AP IMPACT: study suggests drones kill far fewer civilians than many Pakistanis believe

[limpyhobbler]

50. ok so...

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

OK, let's start with the basics, namely the language and terms that you use. "Fascist-terrorist", really? First of all, brushing aside the fact that this sounds like something you picked up from hate radio

Nope, I came up with it myself, I don't listen to Right Wing anything.

your use of this term shows a profound lack of understanding about what fascism, and terrorism is.

I agree with you that was imprecise language. I apologize for using the term fascist so freely even though I am aware of the dictionary definition. I once called my boss at Starbucks a fascist. And I called a coca-cola machine a fascist vending machine when it stole my money without delivering on the goods. It is a known weakness of mine.

Back in 2005 there was a devastating earthquake in the Kashmir region of Pakistan, just across the Afghan border. While the US eventually provided a substantial amount of aid, the folks on the spot, the first responders, were members of al Qaeda. Instead of taking time out to help our fellow humans, and garner a great deal of good will for ourselves, we continued on with military operations across the border. It wasn't until we belatedly realized what a PR nightmare this was did we start aiding our fellow humans, but by then it was too late, we had lost that battle in the war of ideas.

I agree with you on that. We should do more charity work, humanitarian work, help people. But that does not necessarily mean we have to stop tracking and removing terrorists.

We just lost another battle in that war of ideas the other week, with the discovery of those burned Qurans.

Who's defending that except the far right? You're lecturing me that burning Korans is bad. It is a very stupid thing to do. But again I don't see the connection from that issue, to the policy change which I believe you are suggesting, that we should stop targeted strikes in Pakistan.

Yes, yes, I know that it is fashionable to dismiss this as overreaction due to religious fanaticism, but the fact of the matter is we've stuck our foot into this tiger trap more than once during this war, you would think that we would have learned by now. Instead, we've come out looking like ugly Americans, with no cultural sensitivity and no respect for those we are supposedly saving from, well, whatever it is we're supposed to be saving them from. Another battle in the war of ideas lost.

Nobody here is suggesting otherwise. I agree we ought not piss on other people's bibles. So how does that mean we should stop targeting known terrorists?

But there is some inconsistency in your understanding of the war of ideas. But I won't say that it is because you fail to grasp basic concepts or because you need to go get educated. Earlier you said the war of ideas was a competition between ideologies. You gave the example of the cold war where there was a war of ideas between "Socialism vs. capitalism, democracy vs. an totalitarian oligarchy." The analogy in the modern case would be a competition between Religious-political fanaticism of a certain religion (who earlier I called fascists) vs. whatever you call our side, roughly speaking democratic capitalism. I don't have difficulty picking a side in that "war of ideas".

But now you are changing your definition of the "war of ideas" to much more tangible issues such as building schools or providing humanitarian aid after an earthquake. I think you are also implying that if Al Qaeda gets to the earthquake scene first as "first responders" then they win the war of ideas. But yet the underlying ideologies and ideas of the two sides have not changed.

Please make up your mind. Is the war of ideas "a conflict of cultures, beliefs, modes of approaching the world"? Or rather is it the provision of humanitarian aid and civil respect by soldiers toward populations? I agree they are both important issues but are they both part of the war on ideas? Because when it comes to underlying ideologies, our side is the clear winner of the war of ideas. But when it comes to humanitarian social aid and respect for other cultures, obviously we need to improve.

You may think that a war of ideas is meaningless, that it doesn't contribute anything to winning the physical battles, but you are wrong.

Nope. I don't think that.

Winning the war of ideas, winning hearts and minds, is the most important thing, a fact that has been recognized by leaders and political experts for eons.

I agree with that.

We failed badly in the war of ideas in Vietnam. We failed to show that we were a people who were kind, generous, and dedicated to something nobler than our own vision of empire. This is why the NVA was able to operate in South Vietnam with relative impunity, why the Viet Cong weren't lacking for recruits, why the people of Southeast Asia did not want our presence in their country. You cannot win a war if you do not have the people of the countryside on your side.

Our current situation in Pakistan has some similarities and some differences to Vietnam. I certainly agree with you we ought to be more respectful of cultures and provide more social-humanitarian aid.

Yes, you may pound your enemy into tiny pieces, you may stride across the country in question like a Collosus, but you won't win in the long run, but your enemy will continue to reform from the ashes of defeat, only to attack you again and again until you are bled dry or leave.

We are not indiscriminately bombing and killing people in Pakistan the way that we were in Vietnam. We have clearly put a top priority on intelligence gathering to identify militant extremists and then use strikes as narrowly targeted as possible to get the target. That is not similar to Vietnam at all.

We saw this with our own Revolution. We did not win militarily, we won less than a handful of major engagements, our capital was captured, our major ports of commerce were occupied or blockaded for a good portion of the war. Even the belated entry of the French did not swing the balance of the military scales. What won the Revolution far us was the fact that we had already won the war of ideas.

You have a good point. If you don't have the support of the people you can't ever really "win" where winning is defined as controlling the territory. But what does "winning" even mean in Pakistan? We are not trying to control their territory. We went there to disrupt terrorist groups. So that's what we are doing, and with success.

The British were being bled dry in a war that they could not win because they did not have support of the people of this country, so their only other option was to leave.

Again our goal is quite different. We are not trying to colonize like the British in America or say like France(and by continuation the US) in Vietnam. Also I will point out that the British colonization of America was a huge success because the spin-off entity(the USA) largely carried on the British culture and ideologies in North America. So if success is spreading your ideas, I guess the British did win, in one sense. I will preemptively say I do not support the genocide against Native Americans.

Now compare our actions in Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan with our actions after WWII. We deliberately set out to win the hearts and minds of our former enemies after the conclusion of hostilities. We poured money, manpower, and material into rebuilding both Japan and Germany, showing them our generosity, kindness, respect and humanity. It was a wise decision, one inspired in large part by the disaster of the post war settlement of WWI(which essentially led to WWII). This post WWII war of ideas was won by us, even though we leveled Germany, and unleashed the scourge of atomic power upon the Japanese. We kicked their ass, yes, but then we showed them that we had a better way, a better idea, and that is what truly put the seal of victory upon WWII.

I agree with that 100%. But does that mean we should stop disrupting terrorist groups in Pakistan? Before we helped rebuild Germany and Japan, we used devastating force to get them to surrender unconditionally. We could never today use the type of force against any nation such as the force we used against Germany or Japan. Nor should we. Targeted strikes are much better. If we had UAV drones in 1942 we could have used them in Europe and spared millions of lives.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you don't win the war of ideas, you will never win the physical war. Empires, and people, throughout history have recognized this simple fact. That was how Alexander the Great held his empire together, the same for Rome, they presented a better idea, and thus rather than endlessly fighting their enemies, they made them a better offer, gave them a better set of ideas. Moving on.

Again I think you are conflating two distinct concepts. Our ideology of liberal democracy/capitalism is a better offer, a better idea than the political-religious-extremism(not yet fascism) offered by the "bad guys". On the other hand, the "bad guys" are better at respecting local culture and responding to social and humanitarian needs. So we have a lot of room for improvement. But despite the fact that we have room for improvement, let's go ahead and disrupt these terrorist groups anyway. They are still dangerous bad guys who want to take over the world.

Logic. You lack it, at least to some degree. You are falling for the that old trick that if something is popular with most of the people, it is right, good.

I already replied to that once. I don't think that just because something is popular that makes it correct. On the other hand I did point out that my view is shared by the vast majority of Americans, including the "leaders" of the Democratic Party and the US government. I don't think that makes me correct. But it is worth something. You keep telling me I need to "educate myself" on the issue and then I will see you are correct. But there are clearly some people with a lot of foreign policy education and experience who share my view. Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. So me "getting an education" like you did, may not change my view in this issue.

Back to definitions, let's hit on "terrorism". Terrorism is how the weak, the poor fight back against a stronger, wealthier foe. At one time American Revolutionaries were deemed to be terrorists by the British. The same with Christians and the Romans, Native Americans and the US, on and on. When in reality it is the only way the poor can fight back. They don't have the money to buy drones, they don't have the manpower to line up in a straight line and slug it out, so they work with what they've got.

I agree with that. The reason they use asymmetric tactics is because they do not have access to bigger weapons. Left unchecked they will probably take over a couple nation-states and then they will have access to the bigger weapons. That would be a negative development. Let's disrupt those groups by using intelligence gathering and drone strikes so they will not be able to do that.

They are not evil, at least no more evil than their opponents, but just poor.

Evil shmeevil. Look at their ideas and let me know if their ideas are evil. They want to take over all nations in the region and impose dictatorships based on medieval religious codes. In some countries it is reasonable to think they could achieve that goal. They want to convert the entire world to their crazy fundamentalist version of a religion. If we cannot use drones against these fascists fanatical terrorists, then when could we ever use them? If we do not fight these creeps, they will violently spread their shit without end.

Yes, they kill civilians, guess what, warfare in general kills civilians. We've killed tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan in the past ten years, and will wind up killing thousands more before we're gone. And again, what have the Afghan people done to us? It was Saudis who flew those planes in those towers, Saudis who planned the operation, yet we land with both feet upon the Afghan people? Where is the justice in that? Hell, the vast majority of Afghans don't even know about 911.

I agree with you that is horrible. When we went there, Al Qaeda was operating out of there under protection from the government. OK that part of it is sickening and we need to find a better way, maybe by more social and humanitarian aid. But I don't think we should let the fascists religious-fundamentalist-political-religious-extremists take over. We already "abandoned" Afghanistan once after the Soviet war and we saw the result. Let's not repeat that error.

They think that we're invading their country, and they are simply fighting back, by whatever means necessary. If the situation was reversed, you know as well as I do that Americans would also fight back, with whatever weapon came to hand.

Yes.

Terrorist is, in reality, simply a matter of perception, a term that is used to demonize the enemy of the moment, the dreaded "other."

Yes I think their ideology and tactics warrant that kind of demonization. But beyond that, you can call them whatever you like. It is what it is regardless of what you call it. I think "terrorists" is a fairly descriptive economical way to describe who we are fighting in Pakistan.

I'm not trying to get a personal dig in at you because you've not been in war, I am trying to get you to empathize with the people of Afghanistan. How would you feel if a vastly superior military power came in and, oh, say, killed your bride, your friends, your family, all on your wedding day? That this crime was carried out by a man halfway around the world sitting behind drone controls? Repeat this scenario a few dozen times, perhaps you'll get the idea. Besides, never, ever believe the propaganda. "Smart bombs" were supposed to minimize civilian deaths, when in reality they didn't, and haven't, worked as promised.

OK I'm empathizing. I agree that stinks. I share your basic values, at least I think I do. We should look for a better way. At the same time I think the local population may be greatly overestimating the number of innocents killed by drone strikes in Pakistan. If that's true, it's true. It can't be just dismissed as propaganda because you disagree with it.

Empathy, it is part of what makes you human. Yet you show little empathy. That's not surprising, millions of Americans aren't showing much empathy either.

I have empathy. Tell me how to stop the fanatical groups without drone strikes. I'm listening. I agree drone strikes are horrible. But if the alternative is doing nothing, then that seems even worse to me. I empathize with the people affected by the bombings of German cities in WWII. I empathize with the victims of 9-11, and women oppressed and abused by the Taliban and their buddies. I empathize with the mainstream people of Pakistan who don't want religious lunatics taking over their government. So I got a lot of empathy for a lot of folks.

They, like you, are ill informed, and thus parrot the propaganda that is put out there.

I support the policy of the US government with regard to drone strikes in Pakistan. That does not automatically mean I am ill informed. Maybe you are ill informed about the true nature of the threat from terrorist groups.

And yes, they use many of the same terms that you do, fascist, terrorist, and worst. What is interesting however is that most of the people who buy into this bullshit are on the political right, addicts of Fox news and hate radio. What is your excuse?

I think the terrorist groups in Pakistan are a threat to the whole world. In my view it's because of their crazy ideology, their desire to destroy governments, and their willingness to blow themselves up.

It's not just a right wing view.
"In a February 2012 poll, 83% of Americans (77% of the liberal Democrats) replied they support the drone strikes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Call them brainwashed if you want to. I think you don't appreciate the threat posed by terrorist groups.

One other thing before we go. You are essentially calling me a conspiracy theorist when you question the veracity of my statement about bin Laden and the rejection of school funds by the US. I assure you, I deal only with fact, for I'm a historian, with the parchment and publications to back it up.

That won't be necessary.

The fact is, we did deny Afghanistan funding for rebuilding their education infrastructure. Hell, that's pretty common knowledge, a part of the Congressional record, even a part of pop culture, having made it into the movie "Charlie Wilson's War". Furthermore, bin Laden, by his own admission, on the record, stated that this denial of funding was what originally turned him against the US. It is an on the record interview.

I still think saying all Bin Laden wants is more school funding, that is goofy talk to me. Even if that is true, it ignores his primary goals and ideology. He is was really into the "war of ideas" and his ideas are well known, and they weren't about school funding issues.

I could give you links for all this, spoon feed it to you like one does to an elementary school student. But the fact is, you're an adult, and you need to start taking the initiative to educate yourself. What I say is true, the information is out there, go find it on your own, and learn even more in the process. For you desperately need to learn, to educate yourself.

Dude, how would you like it if I said you desperately need to go read up on the concrete threat posed by terrorist groups in Pakistan. Wouldn't that sound stupid to your ears? If it's so obvious, why not provide a link? Let people see what you are talking about.

The terminology you use, the assumptions you make, your lack of logic, all of this shows a person who is ill educated, at least in matters of history, politics, and philosophy.

So what if I don't have an education. Apparently I'm able to have a pretty decent political debate with some history professor on the internet. Should I say you don't seem to understand global security politics at all? You have not addressed at all the possible consequences if the Pakistan government should fall to religious extremists. Maybe it has not entered your thinking. I won't say it is because you lack a grasp of the basic concepts of global security issues. Just for some reason that issue is not important to you.

That isn't just your problem, but a societal problem. But it is one that you can correct. Stop getting your information from just right wing sources, but rather get a diverse range of views.

I live in a left-wing information bubble. My view on disrupting "terrorist" groups are my own views and I realize they are a minority view in my usual political blogging circles. I'm open to new ideas and information.

Educate yourself on philosophy. Machiavelli and Plato may seem like dry, dull, irrelevant reading, but trust me, they are part of the essential curricula of those in power, as is Sun Tzu and many, many others.

Spare me the lecture. I read all that stuff, but if I hadn't I'm still entitled to a viewpoint that may not exactly align with yours.

Study your history, not just what you get from the school textbooks, but from the primary sources.

No thank you. I'll leave that to historians.

Yes, it possible for informed people to reach different conclusions, but frankly, we are not equally informed people, that much is obvious.

You are not considering the consequences of failure to fight the "terrorists" at their base.

You need to correct that deficit. Do so, and then we can talk, and probably agree on much.

My views change sometimes. I'm not stuck in my thinking or resistant to different ideas. If you're some kind of history professor, I'm obviously never going to know as much about history as you do. Other people besides history professors are entitled to opinions. You can't just say anybody who disagrees with you must be wrong because you are more educated. Next Gingrich is a "historian" too, and I disagree with him all the time.