Stop killing our soldiers, or we'll kill our kids!

[Sabby]

Wow... just wow. Sometimes I have to invent new ways of shaking my head just to accommodate for the levels of stupid, and considering the source, it takes a LOT to surprise me.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - A Taliban commander in Pakistan’s tribal belt has banned a vaccination campaign against child polio in protest over frequent United States drone attacks there.
Hafiz Gul Bahadur said that the U.S.-funded vaccinations for tens of thousands of children would be outlawed until drone attacks stopped.

He also said the polio campaign could be a cover for CIA espionage – a reference to Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor reported to have helped American agencies identify Osama bin Laden.
A pamphlet issued in Miranshah, North Waziristan and seen by NBC News accused the U.S. of “spending billions of rupees” on anti-polio measures while causing psychological disorders “due to drone strikes and round the clock hovering of spy planes over homes and villages”.

And in case you didn't already have your palm jammed squarely into your nose...

“This situation created by U.S. drone strikes is more dangerous than the polio virus"

[Sel Nar]

Warning: Reading that article may cause brain leakage as it tries to escape the STUPID. One reccomends earplugs or not reading the STUPID due to the risk of permanent damage caused by your brain trying to pull itself out of your head via your ear canals so it can go on vacation.

[Callie Del Noire]

Words.. fail me.

Just.. so much.. fail...

[Sabre]

In lieu of advanced intelligence gathering and news, conspiracy theories prevail in these regions.

[Shjade]

Hm. It's a little more crackpot than I thought. I was thinking it might be something along the lines of, "You're going to blow up our kids anyway, why would we let you pretend to care about them first?"

[Revolverman]

A cynical US commander would likely welcome that, less bombs needed.

[Maiz]

I don't see why this is so crazy. The US has used vaccination campaigns as a cover for covert operations. The US has also killed a lot of civilians with drone attacks.  If you read interviews by survivors or people who have lost family members from drone attack you'll realize that they don't kill insurgents. They are killing kids and the elderly. Drones kill probably kill more people in that region than polio does. Why would anyone accept 'help' from a country that is killing your family?

[Callie Del Noire]

Want to bet if the spokesman's kids start suffering from polio his attitude towards the treatment will change?

[Hemingway]

While it's difficult to overstate the importance of vaccines of that kind, American drone strikes in Pakistan are also ... problematic, to say the least. Violations of Pakistan's national sovereignty are quite serious. So, while the means are misguided, I agree that the US riding roughshod over international conventions is a problem.

It poses problems, of course, beyond just being a conflict between humanitarian and US military interests, in that if the US were to give in to a tactic like that ( incidentally, it's the same tactic that's used by North Korea ), it may be used again for some other purpose.

It's ... a complicated situation.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I don't see why this is so crazy. The US has used vaccination campaigns as a cover for covert operations. The US has also killed a lot of civilians with drone attacks.  If you read interviews by survivors or people who have lost family members from drone attack you'll realize that they don't kill insurgents. They are killing kids and the elderly. Drones kill probably kill more people in that region than polio does. Why would anyone accept 'help' from a country that is killing your family?

Maybe if Islamic fighters would man up and stop hiding behind women and children, there'd be fewer civilian casualties.

[OldSchoolGamer]

While it's difficult to overstate the importance of vaccines of that kind, American drone strikes in Pakistan are also ... problematic, to say the least. Violations of Pakistan's national sovereignty are quite serious. So, while the means are misguided, I agree that the US riding roughshod over international conventions is a problem.

Sovereignty carries with it responsibilities as well as rights.

One of the key responsibilities of a sovereign state is to police its territory and prevent it from being used by criminal or insurgent groups to base themselves whilst carrying out attacks on neighbors.  Pakistan has been failing to live up to its responsibility here.  As an occupying power, the U.S. is responsible for security in Afghanistan.  The insurgents which Pakistan pretty much gives free rein to operate from its territory routinely compromise that security.  Therefore, America must attack them inside Pakistan.

Whether America should even be wasting lives and treasure trying to make the Afghan Muslims leave the Middle Ages is whole other (and legitimate) question.  But we're there, we're responsible for security, and so yes, we are justified in carrying out drone strikes.

[Maiz]

Sovereignty carries with it responsibilities as well as rights.

One of the key responsibilities of a sovereign state is to police its territory and prevent it from being used by criminal or insurgent groups to base themselves whilst carrying out attacks on neighbors.  Pakistan has been failing to live up to its responsibility here.  As an occupying power, the U.S. is responsible for security in Afghanistan.  The insurgents which Pakistan pretty much gives free rein to operate from its territory routinely compromise that security.  Therefore, America must attack them inside Pakistan.

Whether America should even be wasting lives and treasure trying to make the Afghan Muslims leave the Middle Ages is whole other (and legitimate) question.  But we're there, we're responsible for security, and so yes, we are justified in carrying out drone strikes.

Maybe if Islamic fighters would man up and stop hiding behind women and children, there'd be fewer civilian casualties.

OldSchoolGamer- killing civilians, ignoring a nation's boundaries, and bombing people will not, and will never create piece. Yemen lawyer Haykel Bafana tweeted, "Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda."

The fact is, the US use of drones and murder of civilians creates more enemies for the US. It makes the problem worse. There was a republic in Afghanistan, and the leaders had very progressive policies. And than the Soviets invaded, and then the US a few times, inciting increasingly extremist and religious groups who win progress by being anti-Western. The US involvement (ie killing civilians) only gives people who would not be anti-US reason to be anti-US.

[Callie Del Noire]

OldSchoolGamer- killing civilians, ignoring a nation's boundaries, and bombing people will not, and will never create piece. Yemen lawyer Haykel Bafana tweeted, "Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda."

The fact is, the US use of drones and murder of civilians creates more enemies for the US. It makes the problem worse. There was a republic in Afghanistan, and the leaders had very progressive policies. And than the Soviets invaded, and then the US a few times, inciting increasingly extremist and religious groups who win progress by being anti-Western. The US involvement (ie killing civilians) only gives people who would not be anti-US reason to be anti-US.

The problem (post Soviet invasion) is we (the US) foolishly decided 'job done' and went home. You pay folks like the 'proto-taliban' freedom fighters, give them training and weapons, then don't follow up with the promises to rebuild infrastructure.. this is what you get. A collection of extremist religious fringe elements who crushed their rivals for decades. If they had given up Bin Laden..we'd have happily left them alone till their rot had spread to Pakistan, taken control and nuked the Hindus to the south of them or provided Iran with material and training to make their own nukes.

The drone strikes shouldn't be run by the  CIA but by the DoD, and the rules of engagement need to be refined.

[Shjade]

Maybe if Islamic fighters would man up and stop hiding behind women and children, there'd be fewer civilian casualties.

Right, blame them for our choice of tactics. That's totally fair.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Right, blame them for our choice of tactics. That's totally fair.

When these people threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, they gave up all rights to "fair."

[Callie Del Noire]

When these people threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, they gave up all rights to "fair."

We cannot use their actions to justify giving up our own ethical outlook.

And the way they fight? It's the way they have fought.. forever. Do you honestly think they could have turned aside the Russians (twice), England, and even Alexander the Great without a hit and run outlook?

[Hemingway]

Sovereignty carries with it responsibilities as well as rights.

One of the key responsibilities of a sovereign state is to police its territory and prevent it from being used by criminal or insurgent groups to base themselves whilst carrying out attacks on neighbors.  Pakistan has been failing to live up to its responsibility here.  As an occupying power, the U.S. is responsible for security in Afghanistan.  The insurgents which Pakistan pretty much gives free rein to operate from its territory routinely compromise that security.  Therefore, America must attack them inside Pakistan.

That may well be the case, and it certainly seems to be the stance of the UN - of which, may I remind you, both the US and Pakistan are members. But the US is not the arbiter of matters of other countries' sovereignty. It isn't up to the US to decide what the conditions of sovereignty are, and which countries are to be stripped of their sovereignty. The only body that could possibly do that with any sort of legitimacy is the UN - and even that's highly dubious, as that effectively exempts the permanent members of the Security Council from such considerations.

If, then, Pakistan was seen to violate their basic responsibilities, the right way of going about it would be to take it to the UN. But the drone strikes in Pakistan don't have UN support, and in fact the UN is concerned about them.

This, I think, raises a question ( a purely academic one, I'm sure ): If it turns out that US drone attacks in Pakistan are in violation of international law, what does that imply for US sovereignty? Would the US hand over members of the CIA to Pakistan - and, if not, would Pakistan be justified in carrying out attacks in the US to get to them? I'm tempted to answer my own questions with an "of course not", but given the history of the US and the CIA in certain countries around the world, I'm not convinced that wouldn't be exactly what would happen, had the roles only been reversed.

The bottom line is that this entire question is far, far more nuanced than it may seem at first glance, and the US is not a paragon of shining virtue without a blemish to its name.

[Shjade]

When these people threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, they gave up all rights to "fair."

Which is worse: throwing acid in the faces of some schoolgirls, or dropping bombs on schoolgirls, their families, and every family that lives on their block?

You can't make them out to be the bad guy; we're just as bad.

Besides, the whole point is that we're blowing up people who weren't throwing acid at anybody. When did they give up their rights to "fair?"

[Callie Del Noire]

That may well be the case, and it certainly seems to be the stance of the UN - of which, may I remind you, both the US and Pakistan are members. But the US is not the arbiter of matters of other countries' sovereignty. It isn't up to the US to decide what the conditions of sovereignty are, and which countries are to be stripped of their sovereignty. The only body that could possibly do that with any sort of legitimacy is the UN - and even that's highly dubious, as that effectively exempts the permanent members of the Security Council from such considerations.

If, then, Pakistan was seen to violate their basic responsibilities, the right way of going about it would be to take it to the UN. But the drone strikes in Pakistan don't have UN support, and in fact the UN is concerned about them.

This, I think, raises a question ( a purely academic one, I'm sure ): If it turns out that US drone attacks in Pakistan are in violation of international law, what does that imply for US sovereignty? Would the US hand over members of the CIA to Pakistan - and, if not, would Pakistan be justified in carrying out attacks in the US to get to them? I'm tempted to answer my own questions with an "of course not", but given the history of the US and the CIA in certain countries around the world, I'm not convinced that wouldn't be exactly what would happen, had the roles only been reversed.

The bottom line is that this entire question is far, far more nuanced than it may seem at first glance, and the US is not a paragon of shining virtue without a blemish to its name.

Hence my argument that the DoD should be doing these strikes, with better defined RoE.

The CIA and accountability aren't always in the same area code, and while the DoD has on occasion been just as bad, there is a history of accountability and less invisibility to judicial inquiry that would require them to be held more accountable to the legal system.

For example, had the technology been available in the Vietnam war era, we'd have done strikes on military targets in 'untoubleable' regions like Laos and Cambodia I'm sure.. but it would have been done by DoD personel.

[OldSchoolGamer]

If, then, Pakistan was seen to violate their basic responsibilities, the right way of going about it would be to take it to the UN. But the drone strikes in Pakistan don't have UN support, and in fact the UN is concerned about them.

Yes, that worked so well for the Syrian people. 

The UN is a toothless entity vis-a-vis human rights as long as Russia and China are members. 

The bottom line is that this entire question is far, far more nuanced than it may seem at first glance, and the US is not a paragon of shining virtue without a blemish to its name.

True.  But "it is what it is," and until the Muslim world decides to invest more energy in self-development and social progress as it does trying to destroy Israel, this is par for the course.

If I had been in charge, the operation in Afghanistan would have been far more limited...and when we had the Taliban top brass and bin Laden holed up in that cave-complex, I'd have dropped a bunker-busting tactical nuke on it, declared victory, and ended the operation.  That would have sent a clear message to the Muslim world that we're not going to ask you to leave the 12th century, but if you make a mess in America, we'll come sort you hard and fast.  Much more effective than "nation-building."

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes, that worked so well for the Syrian people. 

The UN is a toothless entity vis-a-vis human rights as long as Russia and China are members. 

True.  But "it is what it is," and until the Muslim world decides to invest more energy in self-development and social progress as it does trying to destroy Israel, this is par for the course.

Well considering we don't even try to work with the UN our allies, it will never change now will it. We did our part in making the UN a money sink with no teeth by pointedly never letting things OUR allies and agendas disliked from going through. Again, the UN is what we helped make it. Toothless, corrupt and without even a clear definition of what terrorism is.

If I had been in charge, the operation in Afghanistan would have been far more limited...and when we had the Taliban top brass and bin Laden holed up in that cave-complex, I'd have dropped a bunker-busting tactical nuke on it, declared victory, and ended the operation.  That would have sent a clear message to the Muslim world that we're not going to ask you to leave the 12th century, but if you make a mess in America, we'll come sort you hard and fast.  Much more effective than "nation-building."

And a decade and a half from now when our lack of putting something in place leaves us with something that makes the Taliban look tame and they detonate a dirty bomb in memory of 'martyrs lost to American aggression' because we didn't support moderates in the Arab world. What then?

Lets eliminate our actions in the gulf and look at other historical events..

World War 1 vs War War II in Europe.

The end of World War 1 ended with HUGE reparations being thrown on the Germans and their allies. The French literally marched into some factories and took machinery to collect what they were owed. The means of production. They GUTTED the industrial systems in areas. They literally and figuratively looted the country. Leaving massive debt, joblessness and resurgence of historical hatred between them and the French.

All of which left the way open for Adolf Hitler to come in and leverage his way in.

Post WWII Europe. .the Allies (aside from the Soviet Union) REBUILT the countries. Do you think Western Europe or Japan would have been half as likely to be in the fiscal shape they are currently in if we hadn't done our part to help out? Compare the way we helped the sections of Europe we were in control of compared to the ones the Soviets were in control of.

Some of the reasons Western Europe is still in fairly good shape is because we REBUILT infrastructure. When you're hungry, jobless and worried about your kids, and the folks in power aren't doing anything..the opposition is looking damn good. Had we made a concerted effort to rebuild the old Afgan government after the withdrawal of the Soviets.. do you think the Taliban would have been so heavily rooted today?

Our problem is we have become shortsighted adn stupid. Destroy a regions infrastructure and do you honestly think if we don't make an effort to help them recover after the end of the war is done that they won't try to retaliate a decade or two down the line.

[Hemingway]

While I was trying to collect my thoughts and figure out what to write, Callie said more or less everything I wanted to say.

The only thing I'd like to add concerns this:

True.  But "it is what it is," and until the Muslim world decides to invest more energy in self-development and social progress as it does trying to destroy Israel, this is par for the course.

This is such a good illustration of precisely why a violent, jingoistic approach won't solve anything. Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Do you know what conditions are like there? Its a perfectly vicious circle of oppression, violence, repression, and more violence.

[Callie Del Noire]

While I was trying to collect my thoughts and figure out what to write, Callie said more or less everything I wanted to say.

The only thing I'd like to add concerns this:

This is such a good illustration of precisely why a violent, jingoistic approach won't solve anything. Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Do you know what conditions are like there? Its a perfectly vicious circle of oppression, violence, repression, and more violence.

Yeah.. Ironically it's the ISRAELI government (and the more extreme parties) who continue to go on refuting their own peace agreements. Do you think if they hadn't been spending the last 20 years in denial and ignoring their own agreements that Hamas might not have been so influential today?

They (the Israeli political extremists) put Hamas in control. And their continued ignoring of their own treaties and laws..well Hamas can honestly say that the Israelis don't intend to give anything up when they go on building settlements on Palestinian land.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Some of the reasons Western Europe is still in fairly good shape is because we REBUILT infrastructure. When you're hungry, jobless and worried about your kids, and the folks in power aren't doing anything..the opposition is looking damn good. Had we made a concerted effort to rebuild the old Afgan government after the withdrawal of the Soviets.. do you think the Taliban would have been so heavily rooted today?

Our problem is we have become shortsighted adn stupid. Destroy a regions infrastructure and do you honestly think if we don't make an effort to help them recover after the end of the war is done that they won't try to retaliate a decade or two down the line.

Except we didn't have hordes of aggrieved locals blowing up everything we rebuilt.  Western Europeans recognized the value of schools, power plants, roads, factories, and so forth.  Not so the Afghan Muslims.  In fact, if anything, they resent these things because these accoutrements of civilization remind them of distant lands where women are not property and murder-death-kill fanatics aren't in charge.

Nation-building only works if the people you are building the nation for do in fact recognize the value of nations and civil society.

[Callie Del Noire]

Except we didn't have hordes of aggrieved locals blowing up everything we rebuilt.  Western Europeans recognized the value of schools, power plants, roads, factories, and so forth.  Not so the Afghan Muslims.  In fact, if anything, they resent these things because these accoutrements of civilization remind them of distant lands where women are not property and murder-death-kill fanatics aren't in charge.

Nation-building only works if the people you are building the nation for do in fact recognize the value of nations and civil society.

You know what..had we done it THIRTY YEARS ago.. we wouldn't have had folks burning down the buildings.. because they expected us to keep our word then. We've repeatedly and constantly proved ourselves a fair weather friend from Ronnie Regan on. Had we done it then.. gosh.. think of how Al Qaeda would have been afterwards.

By the time Bin Laden hopped up and got kicked out of his home country, Afganistan would have been fairly stable and most likely not been open to welcoming to him. Odds were Syria or Yemen would have been his home away from home or possibly even Somalia.

Instead, we left them hanging in a country devestated by war and broke our promises to men who have a long long long tradition of living by their words.. so when folks like Bin Laden showed up with his chunk of daddy's money.. he got a lot of support from folks who were perfectly willing to back his play.

Fun note.. fixing problems like the Taliban.. take a generation. You can't fix them in time for the next election cycle.