That’s a hell of an “if.” I don’t think those borders have been secure at any time in recorded history. And I think you said earlier that the Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan. I’m not aware of that being the case. They lost control of almost all of the country, yes, but it sounded like you were saying they were driven into Pakistan. I don’t think that’s true.
The difference is that the attacks happen when the host nation is unwilling or unable to provide due process. If they could do it, it would of course be preferable. This is making the best of a truly horrible situation.
Bottom line is - Pakistan is responsible for providing safe-heavens to taliban for their operations in Afghanistan and without which, Afghanistan would have been way more peaceful.
It might have been named by Bush, but we have been fighting this stuff for a lot longer. Clinton popped a few missiles during his term. Reagan bombed Libya during his.
Well its good to see that in real life terms so many ordinary, patriotic Americans are worried sick about drone strikes killing terrorists and their support people, rather then jobs, the economy etc. etc in the upcoming election.
Though I’m curious how many ordinary people in ordinary, everyday conversation start talking about drone strikes in Afghan/Pakistan before they even bother to discuss topics much closer to home ?
Is it a lot ?
Or maybe not so many ?
Or perhaps those without their own agenda…
Virtually none ?
And are so worried about this that they’d prefer American servicemen to put their lives at risk, doing the same job; but at a very much higher price in American lives, with all of the associated grief from those servicemen/womens families.
And also someone mentioned people getting killed without due process.
Its a war actually.
WW2 would still be going on now if we had to charge every individual German and Japanese soldier with an offence before we killed them.
These threads hearten me.
We must be doing it right, must be hurting them, when these sorts of political manipulation campaigns start coming up in droves, apparently "spontaneously ".
And we continue to disrupt them until they cease to be a threat.
“It’s taking longer than we thought.”
Americans have the uncanny ability to worry about multiple things at the same time. And we’re more worried about the “killing innocent people” thing than the “killing terrorists” thing.
It’s a problem without any good solutions. Nobody wants to risk American lives if it’s not necessary.
I’m not sure what you’re implying: that people who question the ethics of a drone war are organized terrorist-sympathizers?
War is a terrible situation that should be ended as soon as possible (when the threat is over). This war began in 2001 against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It has subsequently spread to Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The additions being made to the kill-list/disposition-matrix forecast that the war will continue for a decade or more. This tells me that 1) the drones, et al. aren’t doing a very good job of stopping al-Qaeda/terrorists, and 2) that there is no intention of ending this war (due to mission creep and to the institutionalization of the drone program).
The more we learn about the nature of the enemy, the more people we identify as targets. As has been noted above, conventional bombing would kill more people (including innocents) than drone attacks do, invasion is not feasible politically or logistically, and the targets have embedded themselves in nations or regions where lawful arrest is not a viable option.
Unless you can posit a situation wherein it would be feasible to negotiate a lasting peace treaty with al-Qaeda, drone assassinations will (unfortunately) continue to be necessary to winning this conflict.
We have quite a few issues here, many of which are new:
- The CIA’s recent transformation from a surveillance organization into an essentially unaccountable military organization.
- The existence of a continually updated kill list.
- The rather unaccountable process by which that kill list is maintained and controlled. There is not a real process for this, it’s basically executive decisions.
- The increasing prevalence of targeting killings, including their legitimate use, legality, moral implications, etc.
- The inadequacy of the “war on terror” as a concept justifying any of these warfare tactics
- The spread of surveillance and targeted killing into Yemen, Somalia and beyond.
- The secrecy behind our new infrastructure of mini-bases and drones, which are going beyond the areas we associate with the war on terror. We have a major operation in Ouagadougou, of all places. Does this make sense? Is this a good thing?
- The actual realities of the whole thing. Is there potential for this approach to stir up more terrorism and resentment than it prevents? Are there other approaches that would be more likely to end the problem rather than perpetuate it?
- The global questions- is the US the only country with this power? Can other countries keep kill lists and do targeted killings? How do we tell the difference between a good use and a bad use of these things? When we were at war with Iraq, would it have been okay for Saddam Hussain to do targeted killings of pentagon officials?
I’m sure there are a lot more, but if we are going to address these issues, we need to go beyond thinking about this as just being about drones, and more as being a redefinition of warfare and American power.
Honestly, I believe we are running a grave risk of perpetuating the problem. When you have a unipolar world, everyone who isn’t doing well for whatever reason is going to try to play the underdog position of resistance against the super power, and that’s as old as time. We are teaching people that the absolute best way to give us the finger is radical Islam. Sure, a few of your guys may get picked off, but that’s a small price to pay for the political power that “resistance agains the hegemony” can buy you. So as we teach organizations that the best way to become a world class, internationally powerful organization is to associate with Al Qaeda, we are also providing them with ample propaganda by giving them a nice steady stream of understandably unpopular actions. Pictures of bombed babies and destroyed markets, no matter who or where you are, are a great way to recruit people to your side.
Let’s look at the “Islamicists” in northern Mali. These guys have been there forever, and before they decided they were “Al Qaeda”, they were just run of the mill gangsters with no particular notoriety outside of their territory and no real ambition buy to keep up their illegal activities. One of the main leaders was recently well known for his world-class drinking skills and his attractive eye candy. But they found a moment, with the coup, to capitalize on the whole radical Islam thing, which immediately made them a legitimate and feared organization in everyone’s eyes, rather than a band of gangsters. They immediately started destroying world heritage sites in Timbuktu. Do you think that any of these ex-gangsters was motivated by an actual belief that these monuments were the devil? Of course not. But they saw the world’s reaction to the Buddhas being pulled down, and they learned pretty quickly that it’s a great way to get some attention and legitimacy. It’s an easy way to become world class. Now there are foreign radical Islam fighters pouring in, and in the meantime we’ve got drones over them.
What are we teaching would-be warlords in Nigeria? In Niger? Heck, in Guinea? What’s the best way to get on the front page?
Maybe if Pakistan hadn’t provided safe-heavens to Taliban in their country, the war would have been mostly over by now.
Logically thinking, there is no benefit for the US to be keeping the war going in Afpak, but they are doing so since it is necessary for a peaceful, progressive and democratic Afghanistan. Because the US has noble motives for Afghanistan.
The US and India are also building roads, power grids, dams, parliament in Afghanistan. Training their civil servants, diplomats and police, given them stuff they need, investing in Afghanistan’s future by buying mining contracts etc.
He certainly would have been welcome to believe it was “okay” for him to do so.
Whether he was actually capable of doing so, whether we would allow it, and how we would respond to it, is an entirely different matter.
“Okay” isn’t really a moral standard that factors into matters of war.
If drones really are the only viable strategy for combating terrorism, and if we assume that their use will become standard in global warfare, then we should be trying very hard to set an outstanding precedent for their use (by future American presidents and by current and future foreign leaders).
As even sven has helpfully pointed out, this is not the case so far. We have a new paramilitary organization (the CIA) fighting a large portion of the war, which has very little of the transparency of the military. We have a self-replenishing source of drone attack targets. These targets may be (and have been) high-level terrorist leaders, mid-level, foot soldiers, innocent adult males labeled as “militants”, civilians, and American citizens killed without due process – but we don’t know for sure. There seems to be very little accountability when it comes to verifying that the people we kill are actually bad guys, as well as when mistakes are made and collateral damage occurs. If drones and counter-terrorism are the future, our government needs to restrict the war to the military, and quit being so callously disingenuous with their information and intentions.
Right, and I agree that economic and humanitarian efforts are essential to stopping terrorism. As even sven also pointed out, the larger issue is how to prevent radicalization (or re-radicalization) of various regions. In the Post article at the beginning of this thread, someone close to the drone program likened the drone war to “mowing the lawn” – if we don’t do it, the terrorists will grow, but it doesn’t stop growth itself. Drones and more violence are not long-term strategies, but that’s exactly what our government is planning for decades to come.
From what I’ve read, Taliban are already hated by Afghans. According to 2012 UN mid year report for Afghanistan:
Most of these deaths(80-90%) are caused by the Taliban. Also, Taliban would not allow democracy if they are to have their way.