U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan

Post Reply New Topic

How do you characterise the drone attacks? and what over-generalisations have I made? I don't believe you have stated them.

Is it your position that it is beyond the means of western media outlets to go at least some way to verifying casualty reports in even such remote regions?

what outdated information? and thank you for detecting the sarcasm, I was concerned you may miss it. Though perhaps restraining from laughing and producing a mature, analytical response would have been far better for your own position; as opposed to simply sliding toward the level on which you accuse me of operating. Or was it that you had no real response to offer?

Your characterizations of Karzai are a little extreme. The legislation you mentioned was held up after an outcry of opposition. Here in the west that is an everyday occurrence but in Afghanistan it is welcome news and maybe a sign of things to come.

The Taliban violently enforced the burqa/hijab stuff way before Karzai became president along with denying women the opportunity to go to school. More women have or are attending school now than before when the Taliban was running the show. I read an article today with pictures and the women were not wearing burqas.

Some fail to see the key differences between the Taliban and the U.S. It is done by choice. The U.S. does not have a policy of running into a populated school after firing off a few rockets just down the street at those pesky "infidels", as a means to protect their lives or create another newsworthy story. If they are willing to die and be a martyr then why run and hide behind the six year olds? And, the U.S. does not have a policy of destroying electric lines, wells, schools or any other infrastructure that may make Afghan life a little easier as a means to penalize the population.

During the first gulf war Sadam had editorial control over CNN for some time in the coverage leading up to the war. Which was OK with CNN at the time.

Yes, much of the population struggles. Much of the population (24 million) is scattered across the country with a minority of it in urban areas. In many places it is not much unlike living in the stone age. It is very different than Iraq. The U.S. along with their allies have been working on all of those points you mentioned. The Lithuanians and Japanese are working together and making great progress with their infrastructure projects.

The reason why the bombs dropped on Japan worked is because they were so devastating. The Japanese accepted the defeat whereas today we could carpet bomb or nuke the entire middle east and religious fanatics and their supporters would still be at war because it is tough to reason with crazy.

The U.S. sent a vehicle remotely into space that made it within 3 feet of its intended target for docking. That is pretty darn accurate to me, considering the distance traveled.

The world is not a perfect place. But, I have helped an Afghan women buy supplies (sewing) so that she could try to earn a few bucks and have donated school supplies.

i concede to that response oh, eons back---my info is a little dated. (have finally stopped obsessing about AS/ASD enough to return to some other obsessions.) even so: it's still happening. and gamers are still being recruited.

i'm not saying i particularly enjoy the Taliban (or their tactics.) but if this policy is only A) creating more extremists, B) destroying innocent lives, and C) causing unnecessary PTSD/sorrow to those who engage in it, then---what's the point?

which brings me to the moral question: is it moral to decimate an entire population in one particular place or another in order to do battle with what began as relatively isolated extremist cells? (this is the logical extension of the policy. both the Pashtuns and the Taliban are tribal people. you kill someone's brother or uncle or cousin, and you've got five people willing to take his place.)

another question: can't we do better? if the stated policy is to "win hearts and minds"--then why not?

the history of extremist groups is to often make inroads by supplying what the gov't. won't, or replacing what more rapacious international forces are actively stealing. in Lebanon, Hezbollah has seats in parliament, in part, because they build hospitals, schools, clinics---things which are often sorely lacking.

it's most likely less expensive the manned drones. it will certainly be less expensive than a full scale engagement. (and most likely, this "policy" will lead to that.)

in addition, i'll do more research. i suspect this really has nothing to do with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda---these "actions" in the Muslim world rarely do. (generally, it's a matter of "follow the money." even in Afghanistan, this is true. the current engagement there is an extension of a long-standing policy to depose elected officials and destabilize the gov.t.. see michaelparenti.org.)

it's true--my first impulse is just "to leave folks alone." i think we create more extremism than we contain by this nonsense--and i suspect that "containing extremism" and "defense" are both canards anyway.

but if the US must have its hands in everything---can't we use something other than the "go-booms?"

also, i wanted to mention that i'm agnostic as to whether Talibanis actively use civilian populations as shields, or whether--since by definition, they aren't a gov't. sponsored military with a set base, etc.--they do tend to live among the population. perhaps a little of both are true. maybe it's even more complex than that. i've no idea. i can't directly control what the Taliban does or doesn't do. but i do disagree with my own govt's policy of using unmanned drones, and thus taking out large numbers of civilians with the Taliban. since we live in a democratic republic, i do feel a responsibility to say something.

anyhow: if you're a gamer and you don't like this policy----please get the word out!! !!

Soon, flesh-eating robots will join these drones...

sigh. i knew someone would write something like that.

It's true. There is a robot in development that can use biomass for fuel including dead bodies.

Biomass Eating Robot

Here is a little opinion piece.

Is the Press Our Deadliest Foe In Afghanistan?

No one is pushing for an ENTIRE population to be exterminated. Exhausted, you only mention it to bolster your morality argument. It would be nice if this administration clearly stated the policies in these two theaters.

When the Afghan war broke out the Taliban controlled most of the country and blew up ancient Buddhist statues because they were un-Islamic. They also tried to blow up a bank that reportedly held much gold but they failed in that attempt. Maybe the Taliban guy that builds schools and cell phone towers was on vacation that day.

....but if this policy is only....A) creating...

This is a pretty big leap and assumption. Only is a strong word and leaves no wiggle room. If there is one benefit of the policy not listed then it negates your statement. Not hard to do. There are other examples of generalizations in your prose that are easily dismissed by using the same logic.

And, if you are a gamer and don't like this policy of saving American lives in combat zones by using unmanned drones then don't join up.

[quote="Oggleleus"]Here is a little opinion piece.

Is the Press Our Deadliest Foe In Afghanistan?

No one is pushing for an ENTIRE population to be exterminated. Exhausted, you only mention it to bolster your morality argument. It would be nice if this administration clearly stated the policies in these two theaters.


i'm not sure it matters what policy they state at this point. the behavior is generally contrary to the stated policy. so i tend to focus on the behavior.

no one is saying that an entire area of Pakistan should be cleared of population. but it is true: the Talibans and the Pashtuns are tribal people and have very Islamic ideas of justice. there will be several people waiting in line to take the place of those killed.

it's true: the unmanned drones save US lives. at least that's true if you concede that military action in this region is necessary to begin with. i don't. no. i don't approve of the Taliban or its tactics. but you must remember: extremism isn't created in a vacuum. it's generally a reaction to another form of extremism (often governmental.) IMO: it's a fear-based system of beliefs and behaviors. in other words, there's a root here. not just a weed which needs to be "cut down."

if the US insists upon backing--at times helping to foment--extremely brutal regimes (ex., Musharref), we will continue to see extremists in the region. (for a history of covert US involvement in Afghanistan, see michaelparenti.org.) we have toppled an elected official there in the past. not to mention the fact that we once were training and arming the Taliban against the former Soviet Union. this the the hidden arm of US policy. only the "blowback" to these polices tend to make it to the press, etc. we see only the extremism, which we then assume must be responded to with force.

ironically, the force only creates more extremists. another regime is put in place to control things; decades or so later, the whole thing erupts once more.

none of this is explicit policy---not one that's released to the public anyway. but the behavior (and the results) are clear. i have a difficult time ignoring them.

if you want a short term "solution"--then yes. keep destroying Taliban cells, civilians along with them. wait for the blowback in years to come. (not to mention that this results in an extreme loss of human life.)

is there a way to get at the root instead of cutting down the weeds--watching them grow back with greater force?

is there a place for morality in US policy decisions?

those are my questions. (they aren't rhetorical. i'm wondering about them myself.)

well said

The Taliban were not in power back when the Soviets invaded from what I can remember. Different name but pretty much the same theology.

You seem to be worrying about a vicious circle of action then reaction and believing that the more action the U.S. takes results in more terrorists. This is the nature of terrorism, to scare you or make you fearful of fighting against their goals. It is a concern and should be dealt with simultaneously, not instead of.

Anytime you make a garden and plant some seeds you need some good soil first as the foundation. The U.S. is trying to lay this foundation by cleaning out as much of the "contaminants" that prevent growth in the first place and then adding "nutrients" to the soil to speed up the process. You may never be able to get rid of all of the weeds but if the number of flowers outnumber the weeds greatly enough then the weeds will get no sunlight. Now, does the American public and media have the patience to wait for the flowers to bloom?

If you want a quicker solution, then a message needs to be sent to the middle east and Iran especially, that we are going to start drilling for oil in every direction, in order to get out of the business of importing middle eastern oil. Because we are tired of having the threat of an economic backlash if we mess up the middle eastern shipping lanes by all out war. We would starve the middle east of cash that gets funneled to terrorists groups, create jobs at home, have cheaper energy and have more bargaining power in the region.

so you admit it then? that this is essentially about oil? maybe we come from two different directions. my question: what is the price of oil (in terms of human costs?) is it worth it?

also: how much oil does one country need in order to sustain itself? isn't there a difficulty with such a small percentage of the world's population using such a huge percentage of the resources?

no. the Taliban were not in power. but the US armed them and trained them. this didn't help matters.

you want to remove the contaminants? why not bring things up to the light (assuming sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.) hidden policies of violence bring blowback: even the CIA concedes this and has extensive research on the matter.

i'm not assuming anything in terms of continued cycles. we've seen it again and again. what was the "Iranian revolution" about? the one that brought in the Ayatollahs and the theocratic regime? we toppled Mossadegh, the elected official---who, "coincidentally," was planning to nationalize the oil fields. we reinstated the shah, who was uniformly brutal. the extremists promised to topple the shah and rebel against "the enemy" (the US.) in other words: extremism as a reaction to extremism. the theocrats were able to win the hearts and minds of a terrorized population by promising them a release from the pain.

this is how extremism works. (again: take note of Hezbollah's current positions in Lebanon's parliament. they aren't there by accident. they've played on people's real fears of violence from the outside. they build schools, clinics, etc.---they promise defense and protection. this is how the US was commandeered by another extremist for eight years.

this is cycle. where does it end? who begins it, and who ends it?

i think one of the most important beginnings is consistency between stated policy and behavior. accountability is another. the world just can't afford a secret government anymore (CIA, NSA, covert foreign policy, etc.) we can't afford it either. blowback is a reality. it isn't a pretty one. how many more people need to be lost to it?

seconded.

Also I believe the government at the time of the Soviet intervention was Communist (Stalinist maybe? called PDPA) the PDPA essentially brought equal rights between gender, abolished most of the sharia law type legislation (such as forced marriage I think), brought land reforms, secular state. Most of the things we are supposedly fighting for now. An insurrection against 'westernisation' and modernisation started and came close to getting the better of the Gov. who asked the USSR for military assistance (i think). The Islamic rebels (including Al-qaeda and Taleban) were armed, often trained (certainly in the case of al-qaeda) and funded by the USA and Pakistan amongst others.

"We would starve the middle east of cash that gets funneled to terrorists groups, create jobs at home, have cheaper energy and have more bargaining power in the region." If it's oil from Saudi Arabia, you shouldn't have to concern yourself with this for too long, i reckon they've started taking measures themselves, because they kinda noticed that they could be next on Al Qaeda's list.... In any event, they're reeducating the youngest members of Al Qaeda that they can find, it seems to work pretty well, i reckon General Petraeus recommended this too. For the rest of the more hardened of Al Qaeda's members, they've even sarted building more prisons. I could say more but huh, my wall of text would crush readers.

No. Only when the moral and the pragmatic coincide will you find morality. Morality and $1.67 will get you a small coffee at the local Dunkin' Donut shop.

ruveyn

Here's the key bit that people don't get, the creating more radicals. This enemy that we're fighting is mixing themselves in with people who have nothing to do with any of it. The "enemies" that are dying aren't actually the ones that have done something wrong; at least not until after they've been attacked. Probably most villagers in rural areas in Pakistan don't know much at all about the conflict. They're innocent, you can't call them the enemy, they haven't done anything wrong! But after being attacked, you can bet they'll develop a grudge! You can say that it's saving American lives by using these unmanned attacks, but really, terrorist organizations probably love it! Probably gets people lined up wanting to join-- they've been attacked, and want to attack back! They see Americans as inhuman bullies. The only way to stop it is to make both sides start seeing each other as PEOPLE. Both sides are angry, both sides have been attacked.. there's never going to be peace until people can understand that both sides are motivated by the same things and have a lot of the same goals. Saying that lives weren't lost because they came from another country just doesn't work. If someone was innocent, they weren't the enemy. If it was a child, a parent, a farmer.. anyone who hadn't attacked first.. how can you say that they were the enemy? But a kid who loses his mother in an attack, when that's his first experience of the conflict, is pretty sure to BECOME the enemy!

so should morality be used to justify policy? (ex.: "we're here to liberate people.") or would it be best simply to tell the truth: "we really want to invade this country so we can control the oil resources, thus embargo other powers any time we like."

this is one of my points. if we live in an (ostensibly) democratic republic, how do people make rational decisions re: voting, activism, etc. if the truth is not being told?

you can say "truth" is a moral concept. in this case, i'm using it as an example of pragmatism. in other words: how does a democratic society function if the information is false?