Why was “that’s one of the reasons” not an adequate answer?
Regardless, do we have the right to intervene in another country’s affairs through extra-judicial killings?
If we do go ahead and order a drone strike, who are we going to hit? Who’s going to tell us who did it? Assuming we have some sort of informant on the ground, can we trust the intelligence to be infallible? And who is making that call? Are they in ANY way accountable for mistakes?
Is it ok if we kill the guy’s neighbor or his wife as well as the guy who we think did it? Is that “alright” by you, terms of collateral damage? What about the Taliban’s Jack-Ass’s newborn child? OK by you too?
This is the issue. Instead of helping Pakistan in a way that might solve the root causes of these issues (poverty, ignorance, corruption, poor police force, etc, etc, etc), things, that, admittedly, would be very hard to tackle. We figure violence is the way to go.
It’s becoming the go to solution for all ills.
I suppose it’s ‘an’ answer; it’s just a stupid fucking reason to use our military.
Clinton had a chance to kill OBL with a cruise missile, but it would have taken out the royal family of somewhereiz he was hawking with.
Maybe we are taking out future OBLs and saving hundreds of lives.
Maybe we are just killing lots of innocent people.
I don’t like any president having the ability to have someone killed without a trial.
But I would imagine that even Clinton lies awake at night sometimes, wishing he had sent in the cruise missile.
It’s not just one little girl. It’s pretty much every female as far as the Taliban is concerned. And it’s not just females either. They’ll kill anyone that disagrees with them. And because we did nothing about them before they turned Afghanistan into a haven for bin Laden and al Quaeda. So we could just ignore the problem, nothing like that will ever happen again right?
Please excuse the following rant:
What’s with the fucking trials? We’re at war against bloodthirsty killers. We don’t capture soldiers trying to kill us on the battlefield so we can try them. We kill them. And we kill anyone standing among them. It’s messy and dirty, but the alternative is to let them kill us. They aren’t going to turn themselves in if we issue a bench warrant.
If these people are criminals they should be tried, if they are prisoners of war then they can be held until the war is over. If they are criminals how can you justify killing them without a trial? If they are are soldiers in a war then you can kill them.
You seem to want them to be criminals if detained and soldiers if that is not practical. Detaining them does not turn a soldier into a criminal and lack of access to them does not turn a criminal into a soldier.
Are people in that country “intervening” in the affairs of other countries via terrorism? If so, and other methods are not an option, then this has to be on the table, however uncomfortable that may be. Innocent people dying sucks, but so does the death of innocents in terrorist attacks and the larger-scale killing of innocent people in war.
No, this is trite and wrong. Over the last decade the U.S. has given Pakistan billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to go along with the military aid related to counterterrorism. For all of that, it gets indifferent cooperation on counterterrorism and the government of Pakistan remains deeply corrupt and supports Islamic terrorists primarily to make trouble for India, the civilian government basically serves at the pleasure of the military, there’s not necessarily a lot of support for strong opposition to violent religious nuts, and parts of the country are not controlled by the government at all. (Pakistan is good at playing both sides, and it turns out that giving aid to a corrupt country does not fix corruption for some reason.) It is almost impossible to imagine a worse return on a 10-figure investment. The problem is not that the U.S. is resorting to purely military means and neglecting the humanitarian side. It’s that Pakistan is a very fucked-up country.
What I want is a sensible framework for dealing with terrorism that incorporates its criminal and military aspects.
The sensible framework is to treat people captured in a war as prisoners of war. That means detention as long as the war is going on. They should also try people for war crimes if they have the evidence but that should be in addition to the detention not instead of.
Pakistanis thoroughly deserve it. They have been harboring terrorists. Good number of people from among ISI, army and general public are sympathetic with terrorists and so they dont neutralize them. And so someone with the means and guts (ie america) is doing what was their responsibility. The world community should actually be lauding the US for this world service.
That doesn’t work if you have an unending war.
The problem, though, and what the articles in the OP suggest, is that drone attacks won’t make the problem go away either. The disposition matrix/kill list isn’t getting shorter – it’s getting longer. Our administration is continually adding names to it, though it’s not clear how or why these names are added. Perhaps the terrorist population is increasing, or better information is finding more suspects, or our government is finding more suitable, politically advantageous targets that are convenient to take out without consequence. We don’t know – they won’t tell us. So it could remain in effect for the next 10-20 years.
What is the end goal then? Kill all of al-Qaeda? End the Taliban? End all terrorism? Has the president said anything about the war on terror other than something along the lines of “we’ll fight until the American people are safe”? I’m having a hard time picturing a situation in which the war would end, so I question whether it’s worth being in at all.
You should trust and support your government. Results are there for you to see: Al-qaeda leadership has mostly been taken out and it has been rendered largely ineffective.
Taliban has been **mostly **driven out of afghanistan and if not for pakistani safe-heavens, would have been eradicated by now.
No terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
Actually Obama doesn’t call it the War on Terror at all, possibly because the idea of a war on terrorism is a stupid concept. The main goal is disrupting Al Qaeda and related Islamic terrorist groups, and they’ve been very successful at that.
I don’t believe that at all. What’s your basis for saying that?
No successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
In this 2009 afghan map, One can see <10% area under taliban control from 100% when the US entered:
Although there are risk areas where taliban can easily come from the areas that they control.
Which means the people protecting your nation are doing a fine job.
What about the part where they’d be gone if not for Pakistan? It actually might not be that implausible, but I’d like to know the basis.
And the people who’ve gotten past security and attempted terrorist attacks have screwed up. The fact that the remaining would-be terrorists come from the bottom of the barrel is related to the drone program among many other factors, but Abdulmutallab could’ve destroyed a plane full of people and Shahzad could’ve set off a car bomb in Times Square. And of course if you count the Fort Hood shooting as terrorism (and some people do), Nidal Hassan killed 13 people.
The Bush administration taught many people not to put absolute trust in government. And anyway, it’s worthwhile to question those in power.
It’s true that there have been no successful attacks on the United States, and that al-Qaeda has been greatly disrupted. But we could be “disrupting” al-Qaeda for decades to come, right? Meanwhile, Americans and civilians are being killed and Pakistan, Yemen and possibly other nations are becoming increasingly volatile.
But let’s say the ideal situation occurs and al-Qaeda is gone. In its place is a government program that makes it extremely easy to kill people from anywhere. The reasons for killing these people is solely at the discretion of people in power, without due process. (We have to trust them that the victims deserved to be killed.) This program is in place during Obama’s presidency, but also for future presidencies (perhaps even another Bush). This is scary to me.
Well then you would have:
been able to launch ground assaults, in addition to drones.
been able to surround them from all sides.
have more precise intel. As those areas would be inside Afghanistan, Pakistan is large plus they aren’t acting against them (atleast not nearly enough).
So if borders with Pakistan were secure, Taliban would likely be **mostly **eradicated if not totally.
I hope they knew that before Bush came along.
At some point I think most people would concede the organization or the movement isn’t functional anymore; particularly in the last few years a lot of its leaders have been taken out. Religious terrorism itself probably isn’t going anywhere any time soon. That’s not a military issue, but it does have an intelligence and military component.
That instability is more because of Islamic militants than the drone program.
Yes, that’s a scary possibility, and it’s a reason oversight is important.
Yes, question them. But do not ask for proofs always(take their word sometimes) or be impatient or hopeless wrt results regarding AfPak region, be particular about ethics of war (drones etc). I am not applying these on you, just saying what I’ve been reading elsewhere