Post #406,823
12/8/15 8:49:28 PM
|
asymmetrical warfare
I've made this general point before, but one of James Fallows' correspondents states it more cogently and in more detail in remarks I will quote in their entirety from Fallows' site.It is the policy of the United States that it may kill anyone it wants in certain areas of the Middle East; the executive branch decides and kills. The claimed entitlement to kill includes not just those targeted but also anyone who happens to be nearby. The United States seeks to minimize this “collateral damage,” but accepts however much of it is necessary to achieve its killing objectives.
As a result, everyone in the affected areas of the Middle East has for a long time lived in peril of a sudden deadly attack by the United States. Reports on how many we actually have killed vary, but the number appears certainly to be in the hundreds and likely to be in the thousands.
This policy comes with a cost: the people who are subject to it and their sympathizers will seek to retaliate by such means as are available, even as we would do if a foreign country’s drones were hovering over Connecticut and killing people in the same fashion. The idea that such retaliation can be willed or persuaded out of existence is a fantasy. Retaliation might be forestalled by resort to the level of force used against Germany and Japan in WWII, but our country is not prepared to do that or pay for it.
Given that the people subject to U.S. violence will retaliate “by such means as are available,” what are we in for? It appears that their capabilities are limited, for now, to relatively small-scale random killings by suicidal attackers such as those in San Bernardino. U.S. authorities can prevent some of these attacks, but not all. At least so long as the U.S. pursues the discretionary killing policy described above, every American must bear the risk of being killed or maimed in the occasional retaliatory San Bernardino.
This state of affairs represents a possible exception to your “Chickenhawk Nation” diagnosis. Americans have persuaded themselves that their country can wage war on foreigners at no personal cost to them, but only because they refuse to see the connection between such wars and the desire of those subject to them to retaliate. They are persuaded by propagandists such as Fox News that what is really retaliation occurs because attackers “hate us for our freedoms.” We in fact are the front-line soldiers in the drone war. cordially,
|
Post #406,825
12/8/15 9:53:36 PM
|
"We in fact are the front-line soldiers in the drone war" Agree, they cant hit us there
So can I haz my 75mm rifle now? /me flees you can kill people for America at age 18 but need to be 21 to buy a beer
|
Post #406,832
12/9/15 7:34:12 AM
|
Yeahbut...
Hasn't war (and whatever we want to call the post-2001 hostilities we're participating in) always been like this? "Sherman killed my great-great-grandpa and destroyed our farm so the Yankees can go to Hell." In a way, I think it's a little surprising that there isn't more animosity toward the US than there is. We (by some estimates) dropped 7.8M tons of bombs on SE Asia, killed millions, and people are still being killed by them every year, yet we have good relations with Vietnam and her people now. I think it shows that people generally want to look forward even after a horrible past and will do so if given the chance. The military as an institution spends a lot of money to try to minimize "collateral damage" and civilian deaths and injuries. Things like sniper systems with guided bullets are being researched. Drone operators make mistakes - they're human after all - but I believe the alternative is generally worse when it comes to collateral damage. It's horrible and counter-productive when wedding parties and the like are attacked and dozens are killed in an attempt to kill one or a few leaders of the other side. I don't know of a way to prevent things like that in a war situation, though. If we say we will not attack a target if there is a chance of non-combatant casualties, then "human shields" will become the norm. If we say that drones will no longer be used to attack people (but only used for surveillance), then will we really get better results if humans are in the aircraft doing the firing? (Remember the videos leaked by Manning?) I don't know. If history is any guide, the answer is to minimize the time of the conflict while not obliterating the enemy; work to achieve a just, fair, definitive result; and give the people in the countries and regions affected a decent, respectful life through economic development and reasonable political and social advancement. Having the result be a wishy-washy stalemate with insufficient investment afterward is a recipe for continued resentment and anger. That's what breeds terrorists and asymmetric warfare, I think. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #406,833
12/9/15 7:41:56 AM
|
(Speaking of human shields...)
Reuters: As Iraqi forces close in on the western city of Ramadi, thousands of civilians are effectively being held hostage inside by Islamic State militants who want to use them as human shields.
Iraqi forces cut the hardline group's last supply line into Ramadi in November, surrounding the city and making it almost impossible for the militants to send in reinforcements.
But for thousands of residents who remain trapped inside the mainly Sunni city, life has become even harder as the militants grow increasingly paranoid, residents said.
Reuters spoke to five residents inside the city and three who recently managed to get out. All said conditions inside had deteriorated to their worst since Islamic State overran it earlier this year.
“Daesh fighters are becoming more hostile and suspicious. They prevent us from leaving houses. Everyone who goes out against orders is caught and investigated," said Abu Ahmed. "We feel we’re living inside a sealed casket."
Ramadi, a provincial capital in the fertile Euphrates valley just a short drive west of Baghdad, was Islamic State's biggest conquest since last year, and reversing it would be a major victory for the Iraqi government and its spectrum of allies that include both the United States and Iran.
[...] :-( Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #406,835
12/9/15 8:43:29 AM
|
Don't forget to factor in the cost to your soul of making children afraid of the sky.
"I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey," a 13-year-old Pakistani boy named Zubair told Congress on Tuesday. Zubair was 12 when he and his younger sister, Nabeela, were injured in a drone strike near North Waziristan last October. "When sky brightens, drones return and we live in fear," Zubair told Rep. Alan Grayson and others at the congressional briefing.
Think about that for a second — because of drones, a little kid is scared of one of the most harmless things in the world and the universal indicator that the day is going to be a good one. Being afraid of a blue sky is the inevitable trauma that comes with the recovery process Zubair and his sister are going through — the two were injured when a drone attack hit their home, and blew their grandmother to bits while she was working in the garden. http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-congresss-briefing-drone-strikes/71048/
|
Post #406,853
12/9/15 7:26:37 PM
|
Similarity and differences
The similarity is that we're once again unable to distinguish friend from foe with identical results.
In SE Asia, there was opportunity to retaliate as the US was a hittable target for an adversary with roughly equal capabilities. Now, force is overwhelmingly applied in one direction. That was so from the get go and, with the Drone Wars, has devolved to inflicting carnage with total impunity. That has never been the case in any prior conflict. IMHO, that has to drive the desire to hit back by other means.
The festering sore on the border of the Mediterranean is also quite unique in the annals of warfare. Lopsided support for one party regardless of that party's actions and the continuing hardships imposed on neighbors provides an open goal for anyone looking for excuses.
And lastly, pure speculation on my part: Islam is still waiting for its French Revolution.
Looking at the situation in Europe prior to the French Revolution, countries existed, and there were plenty of interregional conflicts, but religion took priority against outside forces. One was Christian first, then French/Spanish/German/... Even following Luther's adventures in carpentry, nationality remained secondary. This made for easy mobilization across borders and resulting magnification of conflicts.
Following 1789, nationality became the primary driver in conflicts. Although that did nothing to stop wars, it did tend to compartmentalize them. Formal alliances eventually allowed things to spiral out of control again, but those come and go.
|
Post #406,857
12/9/15 11:03:52 PM
|
Good points.
|
