When you couple that with the "Pakistan" problem, shit escalates fast. There's no excusing what we're doing right now.
Frankly, I think we should tell Pakistan to get its shit together or we'll effectively declare war on them like we did on Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I know that it's not politically convenient to do so for various reasons.
The drone program is in the most literal sense both different and new.
True, if you get extremely literal. However, what's the effective difference between a high-altitude bombing run against a nation with no effective air defenses and a drone attack? Or even a pre-programmed, autonomous cruise missile attack? Both of these technologies have been around for decades.
The only difference is that drones are cheaper to deploy and present less risk of a meaningful loss of US assets.
When you couple that with the "Pakistan" problem, shit escalates fast. There's no excusing what we're doing right now.
Frankly, I think we should tell Pakistan to get its shit together or we'll effectively declare war on them like we did on Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I know that it's not politically convenient to do so for various reasons.
We should have declared war in the first place instead of this passive-aggressive, weasely shit we're doing now. The American moral high ground is long gone, and it's largely due to shit like this.
We should have declared war in the first place instead of this passive-aggressive, weasely shit we're doing now. The American moral high ground is long gone, and it's largely due to shit like this.
This stuff goes back to Korea in the 50's. It's nothing new. The reasoning supposedly is that an all-out declaration of war would imply all sorts of other nastiness such as authorizing the draft and the use of nukes. Basically, when you formally declare war, you're saying you're putting all your options on the table no matter how insane. At this point, it would take something of a World War level in order to commit to a declaration of war. This half-assed psuedo-war allows us to keep our kid gloves on while still exercising some military force.
Well, that may all be true but it doesn't improve our image, which makes our international position increasingly more difficult, so we do more shit like this... cycle's gotta break. Maybe we need some serious thought and legislation aimed at what war actually comprises by US standards.
...not that I want to tackle that issue with THIS Congress. Fuck.
Well, that may all be true but it doesn't improve our image, which makes our international position increasingly more difficult, so we do more shit like this... cycle's gotta break. Maybe we need some serious thought and legislation aimed at what war actually comprises by US standards.
War Powers Act. It's been on the books since 1973, although most Presidents have considered the law unconstitutional. It has yet to be challenged in the courts, however.
...not that I want to tackle that issue with THIS Congress. Fuck.
Actually, this Congress will give you precisely what you want, since they seem to operate under the impression that anything Obama wants is inherently bad, even if they'd be fine with it if it was a GOP President's idea.
The drone program is in the most literal sense both different and new.
True, if you get extremely literal. However, what's the effective difference between a high-altitude bombing run against a nation with no effective air defenses and a drone attack? Or even a pre-programmed, autonomous cruise missile attack? Both of these technologies have been around for decades.
The effective difference is that a large part of drone activity is a series of CIA assassinations, not military strikes. There are no trials or declaration of war. Under pure suspicion of terrorism, the CIA sends in flying machines that shoots laser guided anti-tank rockets to take out individual targets (and everyone around them). These are assassinations with an incredibly high collateral damage ratio (something like 10 to 1 I believe?)
The effective difference is that a large part of drone activity is a series of CIA assassinations, not military strikes. There are no trials or declaration of war. Under pure suspicion of terrorism, the CIA sends in flying machines that shoots laser guided anti-tank rockets to take out individual targets (and everyone around them). These are assassinations with an incredibly high collateral damage ratio (something like 10 to 1 I believe?)
The United States has not declared war on anyone since Pearl Harbor. By your reasoning, every bombing/missile run we've done since the Korean War is equivalent to the drone strikes.
The line between these drone strikes as a CIA assassination and a military strike is very thin, especially since these are done against entities we are currently at war with. Again, by that measure, what if the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) had attempted to assassinate Hitler by ordering B-17 bombing runs against his mountain villa when he was believed to be staying there? Is that inherently wrong?
Also, where are your figures for collateral damage coming from? Even if they are as high as you claim, they're still much, much smaller than the collateral damage done by previous methods of attack. I mean, just look at how much collateral damage it took in order to blow up a single weapons factory in WW2.
In any case, the question should not be "is there precedent for this horrendously scary bullshit we're pulling?" it should be "Should we be pulling this horrendously scary bullshit?"
The only difference is that drones are cheaper to deploy and present less risk of a meaningful loss of US assets.
This difference is absolutely massive and completely changes the concept of war.
Umm, how so? As I said, what's the effective difference between a drone and a high-altitude bombing run or an autonomous cruise missile, both of which have been used for decades.
In any case, the question should not be "is there precedent for this horrendously scary bullshit we're pulling?" it should be "Should we be pulling this horrendously scary bullshit?"
And the answer is no.
But if the precedent has been justified and considered acceptable under the laws of war in the past, then why shouldn't it still be considered justified and acceptable?
Again, the only issue is the whole "should we be doing this in Pakistan, a country where we're technically not at war with in any form." If the strikes were solely being done in Afghanistan, for example, then there would be no issue.
I'm against forms of deadly warfare that are difficult or impossible to trace. We may not be able to stop terrorist organizations from employing this sort of shit in the future, but we sure as fuck should not be legitimizing it by blessing it as a tool of superpowers.
If we're going to go in and kill a lot of people, including civilians, then we should be willing to sacrifice our soldiers for it. The opportunity cost for drone strikes is way too low and makes it way too easy to choose that option. This is not a good thing.
The United States has not declared war on anyone since Pearl Harbor. By your reasoning, every bombing/missile run we've done since the Korean War is equivalent to the drone strikes.
The line between these drone strikes as a CIA assassination and a military strike is very thin, especially since these are done against entities we are currently at war with. Again, by that measure, what if the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) had attempted to assassinate Hitler by ordering B-17 bombing runs against his mountain villa when he was believed to be staying there? Is that inherently wrong?
Also, where are your figures for collateral damage coming from? Even if they are as high as you claim, they're still much, much smaller than the collateral damage done by previous methods of attack. I mean, just look at how much collateral damage it took in order to blow up a single weapons factory in WW2.
Yeah, it's not equivalent to the drone strikes, as they're different in other ways, but I just personally think you shouldn't be bombing other countries without declaring war. I guess there's probably a lot of stuff about formally declaring war that is both a) difficult and b) creates a much larger conflict than is probably intended. But I feel like strong militaristic action should not be performed even remotely casually.
If they attacked a military installation during a state of declared war hoping to kill a high profile target, I think that's not necessarily wrong depending on the reasons for being at war and whatnot. Hitler also did an amazing amount of well documented extremely bad things. There is a giganticly thick line between that and using rocket to kill people who are suspected of plotting against the US/our allies, and who will not be conveniently placed away from foreign civilians.
The collateral damage number I was referring to is from the Brookings Institute.
I'm against forms of deadly warfare that are difficult or impossible to trace. We may not be able to stop terrorist organizations from employing this sort of shit in the future, but we sure as fuck should not be legitimizing it by blessing it as a tool of superpowers.
If we're going to go in and kill a lot of people, including civilians, then we should be willing to sacrifice our soldiers for it. The opportunity cost for drone strikes is way too low and makes it way too easy to choose that option. This is not a good thing.
By that same measure, we shouldn't be using high-altitude bombing against countries lacking effective air defenses. We also shouldn't be using autonomous cruise missiles either.
Also, I find you notion of "impossible to trace" lacking substance. Even a missile launched by a drone will leave behind shrapnel that can be traced back to the original user by a skilled enough analysis.
Difficult or near impossible is bad enough. If you've got guys on the ground, you're exposing yourself way more than if you're sending in an Air Hog with a stick of dynamite duct taped to it.
And to me, Lou, it seems like we're bombing the fuck out of primarily people who have a dearth of military/forensic experts lying around. Not that we're hiding our activities right now, but should we choose to, it would be no problem.
We're also setting ourselves up to become the international scapegoats for any and all telepresence attacks that take place in the future, at least as far as the Middle East/non-allies are concerned.
Yeah, it's not equivalent to the drone strikes, as they're different in other ways, but I just personally think you shouldn't be bombing other countries without declaring war. I guess there's probably a lot of stuff about formally declaring war that is both a) difficult and b) creates a much larger conflict than is probably intended. But I feel like strong militaristic action should not be performed even remotely casually.
Can you please cite the ways in which you feel cruise missiles or high-altitude bombing are different than drone strikes, other than the manner of control?
For what it's worth, I agree with you that militaristic action should not be performed casually... but once it has been legitimately justified, then you are allowed to attack your enemy using any manner that will minimize your own casualties so long as they don't violate the laws of war (i.e., don't use chemical weapons, don't use weapons that intentionally maim but don't kill, etc.). In my opinion, Afghanistan was justified. Pakistan in the Tribal Areas near the Afghan border is definitely much more dubious.
If they attacked a military installation during a state of declared war hoping to kill a high profile target, I think that's not necessarily wrong depending on the reasons for being at war and whatnot. Hitler also did an amazing amount of well documented extremely bad things. There is a giganticly thick line between that and using rocket to kill people who are suspected of plotting against the US/our allies, and who will not be conveniently placed away from foreign civilians.
The collateral damage number I was referring to is from the Brookings Institute.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban also have done an amazing amount of well documented amazingly bad things. Perhaps they aren't quite on the level of Hitler, but they're still pretty bad. Let's turn back the clock a bit and replace Hitler with the German Kaiser from WW1. He was less obviously "bad" than Hitler, but still a legitimate military target as the leader of his country's armed forces.
Going back to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, one of bad things they've done is purposely hiding among civilians, which is a violation of the laws of war. Unfortunately, this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Personally, I think drones, out of all the options we presently have, probably are the best method to minimize collateral damage while still taking out the targets.
OK, the Brookings Institute is a respectable agency, so I'll go along with your figures and assume they were directly from there or at least acquired via an organization that is honest with their reporting.
And to me, Lou, it seems like we're bombing the fuck out of primarily people who have a dearth of military/forensic experts lying around. Not that we're hiding our activities right now, but should we choose to, it would be no problem.
I dunno, the Pakistan ISI is pretty damned sharp. Don't underestimate them.
We're also setting ourselves up to become the international scapegoats for any and all telepresence attacks that take place in the future, at least as far as the Middle East/non-allies are concerned.
We'd be the scapegoats for any of our non-allies. We have been for years. Nothing new here.
... then we should be willing to sacrifice our soldiers for it.
Speaking on behalf of the friends and families of those soldiers: Go frack yourself.
We should most defiantly consider the implications of our actions, and we shouldn't be willing to use force if we don't have too. When we have committed ourselves to using force then we should use the method that gets the best results while costing us the least. We sure as shit don't need to get our boys and girls killed to make you feel better because "Waaaaaah! I don't like drones!"
The real problem lies in the fact that often, Americans at large don't care about innocent non-Americans who get killed. I think we need to work on that, but not by punishing our troops.
... then we should be willing to sacrifice our soldiers for it.
Speaking on behalf of the friends and families of those soldiers: Go frack yourself.
We should most defiantly consider the implications of our actions, and we shouldn't be willing to use force if we don't have too. When we have committed ourselves to using force then we should use the method that gets the best results while costing us the least. We sure as shit don't need to get our boys and girls killed to make you feel better because "Waaaaaah! I don't like drones!"
The real problem lies in the fact that often, Americans at large don't care about innocent non-Americans who get killed. I think we need to work on that, but not by punishing our troops.
Speaking as a human being, if you're going to rationalize bombing the shit out of a bunch of people including women and children, then you should not be doing it from safely in your ivory tower, sorry, but that's shit.
Like Andrew said, war is supposed to be bad for everyone. That's the primary deterrent against war.
What have we gained in the last 10 years of perpetual war? Fucking nothing except a bunch of PR spin, a few dead soldiers, and a few hundred thousand broken families on both sides. Woo! 'MURRICA!
And to me, Lou, it seems like we're bombing the fuck out of primarily people who have a dearth of military/forensic experts lying around. Not that we're hiding our activities right now, but should we choose to, it would be no problem.
I dunno, the Pakistan ISI is pretty damned sharp. Don't underestimate them.
We're also setting ourselves up to become the international scapegoats for any and all telepresence attacks that take place in the future, at least as far as the Middle East/non-allies are concerned.
We'd be the scapegoats for any of our non-allies. We have been for years. Nothing new here.
Except that we're giving them mountains of credibility that they have never had before.
Speaking as a human being, if you're going to rationalize bombing the shit out of a bunch of people including women and children, then you should not be doing it from safely in your ivory tower, sorry, but that's shit.
Except that the person doing the bombing from safety isn't the one deciding that the bombing should take place.
Like Andrew said, war is supposed to be bad for everyone. That's the primary deterrent against war.
Moot argument. What, do we ban drones and automated warfare? No one else will ever make or use weapons like these?
War gets easier and easier for stable industrialized nations, primarily because they don't (and likely won't) ever wage war against eachother anymore.
Let's talk about the intervention in Serbia. Was that justified? Or was it "bad" like the drone strikes are bad? What's the specific difference between these two conflicts?
So your argument is that it's OK to use morally unsound weapons because other people will anyway?
Shit in that case let's get started on the mustard gas.
Except that the person doing the bombing from safety isn't the one deciding that the bombing should take place.
The people on the front lines in Vietnam weren't calling the shots, either, but damned if they weren't a powerful force in not only ending that war but making the nation (very appropriately) much more gun shy about ill advised aggression for at least a couple of decades.
Sorry, muppet, but that is not the argument I was making.
It's ridiculous to think that it's somehow more ethical to put soldiers in harms way because it's "fair and honorable".
Furthermore, the idea of peaceful peirods punctuated by large spikes of Corps level engagements is dead. The future will consist of continuous low levels of conflict over proxy states by the global powers.
Let's be realistic here. Over the past 12 years of conflict in Afghanistan, it's produced about 14k in Civilian deaths plus another 15k or so for ISAF and probably at least double that in insurgent casualties. The Battle of Stalingrad saw between 25,000 to 40,000 civilian deaths by the hands of the Luftwaffe in a given week.
Perspective is fine and it's great that wars are no longer meat grinders on the scale they have been historically.
Pardon me if that doesn't help me sleep much better while my country conducts torture and a mode of warfare that would be called "terrorism" if employed by anyone else but ourselves.
Sorry, Churbs, but that is not the argument I was making.
That's fine, but I didn't say anything. I haven't posted in this thread since last September. And it's been even longer since I've replied to anything you've said in this thread, barring this, naturally. I think you're looking for Muppet, not me. Nice that you're thinking of me, though.
Comments
...not that I want to tackle that issue with THIS Congress. Fuck.
The line between these drone strikes as a CIA assassination and a military strike is very thin, especially since these are done against entities we are currently at war with. Again, by that measure, what if the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) had attempted to assassinate Hitler by ordering B-17 bombing runs against his mountain villa when he was believed to be staying there? Is that inherently wrong?
Also, where are your figures for collateral damage coming from? Even if they are as high as you claim, they're still much, much smaller than the collateral damage done by previous methods of attack. I mean, just look at how much collateral damage it took in order to blow up a single weapons factory in WW2.
And the answer is no.
Again, the only issue is the whole "should we be doing this in Pakistan, a country where we're technically not at war with in any form." If the strikes were solely being done in Afghanistan, for example, then there would be no issue.
If we're going to go in and kill a lot of people, including civilians, then we should be willing to sacrifice our soldiers for it. The opportunity cost for drone strikes is way too low and makes it way too easy to choose that option. This is not a good thing.
If they attacked a military installation during a state of declared war hoping to kill a high profile target, I think that's not necessarily wrong depending on the reasons for being at war and whatnot. Hitler also did an amazing amount of well documented extremely bad things. There is a giganticly thick line between that and using rocket to kill people who are suspected of plotting against the US/our allies, and who will not be conveniently placed away from foreign civilians.
The collateral damage number I was referring to is from the Brookings Institute.
Also, I find you notion of "impossible to trace" lacking substance. Even a missile launched by a drone will leave behind shrapnel that can be traced back to the original user by a skilled enough analysis.
And to me, Lou, it seems like we're bombing the fuck out of primarily people who have a dearth of military/forensic experts lying around. Not that we're hiding our activities right now, but should we choose to, it would be no problem.
We're also setting ourselves up to become the international scapegoats for any and all telepresence attacks that take place in the future, at least as far as the Middle East/non-allies are concerned.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that militaristic action should not be performed casually... but once it has been legitimately justified, then you are allowed to attack your enemy using any manner that will minimize your own casualties so long as they don't violate the laws of war (i.e., don't use chemical weapons, don't use weapons that intentionally maim but don't kill, etc.). In my opinion, Afghanistan was justified. Pakistan in the Tribal Areas near the Afghan border is definitely much more dubious. Al Qaeda and the Taliban also have done an amazing amount of well documented amazingly bad things. Perhaps they aren't quite on the level of Hitler, but they're still pretty bad. Let's turn back the clock a bit and replace Hitler with the German Kaiser from WW1. He was less obviously "bad" than Hitler, but still a legitimate military target as the leader of his country's armed forces.
Going back to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, one of bad things they've done is purposely hiding among civilians, which is a violation of the laws of war. Unfortunately, this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Personally, I think drones, out of all the options we presently have, probably are the best method to minimize collateral damage while still taking out the targets.
OK, the Brookings Institute is a respectable agency, so I'll go along with your figures and assume they were directly from there or at least acquired via an organization that is honest with their reporting.
We should most defiantly consider the implications of our actions, and we shouldn't be willing to use force if we don't have too. When we have committed ourselves to using force then we should use the method that gets the best results while costing us the least. We sure as shit don't need to get our boys and girls killed to make you feel better because "Waaaaaah! I don't like drones!"
The real problem lies in the fact that often, Americans at large don't care about innocent non-Americans who get killed. I think we need to work on that, but not by punishing our troops.
Like Andrew said, war is supposed to be bad for everyone. That's the primary deterrent against war.
What have we gained in the last 10 years of perpetual war? Fucking nothing except a bunch of PR spin, a few dead soldiers, and a few hundred thousand broken families on both sides. Woo! 'MURRICA!
War gets easier and easier for stable industrialized nations, primarily because they don't (and likely won't) ever wage war against eachother anymore.
Let's talk about the intervention in Serbia. Was that justified? Or was it "bad" like the drone strikes are bad? What's the specific difference between these two conflicts?
Shit in that case let's get started on the mustard gas. The people on the front lines in Vietnam weren't calling the shots, either, but damned if they weren't a powerful force in not only ending that war but making the nation (very appropriately) much more gun shy about ill advised aggression for at least a couple of decades.
It's ridiculous to think that it's somehow more ethical to put soldiers in harms way because it's "fair and honorable".
Furthermore, the idea of peaceful peirods punctuated by large spikes of Corps level engagements is dead. The future will consist of continuous low levels of conflict over proxy states by the global powers.
Let's be realistic here. Over the past 12 years of conflict in Afghanistan, it's produced about 14k in Civilian deaths plus another 15k or so for ISAF and probably at least double that in insurgent casualties. The Battle of Stalingrad saw between 25,000 to 40,000 civilian deaths by the hands of the Luftwaffe in a given week.
Have some fucking perspective here.
Pardon me if that doesn't help me sleep much better while my country conducts torture and a mode of warfare that would be called "terrorism" if employed by anyone else but ourselves.