 |
 |
 January 18, 2006
TARGETING AL-QAEDA....We may not have gotten Zawahiri, but we did get one of al-Qaeda's big fish in the attack on Damadola last week:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists. Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified? —Kevin Drum 8:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (464)Comments
"under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?" When it is not ordered by a Republican, silly. "under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?" When it is ordered by a Republican, silly. Posted by: Joel on January 18, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINKCan you believe these liars? This whole ordeal has been a war of lies! Posted by: NeoDude on January 18, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINKI seriously doubt if all 18 of the "civilians" were really civilians. Some where, and that is regretable, but I would bet most were Al Qaeda supporters. Even if they weren't what is the problem with attacking people who have announced they want to kill us and have engaged in numerous attacks on the west including us? Posted by: Ron Byers on January 18, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINKWe may not have gotten Zawahiri, but we did get one of al-Qaeda's big fish in the attack on Damadola last week That's not what your excerpt says. It says that Pakistani government officials, who have considerable self-interest in saying this (as convincing the Pakistani public that this was not a totally unjustified attack might be key to the survival of their regime), claim to believe that this is the case. But then, the actual facts of the case are pretty much irrelevant to your hypothetical, so lets move on to that. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists. Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? Those assumptions alone do not provide an adequate basis for even a first-blush answer, as they do not establish any basis for a judgement on whether or not alternative means which would not have produced those civilian casualties were available, how much less (if it all) reliable the alternative means would be, and what other additional net costs (if any) would be associated with them. If you are asking if, under any circumstances, a military strike, at an enemy we are at war with, could justify an expected toll of 18 innocent civilian casualties to take out some unspecified group of major leaders, the answer is clearly that it is possible to imagine circumstances where that would be justified. If you are claiming, as you seem to be, that the mere presence of intelligence of such a meeting automatically justifies such an attack regardless of the availability and utility of alternatives, then you are clearly wrong. Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINKI have no problem with killing members of al-Qaeda. But lets consider those 18 innocent bystanders. Let us say for the sake of argument that they are a worthwhile price to pay for getting al-Qaeda's master bomb maker. Now let's reverse the scenario. It does not take a lot of imagination: We already know all too well that al-Qaeda would view these 18 bystanders as a small price to pay if they could also take out a sufficiently high-ranking political or military figure. If anything, they would prefer it be 1800 bystanders. Now imagine you are one of these 18 people, or any 18 people who have been judged as expendable by both sides of a war. Who would you root for? Who would you prefer to be killed by? I don't have an answer, of course. I don't think there is an answer. So maybe it comes down to which side is willing to even ask itself the question... Careful: the Pakistanis as well as the Bush administration have consistently exaggerated the importance of those killed or captured. Can you find any mention of the guy's name before this incident? Also, I don't think that an organization that helped drive the Russians out of Afghanistan has one master bomb maker. If it truly was a collection of their top guys, and the Pakistanis approved under the table (the latter is evidently true), then yes, it could be justified, though the large number of civilian casualties is problematic; seems to me that if everyone knew where they were, surrounding the village with Pakistani troops would have led to more captives and less collateral damage. But maybe the Pakistanis weren't willing to do that. Another way of thinking about it is this: let's suppose that Pakistan was pursuing Hindu terrorists in an isolated part of Alaska. They had several times sent missiles down upon them, with collateral damage. Then, after a new, and larger, missile strike, local Alaskans say nobody from India was around, but a lot of American civilians got fried, including children. Pakistan says, no, there were Hindu terrorists there... Now consider if Pakistan's president has, let's just say, a credibility problem in America. (the real one does, but over different stuff). How would all this go over in Peoria? How would ANY country react to acts which kill its civilians over which it is has very little control? Hell, we wouldn't let even Israel blow up terrorists in America. And Britain wouldn't let us go hunting in the mountain villages of Wales without British supervision and control. Of course, the comparison is difficult, because the Pakistani government barely exerts any control over many regions in its country...but the emotions of the people do not take this into account, I'm sure. Posted by: jd on January 18, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINKAnd for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified? how about when your country wasn't the one responsible for the formation of the terrorist group to begin with? Posted by: Nads on January 18, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINKWould it be justified for the government of say Cambodia to bomb a campus auditorium because Henry Kissinger was there? We have a horrible ability to cheapen the value of other's lives. Henry Kissinger is just an example. What about the family of an innocent person tortured in Iraq by an American GI. Should they be able to firebomb them during church services to get at them? I call bullshit Kevin. We are only having this discussion because we don't give a crap about the lives of foreigners. Posted by: trifecta on January 18, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINKKevin, If you think it is that important to kill those Al Qaeda members, are you willing to be one of the civilians killed? What about your whole family? Posted by: Stuart on January 18, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK"I would bet most were Al Qaeda supporters." Based on what? A message from God? "Even if they weren't what is the problem with attacking people who have announced they want to kill us and have engaged in numerous attacks on the west including us?" Uh, what if they weren't Al Queda supporters AND they never announced they wanted to kill your and never engaged in any attacks on the west? Would it still be OK? Posted by: Joel on January 18, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINKIf we had troops in the area, then we might be able to do a better job of getting bad guys without hurting civilians. That would be preferable. Barring that, it has to depend on the actual importance of the targets. Are these really serious bad guys or low-level grunts? In any case what's preventing us from having troops in the area to do this better is the Pakistani government. Which is due to pressure from the terrorist sympathisizers in the region itself. As witnessed by the apparently false testimony coming out of the area (no bad guys here) and the reported removal of the bodies. In other words, the political leadership in that region of the world, and the local leadership as well, bears some responsibility for this as well. The incredibly credulous blogosphere. Nobody else smells a whiff of cya? C'mon... these guys will propagandize anything with no regard for morality. Killed a bunch of innocents? Cover it up with a sweet sounding redemptive story. It's their primary modus operendi... why are we still falling for it? Can anyone recall the last time they told the truth about something like this? Posted by: Mike Stark on January 18, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINKSo, this makes it 16 numbah threes so far, right? Good job. Posted by: Alopex Lagopus on January 18, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINKmaybe it's just my extreme bullshit detectors which have had alot of practice recently, but i'm smelling a big old disinformation shebang. convenient, no, that the alleged newly vanquished is an egyptian bombmaker extraordinaire. kind of helps diffuse the growing outrage in pakistan; helps the u.s. with the p.r. spin from this weekend's disaster and bonus points for never being able to confirm that was actually the dude. you'll just have to trust idiot son on this one. Posted by: linda on January 18, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINKI had this debate last night and I am sure most people agree with you, that is, unless it is your home that is the target. Basically, the decision breaks teh philosopical principle of the Golden Rule and sets the permanent standard that the end justify the means. Now, it is one thing to quickly react to a situation that leads to collateral damage, but the intentional infliction of innocent human death is simply unacceptable. We better find a different way or we are no worse than terrorists who also kill innocents with similar justification. From a practical point of view we are just contributing to the cycle of violence where survivors take revenge. In fact, in many ways, the current world situation is the child Of MacFarlane's decision to us ethe USS New Jersey to bomb the Druze Hills in 1984. The revenge of the 241 marine who died in a suicide blast lead to the death over a thousand civilians in those hills which lead to creation of many terrorist opeartions in the Bekka Valley which in turn lead to the German disco bomb, which lead to killing Qaddaffi's daughter which lead the Pan Am flight explosion, etc., etc. So count me out in supporting this repugnant approach. Posted by: Raoul on January 18, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINKDropping bombs on a populated area from unmanned drones in an attempt to kill a few specific individuals...how is it any different from a car bomb or other such? Hell, we might as well kill 'em all and let g-d sort 'em out. Posted by: Ed on January 18, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINKIt's their primary modus operendi... why are we still falling for it? The Reasonable, Moderate Liberal™ never learns. That's why they are so valuable to the Right. Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINKWhy do you believe a word they say? What gives you the confidence our government is telling the truth about this incident? Please, you give up too easily on morality when it's weighed against military success. Ron doesn't even care if they are A-Q supporters. This is supposed to be a fight against terrorists, not everybody in their vicinity or everybody they know. I think we do consider the likely damage to "collateral," buildings and infrastructure as well as human lives. I believe the military has some standards on that. Maybe the standards aren't high enough. We are so quick to condemn terrorists because they kill civilians. But we kill more than they do. It's inevitable. That it's not our primary purpose is a pretty thin moral veil. Posted by: m nye on January 18, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKEven if they weren't what is the problem with attacking people who have announced they want to kill us and have engaged in numerous attacks on the west including us? Posted by: Ron Byers on January 18, 2006 at 9:04 PM ok, ronnie, here's one for ya: so when orlando bosch is released from federal custody to some cushy florida compound, is fidel castro within his rights as supreme commando of cuba to bomb said compound. too bad about all those dead cousins, nieces and nephews; but hey, that's the price of justice. Posted by: linda on January 18, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKFirst of all, I see no reason we should believe this. (Note that Pakistan intelligence is only claiming that some al-Qaeda types were in the vicinity; likely that was the basis for the attack in the first place). We must never forget the first rule when dealing with Bushco pronouncements: assume anything they say is a lie unless independent evidence exists to corroborate. It would be in the interest of both Bushco and the Pakistani's to claim that some al-Qaeda were killed so as to reduce outrage among the Pakistani populace. As to Mr. Drum's question I think we should have intelligence indicating that there are NO potential innocents who might be hurt (I'd be willing to put up with "collateral damage" if our information were wrong, but if we suspect that there are innocents around we shouldn't attack). This is the standard in any police situation, and we should be dealing with al-Qaeda as a police problem, not a war! Posted by: Bill Rudman on January 18, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINKEight thousand people march in the streets to denounce the United States? Is it worth it to kill half-a-dozen bad guys if we make thousands of enemies? No. Posted by: Darryl Pearce on January 18, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINKNothing these people say can be taken at face value so any argument which posits their assertions as facts is off the table as far as I'm concerned. Posted by: Oleary25 on January 18, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINKWhy do you believe a word they say? What gives you the confidence our government is telling the truth about this incident? Technically, this is the Pakistani government that is telling who they believe was there. Of course, giving how their officials lives are much more likely to be literally on the line with how this is perceived, they have even more motive to lie. Plus, they have the history of being for al-Qaeda before they were against them to consider. Just remember, Pakistan stopped being an overt Taliban ally and started being our "ally" after 9/11, and hasn't yet stopped being entangled with al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups, though they are formally supporting our efforts against al-Qaeda. Dropping bombs on a populated area from unmanned drones in an attempt to kill a few specific individuals...how is it any different from a car bomb or other such? Its more expensive, and safer for the bomber. Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK...further, we've been bombing the Middle East with impunity for several decades now without much of a "return" (look at the aspirin factory). The fact is... these are soverign nations far, far away and we don't have the ability to be on the ground, or be in the culture on the ground. We're foreign interlopers acting from a distance, chucking big bombs, and making people really mad. Posted by: Darryl Pearce on January 18, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINKFor the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists. For the sake of argument, let's assume Iraqi rebels had pretty good intelligence telling them Don Rumsfeld was going to be in Baghdad meeting at a hotel. And let's also assume that they decide to attack that hotel. Finally, let's assume that in the course of that attack they kill 18 innocent bystanders with no connection to Rumsfeld. Question: under these assumptions, was their attack justified? And for those who answer no: under what circumstances would such an attack by Iraqi rebels against the political leadership of the country which invaded them be justified? Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINKWhat Raoul said. On what possible basis would we believe this report, firt of all. And moreover, the whole notion and the very existence of you question sickens me. What a debased and cowardly country we have become. Christ, even if we DID get the person they are claiming to believe they got, do you honestly think it'll make one fucking iota of difference? If ever there were a case where violence begets violence and with no possible upside, this goddamned 'war' against terrorism exemplifies it. I'm ready to abandon pansy moderates like you, Kevin. Thank god for Al Gore's speech the other day, one of the few rays of light in this darkening left. Do you think he believes the case against the impeachment of W is a 'weak brew'? And your not having the commmon decency, Kevin, to even RESPOND to the many, many good, hard questions put to you in that thread is nothing short of disgusting. It demeans your readers, and you in the process. This post just further taints your image. I'm gonna go throw up. Posted by: Jones on January 18, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINKI personally believe the US killed al-qaeda #3. (again) Posted by: Tigershark on January 18, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINKStefan- it depends what kind of a society you want- if were are no better than them- then what's the point of fighting? Posted by: Raoul on January 18, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINKWell linda, you are right, of course, from the point of view of America Fidel wouldn't be within his rights to bomb Orlando Bosch. From Fidel's point of view he would do it in a New York minute if he thought he could get away with it. I don't like Bush, and I don't trust the administration. On the other hand I do trust the troops in the field to do their best to take out Al Qeada where ever and whenever they can. Posted by: Ron Byers on January 18, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKIf this was done as part of a war on terror by an administration which had conducted operations similar to this from and after the invasion of Afghanistan, then there might be a legitimate basis for debate. Once GWB invaded Iraq and argued that it was part of this war,and made such a mess of it, then reports of an operation such as this are sure to be tinged with more that a little skepticism. Is the strike justified? Absolutely not. There's a higher standard when it comes to bombing targets from the air. If we had intelligence that our target might be in a particular village and that there were civilians there as well, we have an obligation to use non-lethal force (i.e. surround the village and move in to capture the guy). You may say, "Well that would risk casualties on our side." To that I'd say, "If you're not willing to bleed, you have no right to kill." Only if you could kill your target without harming civilians would an airstrike be justified. I have to ask, would you feel the same way if it was your house that was struck? 'Cause your answer makes you sound sociopathic. Posted by: Daniel on January 18, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINKIf this was brought up before forgive me. But Kevin, what in the name of God makes you think any of the information in this story is accurate? Because it came from US intelligence? Pakistani intelligence? Yeah right. Posted by: JMG on January 18, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINKUnless these guys arrived by helicopter they can't leave except on a well-defined route. Once you know where they are, you inform the allied country and you take them on the ground. Gee, you might even capture one. If killing 18 innocents is "justified" by including a legitimate target, what is the cutoff number for innocent deaths that delegitimizes it? 100? 3000? How did you arrive at whatever number you chose? Why do we take so much trouble to protect hostages when we could vaporize a bad guy at the cost of a hostage or two? Posted by: Repack Rider on January 18, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINKI suppose this legitimizes all those palestinian "terrorists" as long as they got some IDF soldiers or other desireable target, regardless of the civilian toll. If this bullshit doesn't fly when the victims are white americans, europeans, or israelis, then it shouldn't when they're brown pakis. and I'm not calling kevin consciously racist ... just guilty of asking a really fucking stupid question. Posted by: Nads on January 18, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKI'm sceptical of our country's concern about civilians. We clearly didn't know how much collateral damage would be suffered or who we were hitting, we were just hoping that our evidence was good enough to cover ourselves. Our experience has been that our intelligence has been unreliable for quite some time, now. It's almost as if we throw bombs somewhere every once in a while in frustration, hoping we can justify our mistake after the fact. Would we bomb the Black Rock in Mecca if the only people around it were al Qaeda leaders? Posted by: freelunch on January 18, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKAn unhealthy percentage of the world's terrorism, mostly against India, is done by groups more or less supported by Pakistan. Posted by: Boronx on January 18, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKAlso, I don't think that an organization that helped drive the Russians out of Afghanistan has one master bomb maker. Actually, Al Qaeda only formed in the 1990s, after the Soviet war, and the Arab military contribution to driving them out (as opposed to the Arab financial contribution) was negligible. However, you're correct that this whole notion of an Al Qaeda "master bomber" is absurd. This isn't SPECTRE, for God's sakes -- Al Qaeda operations have always been distinguished by their operational crudeness and lack of sophistication. All that "master bombmaker" means is that the guy is probably a B.A. in chemistry from some American university. Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINKImplacable enemies are hard to factor into the equation in a world of proliferating nukes. We've never really been here before, have we? Posted by: yesh on January 18, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINKSeriously, not much more needs to be said besides this. Nicely done, cmdicely. Move along, Kevin. You're going to embarrass yourself more if you pursue this any further. Posted by: Bill on January 18, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINKDaniel, Higher standard? What are you talking about? War is not a game. Al Qaeda doesn't treat it as a game. War is murder. If you are willing to sanction war at all you should be aware that it means killing real live human beings. It is ugly. It is brutal. It is wrong. The first rule of war is to win it as soon as you can. The second rule of war is the same as the first. I assume that we had good intelligence that several high ranking Al Qaeda folks were present at the site. Dangerous assumption I know, but one I choose to make in this case. As to surrounding the enemy with troops, half the Pakistani army sympathizes with Al Qaeda. That is why they hide out in Pakistan. Posted by: Ron Byers on January 18, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINKWe are so quick to condemn terrorists because they kill civilians. But we kill more than they do. It's inevitable. That it's not our primary purpose is a pretty thin moral veil. Well said, m nye. The collateral damage rationale for killing innocents has always been the height of immorality, imo, for exactly the reason you say. We justify it by saying these 'unfortunate' deaths are unavoidable in achieving our military goal. The so-called terrorists can claim exactly the same thing. And I say "so-called" terrorists because it is a figment of our distorted, hubristic imagination to believe they are any less moral than we are when we kill innocents en masse with our bombs. If you think I'm wrong, try polling people in the Middle East. I can't remember who said it, but it's true imo: "Terrorism is the war of the weak, and war is the terrorism of the strong." Something like that. Posted by: Jones on January 18, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINKThe level heads have covered the moral flaws out of Mr Reasonable, but let's look at the method: something like a dozen missiles from drones? Why, for all of the early big talk, don't we have special forces operators snatching people off trails? Although it ended poorly, elite forces in Somalia snatched people dozens of times before their trick was foiled. (We all know the plain truth, the moment Rumsfleld pulled imaging satellites off of Afghanistan onto Iraq, we became unserious about al Qaeda). The only safe thinking with this administration is they don't think the targets were worth the use of American soldiers. Pakistani villagers are cheaper. It's the same story as Tora Bora. Real targets are not worth the use of American troops. Oh yeah, these guys support the troops. Up the rear. Darryl Pearce: The tribal area of Pakistan is daunting, but remember, we put Green Berets hundreds of miles into enemy territory in Afghanistan when the Bush administration cared to. Posted by: Pacific John on January 18, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINKRaoul: Stefan- it depends what kind of a society you want- if were are no better than them- then what's the point of fighting? Well, that was exactly my point with the counterfactual. The same behavior we excuse, even laud, when done by us to them would make us scream if done by them to us. Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINKI feel like this thread demonstrates the scariness of some of the left wing. There are opinions here that could never find their way into the policies of any statesman, liberal or conservative. The moral argument for collateral damage in war (including the international struggle against al Qaeda) is pretty reasonable. There are certainly arguments to be made about how much and when, etc., but to see the vehement reactions to even the notion that civilian casualties are ever acceptable, well, it reminds me of how embarassed I was by liberals who opposed the war in Afghanistan. Let's get it together, please, people. Posted by: Jesse on January 18, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINKRon Byers: "The first rule of war is to win it as soon as you can." Riiiiight. That's EXACTLY what this administraton wants to do. Posted by: Pacific John on January 18, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINKListen, Jesse, this whole goddamned war was unjustified, immoral and illegal from day one. Your sermonizing to the left that killing innocents is sometimes "acceptable" has no bearing in this case. Posted by: Jones on January 18, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINKJesse, don't get all strawy on us. I bet 98% of the people you're talking about simply want to avoid unnecessary compromises. Everything is such ham handed BS with this administration, we can only safely assume the operation was botched. Say it with me, "incompetent." Pacific John, I do not believe this administration really wants to win the war on Al-Qaeda? I haven't thought that since Iraq. I haven't thought that since Tora Bora. How the hell long has Bin Laden been hiding out? What makes you think the chickenhawks in this administration want to win this war. The war on Al-Qaeda works to their advantage. Ending it would expose them for the crooks and liars they are. I wonder if this attack had high level authorization. It sounds like something some mid level warriors would do, not the guys at smoky bottom. Posted by: Ron Byers on January 18, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINKAsk the same question about the attack earlier last week that was supposed to nail A-Q leaders and killed nothing but civilians. Was that attack OK because it was good practive for the dubious attack that followed (and which we don't have any real reason to believe yet was any more successful than the first)? Does a momentary victory in a horseshit, failing, underequipped military operation in Pakistan that's supposed to be cleaning up a mess we left festering in Afghanistan three years ago justify killing civilians by the dozens, hundreds or thousands? Out of curiosity, how about if, instead of a measly bombmaker, we had the opportunity to hit the nerve center of the enemy's military operations? But the collateral damage came to 64 civilians in this case... sound worth it? Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 18, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINKThe information was that it was a meeting of high level terrorists planning how to kill Americans and others. The attack was obviously justified. If the "civilians" welcomed the terrorists, then the deaths are their own fault. If the "civilians" were held by the terrorists against their will, then the deaths are the terrorists' fault. The folks here who see moral equivalence between actions by us and actions by the terrorists are so wrong as to suggest they are simply anti-American. Posted by: brian on January 18, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINKIn theory killing 18 innocent people in a remote village of a foreign but bought country to get one or a few top international terrorists could be justifiable, with caveats of the sort listed by cmdicely. No way to know if this is such a case. I put very little weight on Bush administration or Pakistani claims because neither of them are credible to me. It is also important to count all such attacks, not just the sucessful ones when deciding if this is good policy. If we bomb a dozen villages killing 100 bystanders and in one of them we kill a terrorist and 10 people our ratio isnt 1:10 it is 1:100. Posted by: jefff on January 18, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINKOur military is capable of mounting a special ops mission that would allow the suspects to be apprehended (or killed, if necessary) with a reasonable chance for success. It could involve paratroops with close air support. However, in political terms, this administration (which is apparently trying, very unsuccessfully to run the war) is unwilling to take the risk. Some would say this is because they are cowardly bed-wetters who talk tough, but have no true grit. We will encounter an obstacle in such operations that was not a problem before 2003: the world (enemies and friends alike) knows that we detain and torture people without need of any probable cause for suspicion (not that said probable cause would justify the disgusting interrogation and detention practices for which we are now infamous). This means that, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of the 18 people, they will resist capture by us unto their deaths. It also means that if we succeed in taking any alive, any "intelligence" we might try to gather will be worthless. How will our forces know if we have confronted people with prior hostile plans for us, when they are forced to act with hostility upon our confronting them, in any case? How will we at home know if our forces have acted appropriately? How will we know if anyone we detain or kill was our enemy? We are making enemies of the entire world, and bombing houses is not going to help. The harm we are doing certainly outweighs the added risk that would be incurred with a ground operation. The final point is that the hypothetical is moot, because we are trying to play both sides with Pakistan; we don't have their government's permission to conduct operations on their soil (or bomb them from their airspace), the people of Pakistan hate us and don't support anything we are doing, the Pakistani government is trying to be our ally, while appeasing the citizenry. In short, we have a complete mess on our hands, resolving it will take decades in the best case, and trying to armchair quarter-back is a futile exercise. I miss the days of Monica... Posted by: klevenstein on January 18, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINKAnyone who has studied the history of American battle tactics understands that every one of their armed forces is considered expendible. Civilians are included. The tremendous lack of preparations made in the era of nuclear brinksmanship with the thought that such wars would be winnable despite horrendous numbers of deaths. The killing of foreign civilians means nothing in this context. Any preyext of justification such as "there was potentially an enemy in that village" is purely for the PR and not for the reality because they really don't care who was there. Throw enough shit on the wall and some of it sticks. The United States is the largest terrorist organization in the world and the most hated country in the world and yet it's people are the most generous and usually the most loved individually except that they are seen as symbols of an evil government. Posted by: murmeister on January 18, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINKAsk the same question about the attack earlier last week that was supposed to nail A-Q leaders and killed nothing but civilians. Same attack. It was supposed to be al-Zawahiri (al-Qaeda's supposed #2), but it now turns out the story is that, al-Masri was there, but maybe not al-Zawahiri. But its safe to say that US and Pakistani officials will stick to the story that someone, with some connection to al-Qaeda was probably killed, or at least in the area at the time of the attack, even though the precise person may still change again. Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINKBut Kevin, what in the name of God makes you think any of the information in this story is accurate? Because it came from US intelligence? Pakistani intelligence? Yeah right. Well, certainly, there is no intelligence service in the world that knows al-Qaeda the way Pakistani intelligence does. Anyone who has studied the history of American battle tactics understands that every one of their armed forces is considered expendible. Where do you get this shit? Anyone who has studied American battle tactics knows that we have an extremely deep "never leave a man behind" ethos that is often used against us. Posted by: Red State Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINKRepack Rider, I wonder what formula is used to help make decisions about whether to attack. What's the cutoff for expected value of (civilian deaths)/(terrorist deaths), above which an attack is not justified? Do we add a "dangerousness of terrorists" factor? A (cough) "differentness from Americans" factor? With a formula like this people could easily justify destroying an entire village, perhaps even an entire small city. Of course, revealing said secret formula would be a traitorous act, since if the terrorists knew the formula, they could adjust their behavior to avoid being targetted... (joke) These comments seem to be the mirror image of the principled right-leaning opposition to Clinton's bombing in Yugoslavia. We came to the conclusion that the war was justified, and limited our gripping to the focus-group aspects of who decided the calculus that 2,500 civilians killed from 25,000 feet were less valuable than the lives of maybe 3 dozen US ground troops. I said principled opposition -- do not start with the Trent Lott, Tom Delay, etc., etc. quotes. Posted by: neocon on January 18, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINKBut its safe to say that US and Pakistani officials will stick to the story that someone, with some connection to al-Qaeda was probably killed, or at least in the area at the time of the attack, even though the precise person may still change again. If whoever killed was important enough, it'll come bubbling up through the JihadNet at some point. Posted by: Red State Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINKI need to expand on a couple of points: We can thank the Bush Bunglers for the mess we are facing. They have consistently refused to listen to their most expert military advisors (or any experts in any other area, for that matter). "Heck of a job there, Brownie". 'Nuff said on that... How the hell do we know when we are hearing media-pimped propaganda and when we are hearing accurate facts? The Bush administration is by far the most secretive and deceptive in history. This is "justified" because of the terrifying prospect of a terrorist group again causing destruction on American soil. While I abhor that prospect, it pales beside the horror of losing the freedom that America once stood for. We can stand for that freedom again. IMPEACH BUSH Posted by: klevenstein on January 18, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINKLets assume most of us real politickers go along with Kevin on targeted assassination. Then why is he a ' liberal'? That was a perfectly sane and sensible idea to use comnbinatorial auctions in order to predict events such as assassinations. Find out more about it here... http://www.nex.com/innews.htm You Can Bet on Idea Markets Harvard Business School - Working Knowledge [go to article] A New ‘Wind Tunnel’ for Companies Newsweek [go to article] A Good Idea With Bad Press NY Times [go to article] Damn the Slam PAM Plan! MSN Slate [go to article] Multilateral, Multi-Item Trades Possible Through Net Exchange Wall Street & Technology [go to article] Jim Bells ' Assassination Politics'... http://jya.com/ap.htm PAM private was supposed to start up in March of 2004. Why the delay? What that goose Hillary Clinton derided as a ' terrorist casino' could have actually dramatically minimized collateral damage such as we are seeing today. For more on ' War by assassination' sear John Fillis and George Orwells seminal essay...' You and your Atomic Bomb ' Even Erich Maria Remarque speaks of placing those who want war in direct conflict themselves as opposed to mass slaughter. If we truly are ' liberal' in the best emperical and utilaterian tradition we owe it to ourselves to seek alternatives to dangerous unrestrained and absolutist state power. That sort of power mass murdered millions last century and that must never happen again. Give PAM the terminatrix a chance - you know it makes sense. Posted by: professor-rat on January 18, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINKThe moral argument for collateral damage in war (including the international struggle against al Qaeda) is pretty reasonable. There are certainly arguments to be made about how much and when, etc., but to see the vehement reactions to even the notion that civilian casualties are ever acceptable, well, it reminds me of how embarassed I was by liberals who opposed the war in Afghanistan. Let's get it together, please, people. But to some degree that's the same thinking that Al Qaeda uses. Many of the 9/11 hijackers started on their path when they attended the Al Quds mosque in Hamburg, where they heard sentiments like this from the radical preacher Sheikh Fazazi: "Who participates in the war against Islam...is an infidel on war footing, that shall be killed, no matter if it's a man, a woman, or a child" or "The jihad for God's cause is hard for the infidels, because our religion has ordered us to cut their throats and that we kill their heirs is a hard thing...God the merciful has created the hell for the infidels as he created the paradise for the believers, too." So how are these sentiments -- that your enemies are there to be killed, that collateral damage is regrettable but acceptable -- any different from our attempts to rationalize our murder of innocent bystanders? Is it really the case that when they do it it's terrorism, when we do it it's collateral damage? The folks here who see moral equivalence between actions by us and actions by the terrorists are so wrong as to suggest they are simply anti-American. - Brian Why is it so hard for rah-rah patriots (and I don't know your posts well enough, Brian, to know if this description fits you or not, but the above post leads me to think it may be so) to understand the difference between being anti-American and being anti-current-government, or anti-American-foreign-policy? Please explain. Posted by: Jones on January 18, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK
KEVIN DRUM: For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists. Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes Your question makes no sense. You can't justify an attack on assumptions made after the fact. "Pretty good intelligence" (by the way, FEMA had a "pretty good response plan" before Katrina) is the only pre-attack assumption in your list. This is just another way of saying The End Justifies the Means, ("Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job.") which is precisely the mindset of the current administration. Unfortunately, their ends have a habit of not living up to their billing. So they make up happy endings and continue on with their sad means. Meanwhile, you sit there giving them points for good intentions, safely analyzing how many innocents you're willing to sacrifice. Just curious . . You say that killing 18 innocents is "plainly" justified. What number would be less plain for you? And what is the magic number when it would plainly not be justified? 2,986? You're pretty much a terrorist, aren't you, Kevin? BRIAN: The folks here who see moral equivalence between actions by us and actions by the terrorists are so wrong as to suggest they are simply anti-American. Your suggestion is noted. But anti-American what? Anti-American killing? Yes, that's me. Anti-American Imperialism? Me again. Anti-American good will? No, not me. Whenever it's expressed, whenever it's sincerely offered, whenever it's at the top of our values, I'm pro-American.
Alternatively you send in a special forces team. It would be risky to those on the team, and perhaps with less chance of success. If I was a betting man, I'd bet there were special forces there. But in the new approach, they don't do the dirty work. They either lase the target for a guided shot or more likely pass up GPS coordinates to a shooter that then drops a precision munition on the target. Best of both worlds. Posted by: Red State Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINKIt's kind of interesting that not many of the answers here really simply accepted the assumptions of Kevin's question, whether true or not, and gave a yea or nay. I guess my own reaction is, yes, it would be justified. I think that if had been Osama himself who was present at that meeting, it would have been even more obviously justified; that it was lesser fry makes it just somewhat less obvious. Now, I'll have to admit that part of what makes it seem justified to me are things that in part seem morally extraneous -- that it's done by drone, like an act of war, and that it's in a remote country. I simply observe this without trying to justify it. Posted by: frankly0 on January 18, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINKWhy should anyone believe anything the Bush administration or any of their lackeys say? If we're at war and the enemy's leaders can be killed then we'd do it with no concern for bystanders of any sort. War ain't pinochle. The trouble is that with this 'war' and with Dubya in charge everything suddenly has to be reviewed a zillion times. Nothing can be taken at face value. Congrats to Kevin Drum for asking the question most other Dems will not ask. The obvious answer is YES, the attack was justified. But most Dems seem content to sit back and criticize when something goes wrong (bad intelligence, etc.) Posted by: GOPGregory on January 18, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINKYour question makes no sense. You can't justify an attack on assumptions made after the fact. I think the question he should have asked is "Was the attack worth it?" That's an after-the-fact question that bears examining. Posted by: Red State Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINKWow. Unfuckingbelievable. If K-Drum is reading these comments, and he ever had illusions that he was dealing with reasonable citizens here, those ought to be well shattered by now. Nads - how about when your country wasn't the one responsible for the formation of the terrorist group to begin with? I.e., "We're just as bad as, or really to blame for, AQ" trifecta - What about the family of an innocent person tortured in Iraq by an American GI. Should they be able to firebomb them during church services to get at them? I.e., "Killing GI's is just as valuable as killing AQ" Stefan - Kevin,If you think it is that important to kill those Al Qaeda members, are you willing to be one of the civilians killed? What about your whole family? I.e., "Kevin, this could just as well have happened to you" (except Kevin doesn't usually ask AQ home for dinner parties. I assume) Mike Stark - C'mon... these guys will propagandize anything with no regard for morality. Killed a bunch of innocents? Cover it up with a sweet sounding redemptive story. I.e., "I hate ChimpyMcBushHitler so much I can't even see straight" Ed - how is it any different from a car bomb or other such? I.e., "I see no difference between my own government and AQ" linda - so when orlando bosch is released from federal custody to some cushy florida compound, is fidel castro within his rights as supreme commando of cuba to bomb said compound I.e., "The dictator Fidel Castro, the President of the US, they're all the same to me" Stefan - let's assume Iraqi rebels had pretty good intelligence telling them Don Rumsfeld was going to be in Baghdad meeting at a hotel. And let's also assume that they decide to attack that hotel. Finally, let's assume that in the course of that attack they kill 18 innocent bystanders with no connection to Rumsfeld. Question: under these assumptions, was their attack justified? Actually, the last one is too disgusting for comment. To all of you: Have you ever heard of the concept of "loyal opposition"? It means that even if you would prefer another party in government in your country, there is still a level below you will not sink in criticizing the party in power. Call it a minimum level of patriotism, or just decency. You have no decency. And no sense of patriotism. Thank god there are people in the Dem party that are not like you bastards. So there is still a loyal opposition in our country. You just can't find it anywhere around here. But I have to say it's surprising there's so many of you. Unless all these pseudonyms are just the same lonely geek - who just hates his government and country for some reason. Posted by: peanut on January 18, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINKWhy should anyone believe anything the Bush administration or any of their lackeys say? Do you believe what "they" say in that 18 civilians were killed? Seems like it. Red State Mike: I appreciate what you said and I agree with the philosophy but that is a field decision but the CIC decision is what created the body in the first place. As has been said before: Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War. Posted by: murmeister on January 18, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINKThe information was that it was a meeting of high level terrorists planning how to kill Americans and others. The attack was obviously justified. If the "civilians" welcomed the terrorists, then the deaths are their own fault. If the "civilians" were held by the terrorists against their will, then the deaths are the terrorists' fault. Again, what if the Iraqi resistance got information about a meeting of high-level American commanders in Baghdad planning how to kill Iraqis and bombed that meeting -- is that attack, too, "obviously justified"? If not, why? Would you consider that the Americans who held the meeting were responsible for the deaths of any Iraqi civilians around them after the attack -- since, after all, America invaded Iraq and all of Iraq is being held against its own will by the US? Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINKWithout offering and answer, let me propose another piece of the puzzle. If we are in a war, and we certainly say so very often, then there are rules. The 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 makes civilians protected persons. Now the protection of civilians during wars has not been frequently observed. Particularly when the damage to civilians can be credibly presented as the result of inadvertence, not much is made of it. That is not likely the case here. We thought there were legitimate targets and decided that the killing of civilians was "worth it." Without taking a stentorian position on this incident, let me point out the bottom of the slope on which we stand. We have already determined that, because Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not governments and not signatories to the Conventions, that prisoners are 'enemy combantants' and can be tortured. Are we deciding here that civilians of a signatory nation (and, incidentally, a nation with which we are not at war) are not protected persons? Are we on the way to a 'war' waged with no rules? Certainly we are struggling with people who have and likely will choose to carry on their struggle without any rules. Does that mean that we should follow their example? Is that who we want to be? Do ends justify means? If through some (unrealistic) twist of fate, we could kill Zawahiri but in order to get to him, we would have to kill your brother, your sister, your children or your parents, how do you vote? If that changes the calculus for you, is that because, after all, the civilians we killed are only Pakistanis? I have no conclusion because we don't know enough of the facts. I worry. The absence of simple sensible decent rules for this war (e.g. make sure you have the right guy before you torture him) makes me wonder if we could not have have found a way to go after these targets without so much collateral damage (for instance, as they approached or after they left the village). Posted by: ursus on January 18, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINKWhen I grew up, way back in the '50s and '60s, "the ends justify the means" was understood by virtually everybody as the very embodiment of immorality. Indeed, it was used as such in classroom discussions and general conversation. My, how times have changed. Posted by: Jones on January 18, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINKTo all of you: Have you ever heard of the concept of "loyal opposition"? You have apparently managed to turn the genuine meaning of "loyal opposition" on its head. What it means is that you love your country enough to admit when it's wrong and take corrective action, even at risk of being destroyed by the party in power. That takes true courage, not the phony bluster of some chicken-hawk yellow elephant.. Posted by: klevenstein on January 18, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINKPress reports I've read say the intell was that al Zawahiri was invited to a dinner party (now the information is that it was in the morning, so who knows.) If the 18 "civilians" were indeed attending a dinner with al Zawahiri and his posse I agree with the commenter who said it might motivate a lot of tribesmen to start inviting and associating with a better class of friends at their dinner parties. Posted by: neocon on January 18, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINKLet's see. First reports were that no one related to or involved in Al Quaeda (Qaos for short) were at the scene. Then there's a monumental outcry from just about everywhere about the outrageous incompetence and murderous arrogance of the missile attack (which itself is described in varied terms involving drones and flares and jets). Then, as the firestorm of outrage grows in both the U.S. and Pakistan, reports begin to come in that there were terrorists at the location and that some were killed and that their bodies were quickly removed by other unknown baddies at the scene. There's even a report of empty graves. No bodies have been found to do DNA verification testing (though how base samples are available never seems to be specified). But the news reports become more and more specific that real baddies had been there and were killed. I say the bombing definitely killed the number 3, number 3, and number 3 persons in Al Quaeda. Going with the brilliance of Drum's argument, what if there are reports of Al Quaeda in the Empire State Building? Should missiles be fired at the site? Same for Paris, London, Rome, Berlin, Moscow? When and where is it OK to just shoot first and ask questions or make up stories later? Is the shading of skin a factor? Oh. I forgot. These are questions that should never be asked. American lives are at stake and everything will be done to protect Americans. Why not just nuke the rest of the world and solve the whole fucking problem? That's the question. Hey! Seriously. What's the problem with indiscriminately firing missiles at one of the most populous Muslim nations in the world that is ostensibly an ally, repeatedly killing innocents in the process and risking having that nation then taken over by the strongly anti-American groups that already exist there? They've got a big army. They've got nuclear weapons. They've got missiles. They've got a weak dictator that is weakly allied to us and could easily be killed or toppled at any moment. That is assuming he doesn't decide on his own that being an ally of America is dangerous to his health. So what's the down side? Now I'll pose the question another way. What if there were groups in America that are responsible for the death of citizens of other nations? Are those nations justified in bombing our buildings and citizens on that basis, assuming there are "reports" of some proximity of those percieved baddies? When it's "us" getting bombed is it OK? So when does might make right and terror (the might of the weak) equate to freedom fighting? Information and disinformation. The innocent and the guilty. The ally and the enemy. Live missiles from above, death down below. Al Qaeda senior officials die again and again. "Collateral" is damaged but once. Is it worth it? The death of bystanders or innocents brutalizes the victim and the perpetrator, the same way torture does. If we accept that the means justifies the ends, we only become more mean in the end. Live with that world if you will and your children will as well. Posted by: The Heretik on January 18, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINKStefan Well, since they've shown that attacks on children collecting candy from GIs is justified...what do you think they'd say? Hell, they don't need Rummy there, just a kindergarten class. And media to take pictures of it. Film at 11. Posted by: Red State Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINKAssuming we need to suspend judgement in this particular case ( usually a wise move until more factoids are available ) here is a well known example of justifiable 'murder'. Would you kill some innocent ferry passengers and crew in order to stop the shipment? See how collateral damage is unavoidable? The point for effective and rational politics is to absolutely MINIMIZE it. That is what we need to be about here. Enough nonsense already. Now when can we start saving lives and assassinate Bush? ( my 2c ) Posted by: professor-rat on January 18, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINKpeanut, you are full of it. For the most part the people writing here are trying their best to be prinicpled and honorable. The are the best kind of patriots and if push came to shove, I would stand with any of them. I am glad that they have principles. Sometimes they are naive, but then again their principles are worth having. Posted by: Ron Byers on January 18, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINKWhen I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2m missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive. -- (GW Bush, Newsweek, Sep 24, 2001) According to a spokesperson for a military dictatorship presently allied with a US presidential proto-dictatorship, this is not a laughable quote, but ponder the sequence of the stories - Question: Answer to Kevin's question: Do you believe what "they" say in that 18 civilians were killed? A statement by a party with a personal or institutional interest is more credible when it is against their interest than when it is for their interest; ergo, Pakistani and Bush Administration officials are more credible when they say civilians were killed then when they say al-Qaeda leaders (whose identities evolve over time) were killed. This is really one of the most basic parts of critically examining statements from potentially biased sources, and anyone engaging in political debate who doesn't understand it is either too dumb to take seriously, or too dishonest to take seriously. Posted by: cmdicely on January 18, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINKYou have no decency. And no sense of patriotism. Thank god there are people in the Dem party that are not like you bastards. listen pissant ... I have enough patriotism to recognize actions which have just created 1000 more terrorists. I have enough patriotism to question my worthless CIC when he's just set the groundwork for another 9/11. just because dipshits like you need to see some dead arabs to satisfy your limp-dicked bloodlust doesn't make you patriotic. Posted by: Nads on January 18, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINKRon B - Can you not read? Stefan just suggested that it might be justifiable to kill the SecDef of the US. You can spout vile, antiAmerican garbage like that or you can say you sincerely love your country. But you can't have it both ways. YOu can "try" all you want, but you can't. Posted by: peanut on January 18, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK/Have you ever heard of the concept of "loyal opposition"? It means that even if you would prefer another party in government in your country, there is still a level below you will not sink in criticizing the party in power. Call it a minimum level of patriotism, or just decency. So, peanut, if I sincerely and deeply believe that our beloved country has been illegally taken over by a bunch of hate-filled, power-grabbing criminals who are conducting the most immoral and illegal war in our country's history, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people in their wake, destroying all vestiges of goodwill we have in the world, and endangering the lives of my children and grandchildren with their reckless hubris and power-mongering that is sure to 'blowback' on us for decades to come, are you saying that I should refrain from railing against the opposition out of a "minimum level of patriotism, or just decency"? Huh? Is that what you are saying, you frigging ignorant so-called patriot? Our founding fathers would denounce you in the strongest terms. Oh, and thanks for the handy recapitulation of all the good arguments against Kevin's sorry, morally dead position. Posted by: Jones on January 18, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK If the 18 "civilians" were indeed attending a dinner with al Zawahiri and his posse I agree with the commenter who said it might motivate a lot of tribesmen to start inviting and associating with a better class of friends at their dinner parties. I'm sure bin laden said something similar when aiming for the pentagon. Posted by: Nads on January 18, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINKSo who decides who the civilians are? The locals sympathetic to Al Qaeda? Think they don't have a vested interest in upping the numbers of civilians killed in the attack? Cmdicely, I am well aware of how the game is played. So are the bad guys. Posted by: Red State Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINKWell, since they've shown that attacks on children collecting candy from GIs is justified...what do you think they'd say? Hell, they don't need Rummy there, just a kindergarten class. And media to take pictures of it. Film at 11. I know what they'd say -- but what would you say? Is the Iraqi resistance justified in carrying out attacks against the political-military leadership of the country that invaded them? If they are, what if eighteen American, say, innocent civilians got killed in the process. Would that be morally justified from the Iraqis' viewpoint? Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINKWhat wingers just will never get in cases like this, because they have zero moral feeling, is that it is possible to do the right thing, and still do a terrible thing. Killing senior al Qaeda in a circumstance like this, in which, we are assuming, innocents are also killed, is, on balance, I believe the right thing. But it is also a terrible thing, because of the deaths of innocents. THAT is what they are incapable of feeling or caring about. They have no regrets. Posted by: frankly0 on January 18, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINKSo who decides who the civilians are? The locals sympathetic to Al Qaeda? Think they don't have a vested interest in upping the numbers of civilians killed in the attack? So who decides who the American civilians are? The locals sympathetic to George Bush? Think the Bush regime doesn't have a vested interest in upping the numbers of civilians killed in the attacks? Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINKStefan has it completely right. They wouldn't hesitate to attack us. This incident certainly didn't help Musharraf hold onto power, did it? Ultimately, Kevin's question about whether this was justified has to take into account the possibility that this might destabilize Pakistan and cause wider problems. I think it was justified, and whatever the result, we need to be ready to live with it. Posted by: Pale Rider on January 18, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINKYou have no decency. And no sense of patriotism. Thank god there are people in the Dem party that are not like you bastards. So there is still a loyal opposition in our country. You just can't find it anywhere around here. Translation: any criticism that makes me unconfortable or challenges my belief in America's innate goodness, or implies that furners are just as human as Americans is indecent. Additionaly, peanut, the concept of justification for a war or act of war that rests on some universal principles and rises above crude nationalism has apparantly eluded you. Posted by: Boronx on January 18, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINKSo who decides who the civilians are? The locals sympathetic to Al Qaeda? Think they don't have a vested interest in upping the numbers of civilians killed in the attack? If Al Qaeda does have such a vested interest THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE WE HELPING THEM ACHIEVE IT?!?!?!? Posted by: Stefan on January 18, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK"To all of you: Have you ever heard of the concept of "loyal opposition"? It means that even if you would prefer another party in government in your country, there is still a level below you will not sink in criticizing the party in power. Call it a minimum level of patriotism, or just decency." You're kidding, right? We are talking about bastard that sent Marines and soldiers into Iraq to die thinking they were going after the 9/11 terrorists. All the people here are saying is that this administration has been Lucy with a football one too many times. A simpler moral equation is this: we should not be willing to kill children unless we are first willing to put our own people at similar risk... and I dare say, the entire country feels this way. When we lost soldiers in Operation Anaconda, there nothing aside from chirping crickets could be heard as criticism. Although the neocons did not believe so, the country would have tolerated many US casualties had we thrown divisions into the Tora Bora battle. Here we are, a country that has taken something like 20,000 casualties in Iraq, but we won't send troops to get al Qaeda? Are you insane? Posted by: Pacific John on January 18, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINKBefore playing parlor games with people's lives, we should take a good long look in the mirror. How can anyone accept a whit of a story like this passed along by ABC as being true? This adminstration has a long and solid track record of lying, and passing along lies, in situations like this. The Pakistanis? Please. (And ABC didn't even do us the favor of saying why they couldn't ID the "Pakistani officials" they used as sources on this story.) My bullshit meter is screaming. How the hell do the Pakistanis know who was killed? Were bodies collected? Who identified the bodies? Were DNA samples already tested? Did the Americans tell them who they targeted? If they did, did they give away "sources and means" info to back up their story? (I doubt it.) In short, with the track record we find ourselves living with these days, stories like this one from ABC should be met first with sniggers and rolling eyes, rather than "Let's Play God" games. Until Americans figure out that their government (and its minions, foreign and domestic) can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything anymore, we'll be living in Alice's Wonderland, including pop quizzes on the meanings of other people's spilled entrails. If we prove incapable of even demanding, much less getting, the truth from our own government, we're damned. Posted by: Mike on January 18, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINKJones - I say this is your government, and your country. Clearly, you disagree. Then, find another. Posted by: peanut on January 18, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINKpeanut, why don't you think the insurgents are justified in waging an armed resistance against an occupying force? BTW, the airstrike in Pakistan was clearly a murderous and ghastly mistake, and is entirely the wrong way to go about things anyway, but that doesn't mean it's not justified. Posted by: Boronx on January 18, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK | |