• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
Boo Radley said:
I don't think that is what is being debated.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, this is precisely what people have come in here to argue. We've had fools claiming that special forces raids are the end-all-be-all way to fix collateral damage concerns ; as though invading other countries, landing armed forces there, shooting up the place, and then extracting them didn't come with it's own host of problems (to include collateral damage).

Drone Strikes do save lives, they do allow us to engage in the enemy in ways that minimize friendly and civilian casualties, and they are effective at not allowing the enemy to continue to launch attacks from a position of safety.

Which, again, is why even Barack Obama has expanded their mission.
 
Boo Radley said:
I cited earlier, with the person I was talking to, exactly what I was speaking to.

Yes, we could have been quieter, and I said how:

1. Don't invade countries.

2. Don't declare war on small groups.
Click to expand...

oh, that's all? Well gosh, let's just un-declare war on Al-Qaeda, and then we can happily assume that non-state networks will never again declare war on us :roll:

3. Don't bomb from a distance and make noise by killing civilians.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer we bomb up close and kill civilians silently?

Civilians have died in every war fought since the beginning of mankind. It's part of the conflict. If you encourage the enemy to use human shields, well, this enemy will, and the result will be more dead civilians, not less. Similarly, aerial bombardent has been part of warfare since the early 20th Century. What is unique about our capabilities now is our ability to reduce civilian casualties, not the degree to which we produce more of them.
 
I believe drones are okay but a lot more most be done to avoid civilian casualties on foreign soil
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary, this is precisely what people have come in here to argue. We've had fools claiming that special forces raids are the end-all-be-all way to fix collateral damage concerns ; as though invading other countries, landing armed forces there, shooting up the place, and then extracting them didn't come with it's own host of problems (to include collateral damage).

Drone Strikes do save lives, they do allow us to engage in the enemy in ways that minimize friendly and civilian casualties, and they are effective at not allowing the enemy to continue to launch attacks from a position of safety.

Which, again, is why even Barack Obama has expanded their mission.
Click to expand...

No, while I don't speak for everyone, what Sherman noted is not what we're debating. Obama like his bush before him is mistaken. We do not need to bomb civilian populations in a country we are not at war with to save lives. In the long run, we are likely costing more lives than saving them.
 
cpwill said:
oh, that's all? Well gosh, let's just un-declare war on Al-Qaeda, and then we can happily assume that non-state networks will never again declare war on us :roll:
Click to expand...

Should have never declared it in the first place. It was an idiot move. Elevated their status and added to their rolls far more than any other action would have done.


Would you prefer we bomb up close and kill civilians silently?

Civilians have died in every war fought since the beginning of mankind. It's part of the conflict. If you encourage the enemy to use human shields, well, this enemy will, and the result will be more dead civilians, not less. Similarly, aerial bombardent has been part of warfare since the early 20th Century. What is unique about our capabilities now is our ability to reduce civilian casualties, not the degree to which we produce more of them.
Click to expand...

Being silly doesn't promote the discourse CP.

We're not at war with any country. there is no government to surrender, no number you can bomb that ends this. It is a mistaken ideology that keeps us on the wrong path. That is why you are misguided on the nature of this discussion. You see it in the context of a war, in a way that only works when one country is at war with another. This plan will fail in the end. terrorism is no more weakened today than it was in 2003. They just have us closer and easier to mess with.
 
This discussion is, when you break it down to basics, whether government sanctioned assassination is morally correct or not.

Assassination is a cowards way out. It has been considered abhorrent since the dawn of time in most societies. As the most advanced culture in history (theoretically) ... We should be above that.

For our Government to be so adamantly opposed to torture but fully embracing assassination, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
 
Boo Radley said:
Should have never declared it in the first place. It was an idiot move. Elevated their status and added to their rolls far more than any other action would have done.
Click to expand...

:doh whether or not we officially declare war on anyone is immaterial to whether or not they declare war on us, Boo. And having the President announce that we were going to crush Al-Qaeda and like networks immediately after 9/11 was indeed the right decision to make. I realize now you wish you could twinkle your nose and make it all go away, but reality has an unfortunate way of not letting you do that.

Being silly doesn't promote the discourse CP.
Click to expand...

foolish descriptions receive foolish replies.

We're not at war with any country. there is no government to surrender, no number you can bomb that ends this. It is a mistaken ideology that keeps us on the wrong path. That is why you are misguided on the nature of this discussion. You see it in the context of a war, in a way that only works when one country is at war with another. This plan will fail in the end. terrorism is no more weakened today than it was in 2003. They just have us closer and easier to mess with.
Click to expand...

1. "terrorism", as you kept reminding me, is a tactic, not a network. Al-Qaeda trunk organization is not stronger now than they were in 2003.

2. war requires the mutual consent of both parties to end. It doesn't end when one side either get's bored or decides that maybe the whole thing is just pointless.

3. the history of human warfare is not contained solely within the relatively small number of conflicts between Westphalian nation-states. If anything the United States has fought more counter-insurgency counter-network wars than it has anti-state operations. You don't even have a philosophy of war that would allow you to critique the so-called "mistaken ideology" of this one. You just know that war against a nation state would be "easier" because our military has a greater relative advantage in linear symmetric kinetic engagements (though I don't think you would have the organic ability to describe it that way). That is why you blather on in bland statements but try to change the subject when challenged on the specifics.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, while I don't speak for everyone, what Sherman noted is not what we're debating. Obama like his bush before him is mistaken. We do not need to bomb civilian populations in a country we are not at war with to save lives
Click to expand...

That is correct, and if anyone was doing that, I would stand 100% in opposition to them. Bombing active members of enemy networks who are taking refuge in other countries in order to avoid targeting, however, is a good idea and does save lives.

In the long run, we are likely costing more lives than saving them.
Click to expand...

:shrug: that is not a judgement that you are qualified to make.
 
Boo Radley said:
We're not at war with any country. there is no government to surrender, no number you can bomb that ends this. It is a mistaken ideology that keeps us on the wrong path. That is why you are misguided on the nature of this discussion. You see it in the context of a war, in a way that only works when one country is at war with another. This plan will fail in the end. terrorism is no more weakened today than it was in 2003. They just have us closer and easier to mess with.
Click to expand...

It's true we are not at war with a country, but we most definitely are at war with individual groups. Groups, being composed of humans, must reside somewhere. Ultimately that means they must reside in one or more countries. These groups make war upon the citizens and the interests of the US through the use of violence, but what you are saying (whether intended or not) is that we may not retaliate against these groups with violence because we have not declared war upon a country. Your approach denies the US any right whatsoever to attack those who attack the US. We will not declare war against Pakistan because we have no reason to declare war on Pakistan; we only fight specific groups hiding in that country. The alternative you are apparently proposing is to dumbly decide our hands are tied without a declaration of war and wait until terrorists are strong enough to return to America. Perhaps they are as clever as you would like the US to be, and they will kill 3000 more Americans, "quietly" at least. We'll all feel better about that, I'm sure. Seems to me, this plan is far more likely to fail than anything involving drones.
 
cpwill said:
:doh whether or not we officially declare war on anyone is immaterial to whether or not they declare war on us, Boo. And having the President announce that we were going to crush Al-Qaeda and like networks immediately after 9/11 was indeed the right decision to make. I realize now you wish you could twinkle your nose and make it all go away, but reality has an unfortunate way of not letting you do that.



foolish descriptions receive foolish replies.



1. "terrorism", as you kept reminding me, is a tactic, not a network. Al-Qaeda trunk organization is not stronger now than they were in 2003.

2. war requires the mutual consent of both parties to end. It doesn't end when one side either get's bored or decides that maybe the whole thing is just pointless.

3. the history of human warfare is not contained solely within the relatively small number of conflicts between Westphalian nation-states. If anything the United States has fought more counter-insurgency counter-network wars than it has anti-state operations. You don't even have a philosophy of war that would allow you to critique the so-called "mistaken ideology" of this one. You just know that war against a nation state would be "easier" because our military has a greater relative advantage in linear symmetric kinetic engagements (though I don't think you would have the organic ability to describe it that way). That is why you blather on in bland statements but try to change the subject when challenged on the specifics.
Click to expand...

Actually it is cp. When an insect declares war on you, you don't treat it like it is king of the jungle. You swat it like an insect. When it treat the insect like lord of the jungle, you elevate it. And when you treat insect terrorist groups like they warrant he same respect as a nation, you elevate their status. They're insects, treat them accordingly.

Al Qeada doesn't have to be stronger. The people practicing that tactic are in no less supply. Nor is there any one who can surrender, another point that highlights the seeing it as a war foolishness, nor are we talking about much that has anything to do with warfare. We have a relatively small group making us pay heavily for small gains, counting on us to keep fighting foolishly.
 
cpwill said:
That is correct, and if anyone was doing that, I would stand 100% in opposition to them. Bombing active members of enemy networks who are taking refuge in other countries in order to avoid targeting, however, is a good idea and does save lives.



:shrug: that is not a judgement that you are qualified to make.
Click to expand...

We are not at war with those countries. You cannot say otherwise. Enemy networks is akin to newspeak for military personnel. Such phraseology doesn't change that we are not at war with those countries, and there are civilians where we have bombed.

As for judgements, thinking people can make them, can add, assess, measure. So, I quite disagree with your suggest that only a few can tell us what's best.
 
EagleAye said:
It's true we are not at war with a country, but we most definitely are at war with individual groups. Groups, being composed of humans, must reside somewhere. Ultimately that means they must reside in one or more countries. These groups make war upon the citizens and the interests of the US through the use of violence, but what you are saying (whether intended or not) is that we may not retaliate against these groups with violence because we have not declared war upon a country. Your approach denies the US any right whatsoever to attack those who attack the US. We will not declare war against Pakistan because we have no reason to declare war on Pakistan; we only fight specific groups hiding in that country. The alternative you are apparently proposing is to dumbly decide our hands are tied without a declaration of war and wait until terrorists are strong enough to return to America. Perhaps they are as clever as you would like the US to be, and they will kill 3000 more Americans, "quietly" at least. We'll all feel better about that, I'm sure. Seems to me, this plan is far more likely to fail than anything involving drones.
Click to expand...

That stretches the definition of war. We do that all too often. War on crime, poverty, and now largely a tactic, regardless of the names of the groups who use it. Such terminology is mistaken. Care to count how many soldiers have died? We've topped three thousand. So, from their eyes, their still doing that. And it is easier over there than here.

But all of that misses the point. What do something less effective that kills civilians, likely creating more enemies, than doing something more effective and efficient?
 
Boo Radley said:
We are not at war with those countries. You cannot say otherwise
Click to expand...

No one has ever claimed we are at war with Pakistan. You are arguing against a strawman.

Enemy networks is akin to newspeak for military personnel.
Click to expand...

Not really. A network is anything along which information, personnel, or material flows. For example, an enemy command and control system made up of throwaway cell phones is a network for passing information. So enemy combatants can be part of a network, but they are not "the network".

Such phraseology doesn't change that we are not at war with those countries,
Click to expand...

which is why we are not attacking them. If we were attacking Pakistan, then the first thing we would do would be to go after its' strategic High Payoff Targets, such as its' critical IADS and C4I nodes. You will notice we are not doing that, which means that you raising this point either A) demonstrates your ignorance or B) demonstrates your willingness to deliberately employ strawmen in order to cover an inability to respond.

and there are civilians where we have bombed.
Click to expand...

Yup. The enemy does indeed employ human shields in the locale of his operations, in contravention to the laws of armed conflict. Which, according to those laws of armed conflict, makes him responsible for their deaths.

As for judgements, thinking people can make them, can add, assess, measure.
Click to expand...

Yes. Once they have been trained and provided the tools and the information necessary to do so; none of which you have.
 
Boo Radley said:
That stretches the definition of war. We do that all too often. War on crime, poverty, and now largely a tactic, regardless of the names of the groups who use it. Such terminology is mistaken. Care to count how many soldiers have died? We've topped three thousand. So, from their eyes, their still doing that. And it is easier over there than here.
Click to expand...

This does not stretch the definition of war in the least. It is Westphalian Nation-State warfare that is relatively new to human history, not this kind of constant low-level conflict. Heck, this kind of conflict is the historical norm.

But all of that misses the point. What do something less effective that kills civilians, likely creating more enemies, than doing something more effective and efficient?
Click to expand...

Your assumptions in this line of questioning are neither demonstrated nor warranted. Mitigated hellfires' are able to produce extremely tight Effects Radii (not that you likely even know what that means), and the UAV's that carry them (which, it is worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, you apparently did not even realize were a tiny minority of total UAV's in use) are generally able to provide support to each step of the targeting cycle, meaning that it is possible to conduct CDE calls in air. The whole "oh we're blowing up masses of civilians and creating more enemies" meme is typically uninformed by actual current operations. Just like you.
 
cpwill said:
No one has ever claimed we are at war with Pakistan. You are arguing against a strawman.



Not really. A network is anything along which information, personnel, or material flows. For example, an enemy command and control system made up of throwaway cell phones is a network for passing information. So enemy combatants can be part of a network, but they are not "the network".



which is why we are not attacking them. If we were attacking Pakistan, then the first thing we would do would be to go after its' strategic High Payoff Targets, such as its' critical IADS and C4I nodes. You will notice we are not doing that, which means that you raising this point either A) demonstrates your ignorance or B) demonstrates your willingness to deliberately employ strawmen in order to cover an inability to respond.



Yup. The enemy does indeed employ human shields in the locale of his operations, in contravention to the laws of armed conflict. Which, according to those laws of armed conflict, makes him responsible for their deaths.



Yes. Once they have been trained and provided the tools and the information necessary to do so; none of which you have.
Click to expand...

Tiresome CP, no one claimed you said we were. I'm making a proper distinction. You can't justify those bombings as war as we are not at war with Pakistan. Calling them enemies don't make this war.

And I understand the military speak, but using it here is akin to new speaking, clouding the reality in a jargon that really doesn't apply.

Also, the human shield descriptor doesn't alter the fact that civilian areas are being bombed in a country we are not at war with. This fact is inescapable.

And, no, you can't over criticism by saying someone can't know everything. Sorry. But provide information and rebuttal,or concede.
 
cpwill said:
This does not stretch the definition of war in the least. It is Westphalian Nation-State warfare that is relatively new to human history, not this kind of constant low-level conflict. Heck, this kind of conflict is the historical norm.



Your assumptions in this line of questioning are neither demonstrated nor warranted. Mitigated hellfires' are able to produce extremely tight Effects Radii (not that you likely even know what that means), and the UAV's that carry them (which, it is worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, you apparently did not even realize were a tiny minority of total UAV's in use) are generally able to provide support to each step of the targeting cycle, meaning that it is possible to conduct CDE calls in air. The whole "oh we're blowing up masses of civilians and creating more enemies" meme is typically uninformed by actual current operations. Just like you.
Click to expand...


Hyperbole and misdirection doesn't help your position. Despite the facts if you can:

1. We bomb areas populated by civilians.
2. Civilians have been killed.
3. There is not much evidence of terrorism receding at all, dispute killing the number three man six hundred and ninety times (my hyperbolic for comic relief).
 
Boo Radley said:
That stretches the definition of war. We do that all too often. War on crime, poverty, and now largely a tactic, regardless of the names of the groups who use it. Such terminology is mistaken. Care to count how many soldiers have died? We've topped three thousand. So, from their eyes, their still doing that. And it is easier over there than here.
Click to expand...

Asymmetrical warfare has that effect. It's the intent, in fact. One of the primary goals of warfare is to force your opponent into an untenable situation where he cannot operate or maneuver or use his forces in the manner that is most effective. What you've been suggesting is to simply give up and concede all of Afghanistan to murderous thugs--who have repeatedly demonstrated an interest in murdering masses of people under their control--because even one person might die in the process of stopping them. And don't you think it's better to lose 3000 who were trained and expected battle over ten years, rather than 3000 civilians unaware that they were targeted for attack in a few hours? If the Taliban et al are tied up and busy in Afghanistan, they have to stay there. Wouldn't you say that's better than the Taliban et al shooting fourteen-year old girls in Times Square?

Boo Radley said:
But all of that misses the point. What do something less effective that kills civilians, likely creating more enemies, than doing something more effective and efficient?
Click to expand...

You're comparing the British actions in Ireland where the antagonists were from the same region, a closely-related ethnicity, a very closely related language, and a closely related religion, where British police forces were already in place, and claiming that in Afghanistan where none of these similarities are present and honestly believing that identical tactics will be, "more effective and efficient." Ridiculous! On top of it, US "police" forces CANNOT operate in Pakistan and yet you're expecting police practices to make the difference. I'm sorry, this may be a happy fantasy, but it's a hail mary pass at the very best. As pointed out earlier by Sherman, the US has tried working closely with tribal elders in Afghanistan at establishing positive and constructive relationships with them. But the very barriers to this working effectively, are the very barriers that were not present between the British and Irish.
 
EagleAye said:
Asymmetrical warfare has that effect. It's the intent, in fact. One of the primary goals of warfare is to force your opponent into an untenable situation where he cannot operate or maneuver or use his forces in the manner that is most effective. What you've been suggesting is to simply give up and concede all of Afghanistan to murderous thugs--who have repeatedly demonstrated an interest in murdering masses of people under their control--because even one person might die ipn the process of stopping them. And don't you think it's better to lose 3000 who were trained and expected battle over ten years, rather than 3000 civilians unaware that they were targeted for attack in a few hours? If the Taliban et al are tied up and busy in Afghanistan, they have to stay there. Wouldn't you say that's better than the Taliban et al shooting fourteen-year old girls in Times Square?



You're comparing the British actions in Ireland where the antagonists were from the same region, a closely-related ethnicity, a very closely related language, and a closely related religion, where British police forces were already in place, and claiming that in Afghanistan where none of these similarities are present and honestly believing that identical tactics will be, "more effective and efficient." Ridiculous! On top of it, US "police" forces CANNOT operate in Pakistan and yet you're expecting police practices to make the difference. I'm sorry, this may be a happy fantasy, but it's a hail mary pass at the very best. As pointed out earlier by Sherman, the US has tried working closely with tribal elders in Afghanistan at establishing positive and constructive relationships with them. But the very barriers to this working effectively, are the very barriers that were not present between the British and Irish.
Click to expand...

That may be the intent, but playing into their hands isn't helpful. They are small and mobile. Armies mostly large and clumsy. A blunt force where something more precise and surgical is needed. Small groups are not nations and to treat them as such is folly.

And frankly, no where have I remotely suggested that we give up. The sound bite is so engrained in some they never really listen to what is being said. I want us to cut ally combat the problem, effectively, that one day it may actually end and not be endless like the situation in Palestine.

And while there are some differences between the situations, the British method could work, with perhaps some minor adjustments. The rationale is sound. Instead of repeatedly making the enemy more appealing than us.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hyperbole and misdirection doesn't help your position. Despite the facts if you can:
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say dispute, but I have never disputed the first two pieces of evidence

1. We bomb areas populated by civilians.
2. Civilians have been killed.
Click to expand...

Yup. That makes this just like every other conflict (war, declared, or otherwise) that we have waged in which we have utilized aerial platforms since those platforms came online nigh on a hundred years ago. The major difference that has been produced over time is that we have dramatically increased our ability to minimize civilian casualties, meaning that we are now successfully fighting war in a more morally acceptable manner than we ever have before.

3. There is not much evidence of terrorism receding at all
Click to expand...

We aren't targeting "terrorism". We are targeting leadership of enemy networks, and those networks have absolutely been degraded by those successful attacks.

dispute killing the number three man six hundred and ninety times (my hyperbolic for comic relief).
Click to expand...

I think there you meant despite. However, ponder that for a second, boo. Take, for example, every member of your faculty in the English Department, and every one of your students, and then rank them in order of ability. Now, if we were to remove the 3rd highest person on that list, the former 4th highest person would become third, correct? Now, if we were to do this (say) 100 times, what would the effect be on the aggregate ability of your department to conduct academia? My bet would be, it would be fairly severely degraded, as by then you are reaching down into your sophomore students to serve as professors and so forth.
 
cpwill said:
I think you meant to say dispute, but I have never disputed the first two pieces of evidence



Yup. That makes this just like every other conflict (war, declared, or otherwise) that we have waged in which we have utilized aerial platforms since those platforms came online nigh on a hundred years ago. The major difference that has been produced over time is that we have dramatically increased our ability to minimize civilian casualties, meaning that we are now successfully fighting war in a more morally acceptable manner than we ever have before.



We aren't targeting "terrorism". We are targeting leadership of enemy networks, and those networks have absolutely been degraded by those successful attacks.



I think there you meant despite. However, ponder that for a second, boo. Take, for example, every member of your faculty in the English Department, and every one of your students, and then rank them in order of ability. Now, if we were to remove the 3rd highest person on that list, the former 4th highest person would become third, correct? Now, if we were to do this (say) 100 times, what would the effect be on the aggregate ability of your department to conduct academia? My bet would be, it would be fairly severely degraded, as by then you are reaching down into your sophomore students to serve as professors and so forth.
Click to expand...

Again, were not at war with the country those civilians live it. You can't justify that as every other war. It just doesn't wash.

And yes, we've killed that number three man many, many times. Odd how he keeps being replaced. And with no noticeable drop in ability. It's a mistake to think you can limit this tactic in this way, especially with all he training they're getting. Seems I recall a report that those we trained in Iraq will be killing us for a long, long time.

However, the point is, there is no real evidence this tactic is working.
 
Boo Radley said:
That may be the intent, but playing into their hands isn't helpful. They are small and mobile. Armies mostly large and clumsy. A blunt force where something more precise and surgical is needed. Small groups are not nations and to treat them as such is folly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember a few years ago when you were arguing that drones and special forces were all we really needed. :roll: Allow me to suggest some self-education for you, since you evidently do not know what you are talking about.

Not that you will. I've offered you the relevant doctrinal and theoretical background for years and you have demonstrated yourself utterly unwilling to actually input new information if that information might challenge your preconceived notions on how to conduct the long war.

And frankly, no where have I remotely suggested that we give up. The sound bite is so engrained in some they never really listen to what is being said. I want us to cut ally combat the problem, effectively, that one day it may actually end and not be endless like the situation in Palestine.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. "cut ally" ? what does that even mean.

And while there are some differences between the situations, the British method could work, with perhaps some minor adjustments. The rationale is sound. Instead of repeatedly making the enemy more appealing than us.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Look, all I really need to put out is this: using the British as the model of how to conduct counterinsurgency is.... well....

well, it would sort of be like suggesting that we adopt the soviet central control mechanisms for food distribution. :) You are picking the worst of the current strategy ranges :lol: Their's is the Rumsfeld Doctrine squared. There is a reason that we always have to send in the Marines to clean up an area after it has been under British Control - because that is when it falls apart and the enemy has complete freedom of movement in the AO. ;) Again, you skyline yourself as someone who has little to no background, experience, or education in that which you are pontificating about.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, I remember a few years ago when you were arguing that drones and special forces were all we really needed. :roll: Allow me to suggest some self-education for you, since you evidently do not know what you are talking about.

Not that you will. I've offered you the relevant doctrinal and theoretical background for years and you have demonstrated yourself utterly unwilling to actually input new information if that information might challenge your preconceived notions on how to conduct the long war.



That doesn't even make sense. "cut ally" ? what does that even mean.



:lol:

Look, all I really need to put out is this: using the British as the model of how to conduct counterinsurgency is.... well....

well, it would sort of be like suggesting that we adopt the soviet central control mechanisms for food distribution. :) You are picking the worst of the current strategy ranges :lol: Their's is the Rumsfeld Doctrine squared. There is a reason that we always have to send in the Marines to clean up an area after it has been under British Control - because that is when it falls apart and the enemy has complete freedom of movement in the AO. ;)
Click to expand...

Your memory is faulty. I did suggest a quick in and out for OBL would have been better than invasion and nation building, a very different clam than you're trying to pass off.

And the book you link has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're at at war with Pakistan, thus no counter insurgency there. You keep dancing around the issue. The issue is our effort against terrorism and not insurgency in any particular country.
 
Boo Radley said:
That may be the intent, but playing into their hands isn't helpful. They are small and mobile. Armies mostly large and clumsy. A blunt force where something more precise and surgical is needed. Small groups are not nations and to treat them as such is folly.
Click to expand...

And this is why Predators are so effective. They are precise and surgical. They can be operated without the large "footprint" of an army disrupting the countryside. Sending in a small special forces team can be equally counter-productive. If their position is revealed, then they are far too few to adequately defend themselves. And should they be forced to, the ensuing firefight would likely kill more civilians than any drone has ever kiled, and the very difficult to replace SF team would be lost as well.

Boo Radley said:
And frankly, no where have I remotely suggested that we give up. The sound bite is so engrained in some they never really listen to what is being said. I want us to cut ally combat the problem, effectively, that one day it may actually end and not be endless like the situation in Palestine.

And while there are some differences between the situations, the British method could work, with perhaps some minor adjustments. The rationale is sound. Instead of repeatedly making the enemy more appealing than us.
Click to expand...

I realize you don't intend to suggest giving up, but that is a logical outcome of what you're suggesting. Take away the drones, and you take away our most precise and effective weapon to date against the Taliban. The action you DO suggest involves police work effectively. If US policemen were permitted to operate in the Pakistani border areas and the policemen were Afghani or Pakistani, then your suggestions might have a hope. Since we cannot have them, I see no chance for it to work.
 
EagleAye said:
And this is why Predators are so effective. They are precise and surgical. They can be operated without the large "footprint" of an army disrupting the countryside. Sending in a small special forces team can be equally counter-productive. If their position is revealed, then they are far too few to adequately defend themselves. And should they be forced to, the ensuing firefight would likely kill more civilians than any drone has ever kiled, and the very difficult to replace SF team would be lost as well.



I realize you don't intend to suggest giving up, but that is a logical outcome of what you're suggesting. Take away the drones, and you take away our most precise and effective weapon to date against the Taliban. The action you DO suggest involves police work effectively. If US policemen were permitted to operate in the Pakistani border areas and the policemen were Afghani or Pakistani, then your suggestions might have a hope. Since we cannot have them, I see no chance for it to work.
Click to expand...


Only in comparison to traditional warfare. Bombing in general is blunt and not surgical in the way I'm speaking of.


Getting small forces in, or bottling up, or drawing out within the proper framework can be more effective with less collateral damage, less recruitment incentive, less media manipulation possibilities, and less cost in both lives and dollars.

And no, giving up is not the logical outcome. Force of will is always required. The fact is we can't invade enough countries, bomb enough villages, kill enough combatants with civilians realistically to ever see an end, or even a reasonable place of peace using the strategy we are following currently. We must change to something more effective.
 
Boo Radley said:
Only in comparison to traditional warfare. Bombing in general is blunt and not surgical in the way I'm speaking of.


Getting small forces in, or bottling up, or drawing out within the proper framework can be more effective with less collateral damage, less recruitment incentive, less media manipulation possibilities, and less cost in both lives and dollars.

And no, giving up is not the logical outcome. Force of will is always required. The fact is we can't invade enough countries, bomb enough villages, kill enough combatants with civilians realistically to ever see an end, or even a reasonable place of peace using the strategy we are following currently. We must change to something more effective.
Click to expand...

There has never been a more effective way to attack the terrorists than drones which have the added advantage of not creating more targets for the groups to attack. Without the sucess in killing Americans, there is less interest in joining. Nothing upped the numbers for alQeada more than the mass invasion of Iraq. They were literally dying to get a chance at a G.I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom