No, I’m saying that they have a government, and if that government for whatever reason, chooses not to protect their citizens, then no small part of their ire should be reserved for that government, not solely for the US government.
Protecting its citizens is one of the primary roles of government, you know.
Pakistan’s government needs to quit straddling the fence, pick a side and either root out and exterminate the Al Qaeda / Taliban extremists, or admit that they have no interest in it, and man up to whatever consequences that has. Sitting back and saying “The eevil Americans are bombing us… but we won’t do anything because we don’t want to piss off the people that the Americans are trying to bomb” is wishy-washy to an extreme.
Same thing goes for the people- they need to make a decision- either they tolerate Islamist extremism and by extension support it, or they don’t. In my eyes there’s not much middle ground, but that’s where they’re trying to position themselves, and they’re getting the worst of both positions.
This post is somewhat naïve…in Waziristan (NW Pakistan), the Pakistan army is regarded as an alien occupier force-as much as US forces in Afghanistan.
Pakistan army chiefs have (wisely) chosen to keep a low profile in Waziristan-their army has neither the strength or the inclination to conduct anti-terrorist operations there.
So we’re hitting areas effectively uncontrolled by Pakistan, lawless terrorist and Islamist-infested areas with drones… what’s the problem? Seems like it’s tailor-made for drone strikes to me.
bold mine, that may have been the initial argument when we went from clubs and spears to bows, or from swords to guns. The result is eventually both sides had them, and there we are.
Of course the targets were symbolic. As said, if they wanted a body count they would have targeted something like sports events with 100,000 attendences. Who was in the buildings was not a consideration.
The entire point was about “collateral”, whether on 9/11 or in drone attacks.
You missed the follow on post where I responded this…or you didn’t understand what I was getting at. More than 150,000 people A DAY used the subway terminal at the WTC, and over 50,000 people worked in the buildings. The WTC towers were selected because they had the potential to have a high body count AND because they were easy to see from the air. BTW, same goes for the Pentagon, though your case about symbolism works a bit better there…but, it’s the same thing. Over 30,000 people work in the Pentagon AND it’s easy to see from the air, and thus fly a plane into. If they were REALLY going for symbolism and not body count then buildings like the Statue of Liberty, the Capital or the White House make more sense.
Or, if they honestly thought the WTC was the symbol, then go for it but during a weekend day (just as easy to see/hit but not as many people working in and around).
And, if symbolism is the motivating factor, why attack the WTC during the morning rush hour, when all traffic, including pedestrian and subway is at a max, and when so many people will have already entered, or be in the process of entering, the buildings? Why not hit them at 8PM or 6 AM? Hmmm, that’s a toughie.
In fact,those who claim that the WTC was chosen mostly for its symbolic value, should also explain why Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, or, again, the Statue of Liberty weren’t the targets. All easy targets, none with the potential for thousands of dead.
And they thought to do it during the morning rush hour.
Hey, I don’t deny that the WTC had huge symbolic value for them, but they had ways to guarantee that casualties would be kept to a minimum yet chose not to do so.
Answer: Dronophobia, The irrational, abnormal and persistent fear of drone strikes
*Dronophobia is a case of specific phobia, the irrational, abnormal and persistent fear of drone strikes. A dronophobe believes that drone strikes causes more harm to a state than suicide bombings or military operations, even if the actual threat posed is significantly less. Sufferers experience excessive anxiety even though they realise that the targets of the strikes can cause and have caused considerably more damage than drones.
When this fear reaches an extreme state the person starts juxtaposing the achievements of young girls fighting for female education or anyone getting global acclaim, with drone strike victims. That and linking unrelated events like terrorists blowing themselves up in places of worship, one sect of a particular religion butchering another sect or religious fundamentalists brainwashing the youth, to drone strikes, are considered to be the typical symptoms of Dronophobia.
This phobia is considered to be independent from the fear of other aerial vehicles. In fact a lot of the dronophobes admire airplanes, especially when they are hijacked or crashed into tall buildings in the name of God.*
“Dronophobia” could have been a valid answer, but not the way Hank Beecher uses it. When you go around traumatising Pakistani children by blowing up civilians with your killer robots, and then you send other killer robots to loiter around their neighbourhoods for a day at a time, that is going to cause them to live in fear, yes?
Just to remind ourselves of the context; these are ariel-based attacks in a country allied to the US based on the premise the civilian targets may be assisting in resisting the US occupation of a third country.
I haven’t quite got to this chapter yet in ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’.
Uhuh…and the reason they were selected as a target instead of something that would be more symbolic is because of the potentially huge body count if they could knock the buildings down quickly and not have many people escape.
I intended to post this in GQ because what I was mostly looking for is an accurate representation of the anti-UAV argument. Obviously it was going to become a debate, but I was hoping that would come after a factual answer. In hindsight, I think I was hoping for too much, especially as those in opposition to UAV strikes seem to have a variety of motives.
Thank you all for your responses. So far, though, I’m not that impressed with either side of the debate. The pro-UAV arguments have seemed at times callous to me, and the anti- side is still often failing to even present a full argument as far as I can tell.
What makes UAV strikes worse than the alternatives? Is there evidence to support the answer given? What should replace them, if anything? If nothing, is the whole “war on terror” wrong and why the focus on UAVs?
[QUOTE=Bozuit]
If nothing, is the whole “war on terror” wrong and why the focus on UAVs?
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s human nature for people to focus on things that they don’t understand and that scare them…and most people (obviously) have a hard time putting the use of drones into perspective, especially since they get the most press.
Nothing would be my assertion. If we ARE going to be there, the drones probably do the least harm, but ‘least harm’ doesn’t mean no harm, and just by us being there and persecuting this war where ever the terrorists are is going to cause a great deal of harm. The alternatives would be for us to use conventional weapons such as air strikes or cruise missiles, which would also require the insertion of more covert assets (special forces types). This would not only put more American soldiers at risk but potentially cause even more harm.
It sounds callous because any time you have to defend something that causes harm it sounds that way. The people who are caught in the crossfire don’t care that you are doing the least harm because to them their world ended or was shattered by the loss of loved ones. Defending that using things like probability and actual hard figures on numbers killed always sounds callous, like defending nuclear energy by pointing out that so few die from it. To those who DO die, however, that’s a cold comfort.
I’m uncertain about the whole issue. On one hand, I absolutely think that collateral damage seems to be too great to justify our continuing strikes. On the other hand, isn’t this the best of a myriad of bad options? We can’t send troops in, we can’t just let it go, we have to do something and the only thing I can think of is striking but making more of an effort to reduce casualties. Then again, sometimes I think that some of the news might be exaggerated for effect, who knows if that was a real wedding party? Who’s checking the facts?