These questions occurred to me as I listened to the panel discussion on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, which began with a clip of Obama saying the words that appear in the post title:
[AP reporter JULIE] PACE: [W]hen he said that we were not going to take strikes unless there was a near certainty that civilians would not be killed[:] How can you -- how can you be sure of that?...So one answer to my questions is: It depends on what the meaning of "near" is.
[National Journal reporter RON] FOURNIER: ... I think anybody who... has a problem like I do with this drone strategy, still has a problem. And maybe more so, the fact that the president promised that... he was going to be transparent, about how, about why and how we conduct war from a robot in the air blowing people away.... [W]hen the president of the United States says we're going to deal with near certainty, really? How do you come up with near certainty? Is that just a talking point that you say two years ago and then we find out that you can't do it? Let's put some meat on the bones, Mr. President.
[Fox News political analyst BRIT] HUME: It seems to me that they probably had near certainty. What they didn't have was actual certainty. And that's always going to be the case....
The drone policy was also questioned because of the way it kills people who could be captured and used for intelligence, which is related to the question of near certainty, because intelligence is needed to get to near certainty. If you keep killing everyone, how do they know whom they're killing? I suspect that after the fact they deem everyone who was there an enemy, at least as far as they can (and they couldn't in the case of the 2 specific hostages). And they don't want the trouble of detainees.
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
I believe that's the standard just as sure as I believe we no longer torture.
The president has simply learned that you can't SAY you do such things. But if he thinks he has a chance to kill a bad guy, even if it means collateral damage or ripping off fingernails of someone who may or may not have information we need, he will do it.
Bobby Jones said of young Jack Nicklaus's golf, "He plays a game with which I am unfamiliar."
Obama is playing a strange game. He must know where there is political treasure. How else could he have won in 2012? He's got a hold on something that I don't understand at all.
Of course it's not true. To have anything close to "near certainty" would require assets on the ground.
"…it wrecks his credibility"…
What credibility?
and I don't really understand why he would state a policy in terms that are so plainly unbelievable.
Drone strikes are shovel-ready.
In that "Fox News Sunday" segment, Brit Hume finally said what many of us were thinking: "war is hell". That's really all Obama has to do to apologize for killing a few civilians.
But he can't bring himself to do it. Why? I guess he doesn't want to admit we're at war, and he thinks his base will snarl if he says something so cruel about the world.
The reality of war is...there are no rules.
obama repeatedly says stupid assed shit, every.day. But you morons lapped (and continue to lap) it up.
Uh, some doctors chop off people's feet because they get paid more to do that.
Drill baby drill? That's absurd, just put more air in your tires, that'll solve high gas prices.
This stupid jackass has said and done more moronic stuff than most morons do in a lifetime (only slightly hyperbolic) but he'd win a third term because the voters (I'm looking at a certain admitted obama voter) can't see their way through their emotions.
The Rules of Engagement leave a lot of wriggle room. Keep civilian causalities to a minimum and everyone in the kill zone are aiding and abetting and are, therefor, legitimate targets. Problems arise when it is politically convenient to cover decisions blaming the drone operators.
"...wrecks his credibility."
That's a rather weird thing to write—he has absolutely no credibility to wreck.
"...wrecks his credibility."
That's a rather weird thing to write—he has absolutely no credibility to wreck.
Modern political analysis:
The absolute right to delayed abortions of terrorists shall never be infringed upon. Ergo: Drone killing by the President is a female only right and requires electing of a female President.
Of course there is no such certainty.
Also the babble on TV panels about the "intelligence failure" of not knowing the civilians were in the strike area. Compared to earlier times, the CIA has very good intelligence; the problem is that it is still hit and miss and never will be anything else. Reality is not a TV show.
The problem with the drone strikes is that it is still warfare by assassination, the technology is readily available to anyone, and there is no "code of conduct" as there is - or at least has been - for political assassinations by governments, or gas warfare.
David Hampton said...
The Rules of Engagement leave a lot of wriggle room. Keep civilian causalities to a minimum and everyone in the kill zone are aiding and abetting and are, therefor, legitimate targets. Problems arise when it is politically convenient to cover decisions blaming the drone operators.
or blame the intel.
Does anybody really think that Western Hostages aren't hidden away in basements and therefore won't be caught on a few minutes of video over a period of hours or days?
Oh, and warheads aren't big solid bullets. They are all shrapnel mechanisms and shrapnel is very random.
$hit happens in war. It used to be (in my war, Vietnam) that Commanders every day were willing to call airstrikes and artillery "Danger close", meaning an acceptance of friendly losses because of the overwhelming advantage of the resulting enemy losses.
Whenever you put Obama together with "do you believe" you've got a problem. The key is the last sentence. Since day one Mr. Zero has not wanted to deal with detainees, too messy, where is he going to put them? Gitmo? Easier to just kill them.
I don't have an easy answer to the drone questions. That's a separate issue from whether I believe anything Zero says.
If you keep killing everyone, how do they know whom they're killing?
Who, actually. There's an omitted "it is that" in the semantics, which is why whom sounds wrong.
A safe rule is not to use whom when it sounds wrong. Who is acceptable in almost every case anyway.
What Ann seems to miss is that most of these strikes are so far deep in bad guy country that everybody living in these isolated mountain areas is a bad guy--either an active terrorist or supportive of them. Collateral schmatteral--they're ALL bad guys..
And you guys lost that war when we pulled out and the country went commie. Your efforts were for naught. Nothing to show for it, just the dead.
The US Army wasn't at War in Vietnam. America was. It's chosen Representatives asked me to go and fight because they said it was important. I did. And later a different set of Representatives decided to abandon the commitments that a previous Congress had made to Vietnam.
I didn't lose a war. Congress did...
Ron Fournier and President Obama are doing the same thing, posing as the good liberal, the man of conscience.
The difference is Obama has to make decisions. Fournier just has to preen.
Fournier doesn't want really transparency. He wants to gaze into a flattering mirror.
Obama ought to do his best Jack Nicholson impression and tell Fournier, "The Truth? You can't handle the truth!" But he wants to be able to both drop bombs and preen.
There's clearly a balancing analysis that's done if there's a chance of civilian casualties. How important is the bad guy being targeted? Is this a rare opportunity, or will he pop up again and again and make himself vulnerable? How many civilians might die? Are they innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time or are they "civilians" (friends or family members associating in public with a known terrorist)?
And you guys lost that war when we pulled out and the country went commie.
In the interest of historical accuracy:
And[the Democrat-controlled Congress] lost that war when[the Democrat-controlled Congress stopped all military aid to South Vietnam] and [South Vietnam, our ally, was taken over by North Vietnam].
The supposedly corrupt and incompetent South Vietnam military held off the North Vietnam communists for 18 long months after every US soldier had been pulled out of South Vietnam but you can't fight a war without bullets. When the Democrats abandoned South Vietnam some of our allies in South Vietnam were able to escape death from the North Vietnamese communists by taking to anything that could float. They were called "the boat people."
I absolutely believe they had no idea the hostages were there, but that's a risk they took.
I also believe they didn't want to know the high level targets were American, because they've made up some rules for themselves that make it harder to approve strikes (you have to get the President involved).
Now, the question is, as always...why does Obama say so much tough stuff that doesn't need to be said and for which he has no intent to follow through?
This, the red line in Syria, Russia mustn't invade Ukraine, Assad must go, etc.
Don't say something you don't mean, Obama, and you won't cause yourself so much trouble.
Drone strikes are intended to be like retroactive abortions. The dead must be out of sight and the killing must be a private matter between the person making the choice, Obama, and his conscience.
@grackle said...
and a Dem President got us in, along with a Dem Congress...
rhhardin said...
If you keep killing everyone, how do they know whom they're killing?
Who, actually. There's an omitted "it is that" in the semantics, which is why whom sounds wrong.
A safe rule is not to use whom when it sounds wrong. Who is acceptable in almost every case anyway.
LOL.
Note to Tank: Add above to list of s*** not remembered ever.
I used to give all the nephews and nieces Strunk & White when they graduated high school (which is about when I got it). Some of them sincerely thanked me later. This told me A LOT.
Because Obama will say something and enough people will believe that it must be true. Of course it isn't. That doesn't matter- enough people will believe that what he says is the truth that the subject will leave the news cycle.
When the Democrats abandoned South Vietnam some of our allies in South Vietnam were able to escape death from the North Vietnamese communists by taking to anything that could float. They were called "the boat people."
40 years ago this week, we were lifting folks off the top of the Saigon Embassy
Apr 30, 1975
"Betcha, unlike the prof here, there are still believers too.
(in Obama, I mean)"
Yes, you demonstrate that.
WSJ is reporting Obama secretly exempted Pakistan from the tightening drone strike policy:
President Barack Obama tightened rules for the U.S. drone program in 2013, but he secretly approved a waiver giving the Central Intelligence Agency more flexibility in Pakistan than anywhere else to strike suspected militants, according to current and former U.S. officials.
(You'd think with America's decline, and Asia's rise, we'd be careful the precedents we're setting...)
Which ones? The precedent about torture? The one flaunted by the North Koreans and North Vietnamese?
Go tell that to the city fathers of Carthage...
... or the liberated at Dachau.
Dummies kill. Thinkers counsel against killing. Lots a dummies still out here, and we thinkers are still subsidizing them ... Tell me how wrong I am.
Readers: Ever notice how anti-war folks are always condemning American war efforts but never the same criticism for the enemy? It's almost as if they want the enemy to win or something.
Slippage from the moral high ground
"And later a different set of Representatives decided to abandon the commitments that a previous Congress had made to Vietnam."
Arguably America won in Vietnam, in that it helped the South defeat a communist insurgency then pulled out, leaving South Vietnam as a sovereign country. Two years after our victory, the North invaded and defeated the South, but the U.S. was not in that fight.
By doing nothing in 1974-75, the U.S. let its victory in 1973 become meaningless, so perhaps in that sense we "lost" the postwar aftermath. But the war itself was still a victory in the sense that we acheived our limited war aims. (Whether we should have been involved in Vietnam in the first place is another debate)
The cynical political calculus of the base versus the other is now firmly in place. Politicians mouth patent absurdities because they will be or want to be believed by the base. As for the other, they have been written off. No need to speak in terms that they might find sensible.
As for the middle, Obama et al must have decided that they just aren't paying attention. There is no longer any negative consequence to speaking nonsense. The base believes, the middle doesn't care, the other pulls his hair, and Althouse asks why.
Pretty ironic coming from a person who so recently chided/reminded a commenter the people believe what they want to believe.
To The Drill SGT, and any others to whom it is applicable:
This doesn't get said often enough, but since an opposing viewpoint has been brought up, I'd just like to chime in with:
Thank you for your service.
What were the civilian losses putting down Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
There is "no free lunch?.
That's what Obama said last week, but I don't see how it can possibly be true,
It isn't.
and I don't really understand why he would state a policy in terms that are so plainly unbelievable.
Because the US is full of people who'll believe anything he says.
I think it's on its face unbelievable — it wrecks his credibility.
See Will's comment at oh-dark-thirty. Where's your "Obama is like LBJ" tag? The Credibility Gap is back, baby!
40 years ago this week, we were lifting folks off the top of the Saigon Embassy … How DO people like you, still cheering on death violence and dead civilians today, have not learned anything and still be falling for the same old "but President Obama is keeping us safe" stuff?" You really believe these "bad guy" killings are making America stronger? Dummy.
I believe most readers here understand Obama's drone strikes are an attempt to keep terrorists from being captured and incarcerated in Gitmo, nothing else. If not for Gitmo and his need to keep it from filling up with more terrorists Obama would probably do nothing. I do not believe "President Obama is keeping us safe." Quite the opposite, actually.
"I believe most readers here understand Obama's drone strikes are an attempt to keep terrorists from being captured and incarcerated in Gitmo, nothing else"
And at least we are not water boarding anyone.
In the Vietnam war they had a saying about body counts, "How do we know they were gooks and not civilians? We know cause civilians are alive and gooks are dead."
Obama could not hide the deaths of the two civilians any longer (he knew for months they were dead but kept it hidden.)
Expect more fessing up.
"What were the civilian losses putting down Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?"
Much of what we did then was horrifying and in many cases unjustifiable (not strategic bombing per se, but targeting of civilian areas with no military value) not to mention what our Russian allies did. But all of this is unavoidable in war, even while we as a civilized nation try to minimize atrocities and mistakes--what separates us from the Soviets, Nazis and today's terrorists is that usually we do what we can to avoid such results.
We need more and better schools. Less weapons and foreign killings, refugee resettlements, and monthly checks to our non-thinking heroes, who were just doing what they were told to do after all, President Obama sir.
Anti-war platitudes. Hey, let's disarm and dissolve the US military! That'll solve everything, even our substandard educational system. The terrorists will love us then and stop their understandably violent campaigns!
Bob Ellison:
"In that 'Fox News Sunday" segment, Brit Hume finally said what many of us were thinking: 'war is hell.' That's really all Obama has to do to apologize for killing a few civilians."
Fandor:
"The reality of war is...there are no rules."
Among the reasons a nation should not go to war except as an absolute last resort...to defend itself against an imminent or ongoing attack severe enough that the nation's survival is at stake.
The only war we've been involved in in the last 115 years that could meet that standard is WWII.
Our wars in the middle east are our wars, made by our choice, and are completely unnecessary and counterproductive to any stated (rather than surreptitious) aims. They are ongoing war crimes.
"You have me confused with the majority here."
Small chance of that. The majority here are pretty reasonable. Even a couple that I disagree with about almost everything.
Much of what we did then was horrifying and in many cases unjustifiable (not strategic bombing per se, but targeting of civilian areas with no military value) not to mention what our Russian allies did
For this type of statement to be credible at least an example or two needs to be cited. As a reader I'm aching to know which targets of "no military value" the commentor is referring to.
"For this type of statement to be credible at least an example or two needs to be cited. As a reader I'm aching to know which targets of "no military value" the commentor is referring to."
E.g., Dresden raid.
We're not Nazis.
Readers, we are not Nazis because brave men fought and died – not because we laid down our weapons.
"The only war we've been involved in in the last 115 years that could meet that standard is WWII."
You are amusing. Why, when war is only justifiable when "to defend itself against an imminent or ongoing attack severe enough that the nation's survival is at stake," you choose the war where Germany did not attack us and Japan could have been left alone in ways we are leaving Iran alone and there would have been no Pearl Harbor ?
You really sound ahistorical.
Dresden raid.
Dresden was one of the Nazis' largest industrial centers, also a major troop transport hub. To not have bombed Dresden would have been criminal neglect.
No country attacked us on 9-11.
The Taliban regime in Afghanistan gave safe haven to the planners of 9/11. To my mind that counts as an attack.
"You are amusing. Why, when war is only justifiable when 'to defend itself against an imminent or ongoing attack severe enough that the nation's survival is at stake,' you choose the war where Germany did not attack us and Japan could have been left alone in ways we are leaving Iran alone and there would have been no Pearl Harbor"?"
That's why I said "could meet those standards" rather than "did meet those standards." Some here and elsewhere have argued our involvement in WWII was not necessary, and I cannot deny that some of these arguments I've heard seem sensible. However, we were attacked by Japan's air force and there every was reason to assume they would continue their attacks on us; moreover, days after Pearl Harbor, Germany did declare war on us. So, it seemed probable, if not certain, we were going to be involved in a possibly existential fight, whether we waited for it to reach our shores or acted before that point, (as we did). Additionally, we could not know what threat Europe's fall to Nazi Germany--which certainly was a possibility--would pose for us, even if Japan had not attacked us and Germany had not declared war against us when they did.
So, I stand by my statement.
My neurologist has a prescription for that affliction.
Among the reasons a nation should not go to war except as an absolute last resort...to defend itself against an imminent or ongoing attack severe enough that the nation's survival is at stake.
Poland? Sorry... I'm sure the Germans and Soviets are civilized peoples!
South Korea? Sucks to be you! Have fun worshiping Kim Il Sung!
South Vietnam? Living on boats is fun and edgy!
Kuwait? It's not like Saddam gasses his own people for fun!
Ah, the unintended consequences of giving any would-be conqueror free rein on his neighbors just so the US can remain pure.
Meade, this is not your problem to solve, but I think there's evidence of some real mental instability out there. Someone needs help.
Among the reasons a nation should not go to war except as an absolute last resort...to defend itself against an imminent or ongoing attack severe enough that the nation's survival is at stake.
The only war we've been involved in in the last 115 years that could meet that standard is WWII. - Robert Cook
Bullshit and bullshit.
No democratic nation can sit back while its citizens are killed by a foreign actor at a "sub existential-threat" level, whatever that is. That is nothing but a little ex-post facto rationalization you came up with to condemn the war in Afghanistan.
And "bullshit," we could have made peace with Hitler. We didn't have to help Britain, which drew us into the war, our planes helped Britain sink the Bismark, even though we were still "neutral" and we didn't have to interfere with the Empire of Japan's depredations in East Asia and the Pacific with an oil embargo.
Both of your comments show such a lack of introspection on your part that they could only have been written earnestly by a young man, or cynically, by an older one.
Among the reasons a nation should not go to war except as an absolute last resort...to defend itself against an imminent or ongoing attack severe enough that the nation's survival is at stake.
The only war we've been involved in in the last 115 years that could meet that standard is WWII. - Robert Cook
Bullshit and bullshit.
No democratic nation can sit back while its citizens are killed by a foreign actor at a "sub existential-threat" level, whatever that is. That is nothing but a little ex-post facto rationalization you came up with to condemn the war in Afghanistan.
And "bullshit," we could have made peace with Hitler. We didn't have to help Britain, which drew us into the war, our planes helped Britain sink the Bismark, even though we were still "neutral" and we didn't have to interfere with the Empire of Japan's depredations in East Asia and the Pacific with an oil embargo.
Both of your comments show such a lack of introspection on your part that they could only have been written earnestly by a young man, or cynically, by an older one.
"The Taliban regime in Afghanistan gave safe haven to the planners of 9/11. To my mind that counts as an attack."
"To your mind" does not necessarily correlate with actuality.
So you do, or do not, support these dumb drone strikes?
If I were commander-in-chief I would capture as many as possible, waterboard the hell out of them for intelligence and THEN kill them after a military tribunal finds them guilty. If there's no possibility of capture the next best thing is to kill as many of the terrorist leaders as possible.
Robert Cook, I mostly agree with your assertion that the decision to go to war requires existential danger.
But it's a big world, and America has been the savior of it for a long time. Pax Americana is a real thing. Before America, Britain, and then long before that, Rome kept the world largely in order.
The weenies in Europe and Japan are never going to step up. Who is going to save the world?
Well the list is still 2, even if meade did the deed today.
virgil xenophon said...
____ would have us wait to respond to the islomafascist terrorist threat only when and until we see the whites of Mohammad Atta's eyes..
REALLY smart tactics..
4/27/15, 9:35 AM
I might have missed 1 or 2. Feel free to email me.
Carry on.
The Drill SGT said...
Meade, I meant my short list of idiots that I don't respond to.
The list, to frame it now includes ____, but not Titus, Garage, or Cookie :)
2 idiots in 10 years or so of comments here
4/27/15, 9:47 AM
@Drill SGT: understood.
rhhardin, just because you imagine words in the mind of the writer doesn't mean your grammar is superior. You kill whom; you are killing whom.
LOL,
Got on your nerves did ____?
I don't know your email, so I'll send the other Name to Althouse.
What segment of the population needs to hear the president say we have a near certainty standard?
I doubt the standard is that high or that the standard is indiscriminate. The higher the value of the target the more civilian casualties we're likely to accept, though that number is not limitless.
While we're being all grammar-Nazi, I should note that "just because" in my post above should be simply "that".
"it wrecks his credibility."
Too late.
rhhardin, just because you imagine words in the mind of the writer doesn't mean your grammar is superior. You kill whom; you are killing whom.
The problem for the descriptive grammarian, as opposed to the prescriptive grammarian, is accounting for why it sounds wrong.
It's "Know whom you kill" vs "Know who you kill."
You can do the diagramming but you get the wrong answer. This is a clue to the descriptive grammarian. Something semantic is happening to produce the opposite form as preferred.
The out from the problem is always use who, which is correct in modern English, except for some isolated register conflicts. (It's for whom the bell tolls, but it's who the bell tolls for.)
You make war like you can not like you should.
"You make war like you can not like you should."
And you make war when you must, not because you can.
"What Ann seems to miss is that most of these strikes are so far deep in bad guy country that everybody living in these isolated mountain areas is a bad guy--either an active terrorist or supportive of them. Collateral schmatteral--they're ALL bad guys.."
You're giving me Vietnam flashbacks.
We need to destroy the village to save it....
Robert Cook said...
"And you make war when you must, not because you can."
You are so pure and clean. Your soul is unblemished. It is so beautiful that I request you get away from tarnished evil black souls like mine. I killed people in wars that were unnecessary and am in your words a war criminal. My very presence endangers your pure good self. You should leave this country so you don't have to be near people like me.
It doesn't hurt that we want you gone too you piece of shit.
Dummies kill. Thinkers counsel against killing. Lots a dummies still out here, and we thinkers are still subsidizing them ... Tell me how wrong I am.
You are wrong because you are the child of conquerors.
But thank you, nothing has been more entertaining for me this morning than listening to a Swirled Peas acolyte lecture us about killing.
You remind me of Doyle's Last of the Legions:
"...this blessed doctrine of peace will be little help to you when you are face to face with strong men who still worship the god of war."
But especially:
"But ere another summer had passed Celticus was dead, for he was flayed alive by the pirates and his skin nailed upon the door of a church near Caistor. Regnus, too, was dead, for he was tied to a tree and shot with arrows when the painted men came to the sacking of Isca. Caradoc only was alive, but he was a slave to Elda the red Caledonian and his wife was mistress to Mordred the wild chief of the western Cymri. From the ruined wall in the north to Vectis in the south blood and ruin and ashes covered the fair land of Britain. And after many days it came out fairer than ever, but, even as the Roman had said, neither the Britons nor any men of their blood came into the heritage of that which had been their own."
http://readbookonline.net/readOnLine/14657/
So, that's what happens to prisoners released from confinement. I wonder if they are electronically tagged to facilitate their death. It's a twist on smart bombs.
As for collateral damage, it's a choice of around 1 million [wholly innocent] human lives in America alone. That's 1 of every 6 human lives conceived in utero. Obama is pro-choice on principle.
You're giving me Vietnam flashbacks.
Yet another reason for an "Obama is like LBJ" tag.
Achilles,
You're such a narcissist and a cry-baby. You think when I say we are war-criminals, I am talking about you, about soldiers.
Well, if you killed people who were not trying to kill you or you knew were simply trying to live their lives unmolested, then you are a war criminal and a murderer. If you tortured people in your power who were helpless, then you are a war criminal.
However, the war criminals I refer to are our elected leaders and generals--those in power who plan and implement the wars and who tell lies to justify them. Soldiers in the field are just the finger pulling the trigger on the gun held by Washington; or cannon-fodder, to use an old term: victims of the perfidy of their (our) leaders, sent to kill and be killed, who end up too often physically or psychologically dead or maimed, and who are then cast aside by their government, (as happens in every war by every government).
Don't you get it? You were sent to risk your life and to take the lives of others by people who don't know or care you exist, and wouldn't know or care if you were killed, their solemn public pronouncements to the contrary. You have been had.
Why does man kill?
He kills for food.
Frequently there must also be beverage.
Woody Allen, roughly
You're giving me Vietnam flashbacks.
We need to destroy the village to save it....
No, but it's not easy to get eyes on the target and see what or who is in the basement in North Warzistan...
Mistakes happen...
A very closed society, not easy for even locals to maneuver in. Nearly Impossible for a Westerner. And if one of our SOF guys gets caught, we get a picture of his head with his penis stuffed in its mouth. These lads are not exactly signatories of the Geneva and Hague Conventions...
On the other hand, we aren't doing Arclight strikes with steams of B-52s raining 500lb GP bombs down on village either.
We're attempting to apply force more precisely than any other nation has ever attempted.
David Hampton said...
The Rules of Engagement leave a lot of wriggle room. Keep civilian causalities to a minimum and everyone in the kill zone are aiding and abetting and are, therefor, legitimate targets.
As a practical matter what this probably means is that there are no females or males under military age present. and if the are the assumption is they won't stay constantly indoors.
In this case, they has almost contionous surveillance for a few days, besides what they had before and saw no women or children, and also had satisfied themselves that only four men were using the place.
They probably waited till all four were inside.
It was a "signature" target, meaning that, based on experierence and history, this was what an Al qaeda hideout looked like, and they were right about that.
Since no particular person wa sthe target, it did not need Preident Obama's personal approval, but only had to follow general rules. The rules were easier in Pakistan (outside of Pakistan and combat zones, they are supposed to pose an immimenbt threat to U.s. lives) but it's probable hey still had rules and the rules worked.
Except for one thing: prisoners.
If the people picking the targets thought about prisoners, they would have thought that prisoners are kept in a bigger place, with more guards.
But actually maybe that's not always the case with hostages, who might be kept isolated in a one room, and al Qaeda in Pakistan had been hammered and so things weren't the same as they were, perhaps, before.
AND THEY MAY HAVE HAD DISINFORMATION THAT THEY WERE BEING KEPT SOME OTHER PLACE.
Or was that other information, right, maybe?
What I can believe is that whatever Obama says is a lie, mostly.
Exceptions might happen, rarely, when Obama says the truth about a topic. Yet, mostly, he lies.
The Drill SGT:
The military has performed admirably in its mission to claim control of the theater while minimizing collateral damage. I think that if anything, especially with a Democrat CiC, this discussion is necessary to force a separation of politics and defense.
"What I can believe is that whatever Obama says is a lie, mostly."
You should assume this about any sitting President, and about any spokespersons for any administration.
And you make war when you must, not because you can.
And you must do it when they come for Poland, or South Korea, or South Vietnam, or Kuwait, because if you wait for them to come for you, there won't be anyone to help you.
"Could be captured"?
With what, magic?
Real life military operations aren't movies; you can't just whisk in a helicopter full of Special Ops D00dz and "just capture" the guys you want anytime you feel like it.
It's sometimes - very rarely - justified for a very valuable intelligence asset (say, the equivalent of the ISIL High Command, if they had that kind of structure).
But as a general policy, that's about as likely to work as suggesting police "just shoot to injure". It doesn't work like that, outside of movies.
Frankly, there's not much need to "capture them", if there's good intelligence from other sources, especially with groups that use a cell structure.
(This is a war, after all. There's no duty to capture, rather than kill, actual hostiles.
And if they hide among civilians and don't wear uniforms, they're breaking the laws and traditions of war by doing so.
I'm with the other posters; the President should have said "war is hell" and moved on.
All he's doing with this is either just lying to us, or - worse - essentially telling ISIL to just use civilian shields at all times.
That is the exact opposite of what the laws and traditions of war are meant to do here, which is why they say that if you militarize a civilian area or facility it is a legitimate target; to do otherwise encourages the use of human shields.)
Robert Cook said...
Well, if you killed people who were not trying to kill you... then you are a war criminal and a murderer.
Wrong.
According to the laws of war you can kill an enemy combatant whether they are trying to kill you or not, whether they are armed or not, whether they are running away or not.
Pretty much unless they are trying to surrender you can kill them. Our rules of engagement might prohibit you from doing so, but violating those makes you neither a war criminal nor a murderer.
" So, it seemed probable, if not certain, we were going to be involved in a possibly existential fight, whether we waited for it to reach our shores or acted before that point, (as we did). Additionally, we could not know what threat Europe's fall to Nazi Germany--which certainly was a possibility--would pose for us, even if Japan had not attacked us and Germany had not declared war against us when they did. "
You are making the argument for what we have done in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq even if you don't see it.
The point is that people who are responsible have to make decisions on imperfect information. I think Vietnam was a mistake, mainly by Johnson. Korea was an existential threat just as the German invasion of France was. Second order phenomena, which the left is notoriously poor at recognizing.
If you are going to war, declare it a war, not a "police action" or a "military operation" with an "exit strategy".
Define the enemy.
Make the case to the people why it is necessary to go to war.
Get the approval of the congress.
Declare war against your enemy.
Destroy his (the enemy's) ability to make war.
Accept nothing but unconditional surrender.
World War 2 was won against the Germans and Japanese because of all of the above.
During the course of the war, the road to victory over our enemies was paved with many inhumane atrocities and all the barbarity mankind has to offer. Was it just?
I think so.
We won.
But, compromises were made to achieve victory. The Soviet Union became our ally after being double crossed by their first choice (of allies), Nazi Germany.
Was the Soviet Union any less evil than Nazi Germany?
The answer is obvious from hindsight alone, but we needed them (the Soviets) to win (the war), so compromises had to be made.
We destroyed two out of three evil empires over the course of World War 2.
It was unconditional surrender for Germany and Japan that stopped their warring.
Neither country has threaten world peace since.
The Soviet Union was another matter.
After a long "cold war", about 40 years, the Soviet Union imploded when they got into a "high stakes" poker game with Ronald Reagan over "star wars" technology. That, and two Polish guys, one a union organizer and the other a pope, provided the moral fortitude to bring the "evil empire" to it's knees.
But it wasn't "unconditional surrender".
Russia under Putin, a Soviet era relic, is causing havoc and supports our enemies.
Iran tells us just what it's intentions are once they are a nuclear power.
Israel is on their list, just as the Jews were on Hitler's. Iran has plans for us too.
Do we have to see it to believe it as we did back then?
Radical Islamists practicing jihad, no matter what name they murder and terrorize under, and their sponser, Iran, are the "new" axis of evil that threatens world stability and civilization.
The terror and instability will go on and on unless a new and resolved team of allies determines they must be stopped, not by a long "cold war" but with a mandate of "unconditional surrender".
But, who's to do it?
We need Colin Powell's "tool box" and a leader with the backbone and resolve of Winston Churchill to see us through.
"The answer is obvious from hindsight alone, but we needed them (the Soviets) to win (the war), so compromises had to be made."
The Soviets had more to do with the defeat of Nazi Germany than we did. Perhaps one might say, they needed us to win the war.
@Robin Cook: Ah, the Voice of The Man of Steel speaks from beyond the grave! The US fought on three fronts, two in Europe and another one, actually in many ways two also, in the Pacific. Plus, the US supplied the USSR many tons of materials; some ships, many planes, army clothing, food, gasoline, other finished petrol products, many 2X4 trucks, and experts on how to use this stuff.
Lastly, to directly respond, ask yourself why Hitler greatly feared his Western Front, the Yanks and the Brits, rather than his Eastern Front? As a result of strong pressure, and Allied successes in the West, Hitler's forces on the East were weakened.
Of course, also, Hitler's stupid mistakes on the East greatly contributed to his defeat, there especially. Mistakes like at Stalingrad; mistakes like delaying his attack to the East in order to bail out El Duce's blunder in the Balkans; mistakes like not properly equipping his forces for that winter of 1941 1942. Plus of course, his mistakes in use of his new wonder weapons, like misusing the 262 Messerschmidt, like not allowing the 1943 Strumgewahr, which became the 1944 rifle, rifle, which was literally a game changer rifle, except it wasn't allowed to be.
So, Mr Man of Steel Ghost, go back to the Comintern Rump and ask for better instructions to use against the much hated USA!
Lastly, truly now, tell that Commie Rump that it would be great if it were to finally thank the magnificent US for the large gift of life saving materials and foods to the USSR during its time of extreme crisis.
Get your effing facts straight else "they" send you to a reeducation camp; that ain't a fun place to be, chum.
"Wrecks his credibility" Hahahahahahahaha! Good one!
OldGrouchyCranky:
Off your meds?
well, that's the standard ROE the last two times I was deployed (Iraq and af-crap-istan)
@Robin Cook: Wow, you're getting vicious NOT!
The Man of Steel, even his ghost, won't appreciate your poor representation of his positions. Didn't your Comintern teachers instruct you properly? My, my, how you Soviets have fallen from your good old days.
Go away boy, troll where your idiocy can be appreciated.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा