Clinton should understand that it is not her business..
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK
"And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."
Enemies of the U.S. exist, the Jihad is indeed very real, yet they have become clever enough to not align themselves with any particular nation (directly), and many seem fine with this "arrangement". Take the 9/11 attack as an example, it was carried out using personnel from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, yet the U.S. response was to invade Afghanistan (the location of one of its tiny 'training camps'), stay for over a decade, and likely remain there indefinitely, just as we have in Europe, and Asia after WWII and the Korean "war". The 9/11 attacks resulted in millions of 'moderate' Islamic supporters cheering in the streets in virtually all "Islamic" nations.
To assert that drone strikes, or any other U.S. action caused the Jihad (or 9/11 attacks), or continue to fuel it is foolish. The "cause" of the Jihad is the competition of ANY western (non-muslim) ideals being introduced into ANY nation of Islamic majority, including our support of Israel in 'the region'. Use of intel, special ops and drones is a very effective way to fight a "war on terror" without the need for nearly as many "civilian" casualties as the Afghanistan style "mock invasions" cause, and for far less costs, politcally or militarily.
The U.S. essentially has three choices to approach the "war on terror": 1) ignore it, as you seem to propose, and hope that it simply goes away 2) Acknowledge it as a true Jihad, a universal holy war with all of Islam, and conquer and occupy any and all nations that show support for (supply arms, money, personnel or cheer for it) any of this madness 3) use intel, special ops, drones and support trusted local opposition forces that assist us and eleiminate the leadership (as we choose to define them) anywhere in the world that we so choose, on a case by case basis.
To assert that the U.S. has no standing to make diplomatic statements, or to express opinions as to the 'rights' of foreign gov'ts to engage in the wholesale slaughter of a villiage that includes any that express dissent for the current dictator in charge is insane.
Last edited by ttwtt78640; 05-27-12 at 08:55 AM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Sure, we have the right to say what we want. I didn't say we didn't. What I said is we won't be taken seriously thanks to our incredibly hypocritical polices. We attack countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and we kill brown people. We illegally intern people with no right to be charged or to an attorney. We torture people and sexually assault brown POWs. We fly drones that kill innocent civilians. Then when another country commits an atrocity on a much smaller scale than what we've done, we point the finger saying, "Look how evil they are." Sure, we have the right to say it, but don't be shocked when people in other countries roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right, America." Our own policies undermine our influence.
The best thing we could do to stop terrorism would be to stop being terrorists ourselves. Look at it this way. Imagine we're not the superpower we are. We're the fledgling agricultural nation that we once were. Instead, Iran is the super power with military bases all over the world and they've supported people who've killed Americans. A small group of Americans who hate Iran crash some planes into a big office building in Iran, killing thousands. It's not an action authorized by the US government. It's just some citizens who hate Iran. Then Iran bombs us, killing thousands of Americans who had nothing to do with the criminal attack. Then they fly drones throughout our country in an attempt to take out American "terrorists," but they end up hitting civilians. A bomb comes down and blows up your daughter, splattering her brains right in front of you. Then an American "terrorist" organization or "freedom fighters" as they prefer to be called claims that Iran is evil and should be destroyed. Iran claims it's just fighting back. Who are you gonna believe?
Clearly, U.S. enemies won't respect the nuances of international law nor will they recognize such nuances when conducting their propaganda campaign against the U.S. They'll continue to paint with as broad a brush as possible. They'll engage in moral equivocation.
To date, the U.S. still lacks a robust public relations strategy for dealing with such matters. I also believe the U.S. diplomatic apparatus is underemphasized. Although it is unrealistic to expect that every U.S. Administration will be able to call upon Secretaries of State of a caliber of a Dean Acheson or Henry Kissinger, I believe there is more that the U.S. can and should do to strengthen its diplomacy.
At the same time, the U.S. military, like any other military force, should do what it can to minimize civilian casualties. That's not necessarily an easy task, especially when enemy combatants mask themselves as civilians (illegal under international law) or operate in close proximity to civilians (this de facto "human shielding" is also illegal under international law).
IMO, the historic experience should play a much larger role in planning. In other words, one should take data from past operations and compare actual civilian casualties with expected civilian casualties. That data should then be used to adjust expectations for operations going forward. For example, let's say the ratio is 2.5, meaning that for every expected civilian casualty, there were actually 2.5. Then, let's say a strike on a military target is considered and it is expected by commanders to result in 6 civilian casualties. The expected figure would be adjusted to 15. If 15 is considered excessive relative to the expected military advantage, then the attack should not be carried out.
In Syria the atrocities are done by the Government, on purpose.
In the case of " collateral deaths " these are not done deliberately by american troops.
For the US or Clinton to remain silent is to give the appearance that this bloodshed is condoned or at least tolerated by the US and would be extremely irresponsible and smack of a breach of trust in the international community.
Syrian Carnage Fails to Budge Russia From Mideast Ally - Bloomberg