Driven mad by the murder of his friends and countrymen, our Cpmmander in Chief hjas lashed out at the perpetrator of the atroity.
Unfortunately, just like when El Nortenos mistakenly shoot up the house across the street from the one where the Sureno gangbangers are holed up, lots of people got snuffed who had nothing whatever to do with the person for whom retribution was intended.
The general tone that I detect thus far in the media (I am prepared to be corrected) is that Zawahiri is such a “high-value” target, that if we were trying for him, any mistake is just the cost of doing business, and the fact that we more or less crossed a pretty big line by cnducting a bumbing on a village of an ally is not made much of a big deal.
Shouldn’t it be? All our previous “collateral damage” was inflicted.in territory nominally part of the “no front line” front line.
This is awful. What is the defense for this mistake? Is anyone here willing to give up one of their loved ones to die in a mistake that ostensibly is part of an extremely distant “greater good” that serves other people?
If I understand the OP correctly (which is not an easy thing to do), then I do agree. Surely there is a better way to get this guy than bombing a village we think he happens to be in. Can’t we send in some Delta guys or Rangers and extract him? Of course, that doesn’t mean there won’t also be collateral damage, but that tactic would at least have a chance of there being none. A bomb pretty much guarantees there will be lots of civilian deaths.
The other thread is a misguided attempt to equate the bombing with terrorism. As poorly written as this OP is, it does seem to be addressing the subject differently.
I agree. Bombs should never be used in areas where there are innocents, full stop. Aren’t your Delta and similar guys supposed to be the best in the business? I know the SAS have that reputation. I’d very much like to see them live up to it.
In general, these assasination via missile attempts seem to be chronically unsuccessful. Clinton did the same thing with Osama and Milisovec, Bush I and II tried to get Saddam during both Gulf Wars by bombing places we thought he was, in each case, no dice.
In the cases of trying to get Saddam and Milisovec, they were in enemy countries during wartime, so it at least failure wasn’t as problematic as in this case. Pakistan is an ally, and has been more or less co-operative in the war on terror. Failure in this case not only failed to kill our target, but I doubt Pakistan is going to be as helpful in the future.
The problem with using Special Ops is that it’s awkward if it screws up (as is no doubt possible with even the best militaries) and one or more of our guys ends up captive/killed while operating in a country we are allies with. A failed missle attack seems fairly innocuous to the public, while a failed secial ops mission (as in Somolia or during the Iran hostage situation) is a national embarassement. As a result the quick, easy and chronically unsuccessful missile attack based on spotty intelligence continues to be the method of choice.
Ah…so THATS what the OP was trying to say! :smack: Thanks for the translation. I’m not sure if I agree or not as I don’t know all the information they were working from. Sometimes its certainly best to send in SF teams…though these days our SF teams generally are used mainly to guide in the bombs by direct observation (and its actually possible there WAS a team there I suppose).
I’m not sure if we could send in such a team to extract (or even assassinate) a target like this so deep in such an area. Also, though bombing of course isn’t the best thing I imagine that actually putting boots on the ground in Pakastan MIGHT be seen in an even dimmer light (especially if it failed and if civilians were caught in the cross fire). Invasion or at least infringement on Pakastani soveriegn territory.
Basically this is one of those things that if it works the US and the Prez looks good and if it fails we (and he) have egg on our face…deservedly so IMHO. This SHOULD come down on the Prez for fucking it up, even though in reality the ‘failure’ was at a much lower level. There just isn’t any clean way to do what we are trying to do…except perhaps to not try and do anything at all I suppose.
I would what would happen if Pakistan were to find that a Hindu terrorist who had been plaguing them for some years and had killed many Pakistanis was allegedly holed up in a suburb of Seattle, and arranged to have the house blown up, killing eighteen innocent Americans.
You can bet there would be demands for a major investigation, and that all the gung-ho fighting keyboardists would turn right back into Waco devotees.
That’s the double standard. Americans, including self-appointed “was-realists” would NEVER put up with this sort of tactic used when American civilians were the potential collateral damagees. It’s only when the damagees are poor, unconnected to power, and foriegn that it becomes a matter of shrugging it off, uncaring.
Well the US doesn’t go around blowing up houses in Berlin either. I suppose the reason they do in Pakistan is that those areas around the Pakistan Afghan border are not really under central Pakistani control. And that the American military activity in those areas are done with the acceptance, even help, of the Pakistani state. So yes, if Seattle was not under control, Washington had given Pakistan its blessing to blow up houses in Seattle, and the CIA had given the Pakistani military information and help in location the areas of Seattle to bomb - then the two would be comparable.
Your wish to put a particular spin on it must go on your own bill, I was merely pointing out that comparing Seattle to the border regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan was invalid for a number of reasons. And while Pakistan may officially deny they are allowing the US to operate within those territories, I think it’s a fair assumption to say that they’re allowing just the same - as long as things don’t blow up.
And in fact, given that the Al Quaeda leadership is hiding away in those regions, and the Pakistani government is not itself able to mount a serious hunt for him, due to the lawlessness of the ares, then the US has every right itself to try to hunt down a sworn and deadly enemy. It’s unfortunate that innocents should be harmed. But I don’t think anyone is claiming the US did so on purpose.
Rune, who is saying that? Apart from the OP, no one’s said the US is deliberatly trying to kill innocents. What’s being debated is “acceptable losses”. To what extent do you think we can still claim “acceptable losses” when a more surgical strike could have been used instead of bombing?
That may or may not be true, but in this case stuff did blow up. As a result I doubt we will find the Pakistani gov’t as co-operative in the past.
The OP’s article suggests that their has been and is a serious hunt by the Pakistani gov’t for militants in it’s border regions, especially those like Zawahiri who have attempted to kill the present Pakistani President. While these hunts haven’t been successful, I don’t think that’s any reason to doubt their seriousness, after all the US failed to capture Zawahiri and Osama when they were in a country (Afganistan) where the US military was present and actively after them.
What makes you think a more surgical strike could have been used - that had a reasonable chance of success? Even in hindsight I find that doubtful. I think perhaps many people exaggerate what even the US military is capable of. And I’m sure the military command is much better attuned to the possible risks of a blowback if they harm civilians than any of us, and has weighted very carefully the possible gains and risks in making the attack. Now it seems they may have chosen wrong. But that doesn’t mean what they did was necessarily wrong with the given information they had when the decision was made.