consider them to be criminals like the ones we will be trying in New York soon - we try them for murder.

Or, since this is Afghanistan, we could just hand them over to the Afghani authorities to try them for whatever the legal code in Afghanistan allows.

Well, in this particular case, I don’t think we’ll be trying the guy.

This is nasty and terrible, but the CIA are not civilians in the way that, say, an electrician would be. They are in Afghanistan to kill and disrupt the enemy and in this particular case the enemy got to them first.

This, if anything, will be the Waterloo that people were hoping for for Obama. There is nothing to be done here, it is a perpetual mess. I understand that we need to have a stable spot from which to enter “Pakistan”, but “Afghanistan” is never going to be particularly stable, or in any way a real state. I am inclined at this point to simply let all of these folks be, spend the money we would have spent on forward bases and bombs on infrastructure and schools, and see what happens in twenty years.

I agree with most of your post, but in this instance, if he were alive and tried as a criminal, it would have to be under Afghanistan law for “murder” because the US federal law would not extend beyond American territory. The ones being tried in New York killed Americans on US soil. The ones who didn’t (USS Cole attackers), will probably tried in a military tribunal (although they don’t have to be, I’m just guessing).

Although, he could be tried by an American federal criminal court under the War Crimes Act for committing a war crime. It does extend to an American national anywhere in the world. The war crime would be for either murder of the CIA agents (unlikely, b/c the victims can’t be taking an active part in the hostilities, and the CIA located there probably are) or more likely “inflicting serious bodily injury” (even if victims are lawful combatant targets, you commit this war crime if you don’t follow the laws of war). Here, he likely violated the laws of war by (I’m guessing) not carrying his arms openly, no uniform and thus could be charged and convicted. If he didn’t violate any laws of war, he could not be charged.

As to the OP, I agree with El_Kabong in post #7.

I don’t care whether the Afghans hate us or not. They ought to realize we’re better than the Taliban but primarily our interest is our own security.

Our primary interest should be our security, the great failing of the Afghanistan situation is not dealing with it by dealing with the aspects of Afghanistan that were a direct threat to us (Taliban/Al-Qaeda) and then moving on. I don’t remember when we first went into Afghanistan that we as a country were signing up for nation-building. That was obviously the case with Iraq, but Afghanistan, at least as I remember it, was supposed to be about toppling the Taliban because they sheltered Al-Qaeda, then disrupting Al-Qaeda’s operations there.

By and large the Al-Qaeda aspect of it has been finished for years and years, the Taliban thing is still a problem (I’ve always said from an American-centric viewpoint I don’t have a problem with the Taliban if they don’t shelter Al-Qaeda or other similar groups.) The Al-Qaeda groups operating in Afghanistan are largely in Pakistan now (and murkier geopolitical waters by far.) Of course talking about Al-Qaeda has always been like talking about the “mafia” as though it was a single organization. It isn’t, and you don’t beat the mafia by treating it as one.

Those two ideas are opposed to each other. If you care about security then you should care if people hate you, because people who hate you will try to hurt you.

This is why American foreign policy fails so miserably with the locals. “Hey we bombed the hell out of you but at least we’re not the Taliban!” isn’t a good attitude for winning the ‘hearts and minds’.

With respect to the word “murder”, I think it’s too emotive and inherently places the CIA in the role of the “victim”. The CIA, like any spy agency from any country is never an innocent bystander caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Besides, Afghanistan is a war zone and the CIA is playing a role in military operations therefore they’re valid targets as far as the enemy are concerned.

** 8 CIA Spooks Murdered in Afghanistan-Reaction?**

19, 992 too few…

Reaction? American intelligence forces are reduced and as such we have to rebuild and rethink how we deploy intelligence officers in a war zone.

I doubt withdrawing from Afghanistan will increase our security either.

We’re also helping the Afghans reconstruct and pouring massive amounts aid to them. Plus the German, Japanese, Italians, and the Koreans all have had their “hearts and minds” won after bloody warfare and bombardment.

Is this a joke in poor taste or are you preaching treason?