"PAYBACK'S A BITCH" says grief-crazed prez--blows up wrong house, women, kids

Great Debates
21

This is war, as part of war you will never get perfect intelligence, as there is always at least one side who has a interest in not providing you the info you need. You have to weight the probability of a successful attack against other factors, one such is a misdirected attack. Shit happens, war is hell, and hell is somewhere where things are unfair and in general things suck and people, both good and bad (and indifferent) die.

We took another chance with this one, our luck didn’t hold, it is sad that these ‘gangbangers’ are still alive, and also sad that innocent people had to die for these bastards.

Hopefully they will be either captured or killed soon.

22

This is just a guess, but the method of attack was probably determined in part by the amount of time we had to act on this intelligence. The attack apparently took place in the early morning hours after a dinner that Zawahiri was supposed to have attended. Accordingly, it seems likely that the officials had only hours to act on the intelligence, and I’m guessing it would have taken longer than that to actually put a sufficient number of boots on the ground at the location, let alone give those soldiers the intelligence they’d need to succeed at their mission.

I’m not saying this particular method of attack was justified, but I think facts remain unknown that could shed light on the subject. For all we know, the intelligence indicated that there were only militants in the region, thus there wouldn’t have been any civilian casualties.

Based on what we know, I’m with xtisme. It’s certainly possible that this was a screw-up, and if so, responsibility should fall on the President. I just don’t think we know enough to say that this method of attack was de facto incorrect unless we’re also willing to rule out all bomb attacks.

23

Even if the intelligence had been correct it still would have been wrong. You don’t kill ANY innocent people just to score one political trophy. I doubt very many people would be willing to kill their own family members to get this guy, yet so many people seem to think killing other’s people’s children is a completely reasonable choice for what is frankly a pretty symbolic hit.

24

It has some similarities with the Israeli hunt for Hamas leadership in Gaza. Going after the Hamas second in command, or the leader of the military wing, they bombed his location with a one ton bomb. Killing him - but unfortunately also a lot of innocent bystanders. And that had a pretty nasty blowback for the Israelis in the world press. Later the Israeli got hold of the information that there was to be large Hamas meeting, this time with Yasin and a good deal of the Hamas leadership. Taught by their previous bombing, they tried for a more surgical strike, with a 1/2 on bomb. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to penetrate to where the meeting was held, and all got out alive. And many Israelis were killed by terrorists attacks for what could have been prevented had they used a 1 ton bomb.

25

Why? We were able to capture Noriega in his own country. Not that that operation didn’t produce casualties, but of course Noriega had an army, too. Still, what makes you think a Special Ops strike wouldn’t have worked?

No, they may simply use a different calculus than others do. And, they appear to be trigger happy to boot. Catching any one guy isn’t all that important, since there are (probably) thousands of Al Qaeda out there. If we have to kill 20 innocent civilians for every Al Qaeda we get, then we need to reevluate our capabitlities. And in this case, we didn’t even get the guy.

It doesn’t necessarily mean they made the right decision either, so I don’t know where that leaves us.

26

What is your evidence that any terrorist attacks could have been prevented if the Israelis had decided to use a 1 ton bomb?

Would you be willing to kill your own family in order to nail one top al Qaeda official?

27

But at some point we should perhaps question the people and the methods used to do the weighing of the quality of our intelligence vs the downside to a failed attack. This time we killed civilians in an allied country whose cooperation in the WOT is vital using a method of attack which has been chronically unsuccessful and whose nature is almost certain to cause at least some collateral damage even if they’re aimed with perfect intelligence. Shrugging it off with a “shit happens” seems to me to invite further screwups.

28

This argument is lousy for several reasons.

First of all, there is not a different moral calculus for war and then the rest of life. Things don’t become more acceptable because ITS WAR! You still have decisions to make, and human life is still a factor in those decisions. What your argument seems to excuse is extra leeway for sloppiness: that because ITS WAR it’s okay to try crazier longshots that have a higher potential of screwing up and hurting innocents, because you know IT WAR! But even if there are really important life or death situations that make such measures more worth it, it’s still perfectly possible that, within this context, there’s responsible risk and irresponsible risk.

Second of all, no one really takes it seriously. If this war was being waged on our own soil, no one here would accept it. If the U.S. was begrudingly refusing to allow China to track down and kill Falun Gong terrorists on its soil (if FG became more terror oriented) and China carried out a surgical strike that leveled an apartment block in Manhattan, no one in the U.S. would shrug and go “well, you know, that’s war!”

Thirdly, most americans still seem to defend the idea that incinerating entire cities full of civilians is an acceptable in war. Given that, it’s a little hard to take their “ITS WAR” arguments as sensible.

29

We don’t agree on this kind of stuff very often, but I see things pretty much the same way this time. Like I said in my last post, this one guy isn’t worth it-- no matter how high level he is.

Well, I’d suggest that we stop dropping bombs on people until we understand why our intel is so bad. Maybe the quick decision is part of the problem, too. Do you really think it’s that important that we kill this one guy?

How many times can we use the “bad intelligence” excuse? The ramification of killing innocent civilians is just too great. That creates more terrorists than it gets rid of.

I’m willing to rule out all bomb attacks against villages. If this was a terrorist training camp that would be a different matter.

30

And not for nothing but we’re NOT at war.

31

I believe that it’s assumed that Bin Laden is actually something of a (goofy looking) figurehead, and that it is (or was) Zawahiri which was the guy who actually made the decisions and plans. He’s not just your average somebody al-Quaeda related guy. And even if he has lost much of his direct control. Killing him would have been of great propaganda value.

Certainly being an extremist pacifist is a valid position. But it’s just not one you can have a very constructive discussion with and not one I hold. Personally I’m convinced that not acting often kills more than acting does. And if we were to make national decisions on what I’d be willing to subject my family to, lots of things wouldn’t be done. Certainly I’m happy Churchill didn’t make decisions on what he was willing to subject his own family to.

32

Every casualty is “other people’s children.” The other method suggested herein – sending in Special Forces or whomever – would likely have raised the chances of failure and almost certainly resulted in the death of soldiers, who are “other people’s children.” It may also have resulted in greater civilian casualties, as the aQ members were apparently interspersed among the civilians. I’ve seen no indication that there were only 15 aQ members at the dinner, and in fact doubt that Zawahiri would travel with so few bodyguards. In such circumstances, our soldiers would have been fighting a significant enemy force in a situation in which it is very difficult to tell the difference between people to shoot and people to shoot around. So apparently, those defending this attack aren’t the only ones who seem to think that killing other people’s children is a completely reasonable choice.

Again, I can’t say that this method of attack was justified, but I don’t know enough about it to say it wasn’t.

33

I agree, this is already held every 4 years in the US system IIRC. No I don’t say that flippianently (and yes I know I can’t spell that), but war, almost by nature, will involve mistakes, the result of a war is rarely known till years later. Factoring in public reaction would just lead us to defeat on each and every war which we lost one or more troop.

While Clinton didn’t have much luck at getting OBL with a missle attack, BWB seemes to have a fairly good record at it.

I don’t see it as ‘invite’ more as ‘accept’. Most, if not all wars have colaterial damage, including so called ‘just’ wars. It is just a fact of war.

Did you even think about this before you posted it? War is reverting to the ends justify the means, this form of morality is not usually reconized as vaild for other forms of morality.

This statement inclines me to believe that you don’t understand war. Human life is only a indirect factor, as in filling troops, producing goods needed for the war effort, and in the long term sense providing replacements. Again war is hell, and hell sucks - it doesn’t follow what we consider ‘norms’.

Again common sense eludes you, the US and China are NOT allies.

Well besides the fact that ‘Americans’ were the 1st (humans) to perfect incinerating entire cities, I think any country at war would welcome this ability.

So the argument is sound, it is your counters which are lousy (at best).

34

To Americans, maybe. “We killed one of the AQ top guys! Go us!” would certainly make most Americans think it was a good job. However, what we’re dealing with here is “We had the oppurtunity to kill one of the AQ top guys, and we took it! Go us! Uh, 'cept we killed a village full of possible innocents, too. And the guy wasn’t actually there…” is going to make quite a few Americans think bad job - you can see from this thread that many do already. Just imagine what this “propaganda victory” would seem like in the eyes of the families of those innocents - or other innocents, in Pakistan or Iraq or whatever; “America is willing to kill any of us if [qthey can kill an AQ guy!”. Doesn’t seem to me like that’s going to engender any support, domestically OR abroad.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think he’s an extremist pacifist.

On occasion, yes, it can. On other occasions, no. That’s why intelligence on such subjects is vital - and why it’s vital that it must be correct - and in turn, why those who provide wrong information as correct must be punished for this.

Give me an example of one of these things, please.

I’m sure Churchill would be unhappy, but willing, to let a son of his fight in the War. But you’re right - under his command, dreadful things (beyond the excuses of war) were done. The Dresden bombings were wrong. You don’t think people still hate us for that? The Dresden bombings are widely considered a devestating attack that harmed vast amounts of civilians. Some consider it a war crime, to this day. Does history teach you *nothing * about what people will think when their opponents are happy with high “acceptable losses”?

35

Well, if the Pakistani government had given some sort of back room authorization then I have no problem with this at all. We thought a terrorist leader was there, with permission, we attacked. In the process we killed something like nineteen militans (so it wasn’t like this attack was a complete failure, no one seems to be addressing that.) In the process some civilians died. That’s what is called collateral damage, sure, they’re people. But people aren’t innately more valuable than anything else the military blows up, and in fact typically they are less so.

Unless you can propose a way to establish a world without war and without violence, you can’t live without a military and without sometimes having to conduct military operations. And if you’re going to accept that, then you have to accept that there will be accidental deaths and collateral damage.

There’s really no alternatives. Efforts can be made to minimize it, but if you consider any collateral damage unacceptable then that’s an opinion that can’t be developed into any actual guidelines and will be incapable of actually being implemented into any sort of real-world military operation.

Now, on the other hand, if this really was completely unapproved by the Pakistani government then it shouldn’t have happened. Pakistan is a valuable ally and we shouldn’t violate their territory in such a manner. I really have no idea if it was approved or not, it is difficult to say. Publicly the Pakistani leadership could never admit to approving American operations on Pakistani soil, Musharraf is already the target of enough assassinations as it is.

If they did approve it, I don’t blame them for denying it and condeming us, they have to do what they have to do.

As to why one would not send special forces, special forces soldiers could get killed. Imagine the bad press if an entire team of Army Rangers was killed or captured behind enemy lines. Especially in Pakistan, it would make America look bad for being there, it would make America look bad for failing, and it would make the Pakistani government look bad for having independently operating military groups inside its borders.

And of course, obviously, U.S. decisionmakers always weigh American lives as more important than foreign lives, and rightfully so.

36

We are not at war with Afghanistan. We are not at war with al Qaeda. We are not at war with “terrorism.” All of your macho sabre-rattling about what war is (besides being self-justifying twaddle in its own right) is totally invalidated by the fact that we are not at war. The “War on Terror” is no more a real war than the war on drugs. Don’t mistake political sloganeering for literal fact.

37

If the only way we’re allowed to revalute our methods of fighting terrorism (or anything else) is through presidential election, we’re in trouble.

It’s not so much US public reaction as it is the reaction of the Pakistani gov’t and the reaction of the people who become terrorists because they see the US futily lobbing missiles at villagers. In a war that is much more about peoples hearts and minds then it is about obtaining military objectives, and one that takes place in other peoples countries rather then on a battlefront, the reactions of foreign gov’ts and people is crucial. Ignoring these will lead us to a fate like that of Israel, trading attack for attack with terrorists for decades.

Don’t know. Seems like every couple months there is a report like this. A “We got 'em” type headline saying some high terrorist was killed in a missile strike, followed by a quite retraction when people on the ground actually take a look at the bodies. I’m not saying it’s never successful, but we’re wrong on these often enough that we need to be a lot more careful before authorizing strikes into foreign villages.

38

Your attitude astounds me. Yes, there will be mistakes in war - but that **does not ** give us the right to just say, “oh, mistakes happen, whoops, but that’s war!”. We have an obligation to reduce those mistakes as much as we can. And what the hell? You don’t factor in public reaction? Hell, public reaction is what’s going to get you terrorists for years to come. People are *hating * Americans right now - do you not think it’s wise to try and avoid making them hate you even more?

At getting OBL?

Again, this does not give you the right to dismiss all collateral damage. Not doing your very best to avoid all collateral damage in a situation is a war crime, simple as that.
Now, there are indeed times when collateral damage is “accepted”. Again, this does not mean “Aha, terrorist here, we must kill him! Bomb the village he’s in!”. It means we must carefully look at the sitation and decide what level of collateral damage is acceptable, taking into account both the certainty of the evidence, and the positive effects of killing that terrorist. “Collateral damage is always a part of war” DOES NOT give you the right to dismiss the issue entirely.

Good lord. I hope very, very much you are not in a position of responsibility, here. War is not reverting to the ends justify the means. Sometimes in war, the ends do justify the means - sometimes, they do not. To utterly dismiss any concept of “the means are important, too” is to be foolish in the extreme.

Human life is an indirect factor? Human life must be considered at all times, including war! Hell, if we don’t care about the troops, let’s just carpet bomb the cities! Let’s send the troops in with machine guns blazing, salting the earth behind them! Human life is always an important factor. You don’t understand this? I’ve never before insulted someone on these boards, and i’ve talked to Clothahump - you’re tempting me to break that run.

They’re not enemies either, to be fair. But I do agree with you on this one; that was a poor analogy.

They would. Doesn’t make it ethical.

And it is your answers which reveal a staggering lack of empathy for those you do not know.

39

Our intel certainly appears to have been bad in this case. And I can’t even say for certain that this was a quick decision. However, I doubt our intel is always bad, even when making quick decisions. In fact, I’d be willing to bet the intel we act on is usually correct, but we don’t hear about “correct intel” stories because they aren’t released to the press and/or don’t sell papers.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of our ability to make decisions based on intel, even when those decisions must be made quickly. We hear a lot about how the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented, but only if you accept that we should have acted on incomplete intelligence and without 100% certainty. Even our justice system – which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt – doesn’t require 100% certainty. If we’re going to act offensively at all, it’s got to be based on intel.

It’s possible that we need to be more cautious about bombing civilian areas than we currently are. But limiting ourselves to situations in which we act only with 100% certainty is essentially a recipe for total inaction. And I’m willing to bet that the folks making these decisions dislike civilian casualties as much as the rest of us. I doubt they are lackadaisical about killing other people’s children. I doubt they make such decisions rashly. I think they probably weigh the factors reasonably before calling for action.

I don’t see “bad intelligence” as an excuse so much as an explanation. Certainly, any civilian casualties is a tragedy. But as long as we’re acting, there will likely be mistakes, and there will therefore be instances in which bad intel is an explanation for our mistakes.

And if the civilians killed were eating dinner with aQ’s number two, they likely weren’t nuetral anyways. So I doubt we’re creating terrorists as much as eliminating their supporters. (I can’t say for certain this is the case. For all I know, the civilians were just walking by the building when the bomb hit. If so, that’s even more tragic. But it seems more likely that this wasn’t the case.)

I don’t think that would be inherently unreasonable, but I disagree with it as a policy. A policy that mandates inaction if there may be civilian casualties is too all-encompassing for my taste, and too likely to lead to more casualties than it saves (in my opinion).

40

Could you please explain how we’re not at war with aQ? As I understand it, war is an open, armed, often prolonged conflict between parties. I’d say that pretty clearly applies to the situation between the US and aQ.