Afghanistan

Raoul said:
We're talking about drones not the A-Bomb. Drones are targeted to take people out in cars and physical structures whilst leaving the rest of the surroundings unharmed, which is a far cry from using atomic weapons, so in that sense your analogy is woefully flaccid.
Click to expand...

The fact remains - you have no problem with innocents dying in 'wars', do you? Where is the empathy for civilians? Women? Children? People who literally have nothing to do with any terrorist organisation save they live in the same borders as them? You would rather condone the half thought out, monkey brained, ill informed, (lack of) US intelligence that relies on hearsay and misinformation. You are a champion of ignorance.

The drones are generally used more across the border in the tribal areas and have been effective in destabilizing TTP operations and removing their leadership. If the cost benefit was too high on the cost side, they wouldn't continue. The fact that they have been effective as they are is the main reason they won't just continue, but will be increased in the future, especially as US troops wind down.
Click to expand...

No. If you have any true understanding (which it's clear you don't) of any of these organisations, it's that the leadership hierarchy is decentralised and relatively flat. This means that killing the 'leader' is not really killing the leader at all, as it rarely has any significant impact. In fact, the decentralisation of its leadership hierarchy is even more reason that the information or intelligence the US has may not be reliable, and therefore other modes of engagement should be established rather than 'kill all'. Obviously, I believe the US intelligence know this, but choose to go out and carry on exacerbating the mindless and indiscriminate violence, which you endorse. Furthermore, the TTP are deeply unpopular in the NW regions of Pakistan, and villagers have regularly tried to work with Pakistani government forces in rooting them out. What's their reward? More drone strikes! More deaths! And if it isn't the US killing them, they're having body parts chopped off by the TTP.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.
Click to expand...

TBIJ=The Bureau for Investigative Journalism (I think).
 
Uzz said:
The fact remains - you have no problem with innocents dying in 'wars', do you? Where is the empathy for civilians? Women? Children? People who literally have nothing to do with any terrorist organisation save they live in the same borders as them? You would rather condone the half thought out, monkey brained, ill informed, (lack of) US intelligence that relies on hearsay and misinformation. You are a champion of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Innocents dying is a normal part of war. To stop that from happening, you would have to end all wars, which of course is not realistic. Therefore, you have to factor civilian casualties as an expected byproduct of participating in a war. You go through extraordinary steps to avoid them (as opposed to the likes of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, who don't care either way), but there is no getting around fighting a war without the loss of innocent life.


Uzz said:
No. If you have any true understanding (which it's clear you don't) of any of these organisations, it's that the leadership hierarchy is decentralised and relatively flat. This means that killing the 'leader' is not really killing the leader at all, as it rarely has any significant impact. In fact, the decentralisation of its leadership hierarchy is even more reason that the information or intelligence the US has may not be reliable, and therefore other modes of engagement should be established rather than 'kill all'. Obviously, I believe the US intelligence know this, but choose to go out and carry on exacerbating the mindless and indiscriminate violence, which you endorse. Furthermore, the TTP are deeply unpopular in the NW regions of Pakistan, and villagers have regularly tried to work with Pakistani government forces in rooting them out. What's their reward? More drone strikes! More deaths! And if it isn't the US killing them, they're having body parts chopped off by the TTP.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive my ignorance as I've only spent the past 7 out of 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm sure you're much better versed on this stuff.

You are correct that the organizations are somewhat decentralized in their ideals, but they still have a leadership and command and control structure that guides subordinate members to take actions based on the strategic interests that are set out by the leadership. Thus, eliminating the leaders combined with degrading and disrupting the organizational capacity is just as important. In terms of the drone program, it has been very effective in getting to harder to reach areas across the border and in between highly rugged/mountainous areas in eastern Afghanistan (mainly in Laghman, Kunar, and Nuristan) where the Taliban like the hideout.
 
Drones have killed many civilians and in turn have pushed many peacefull law abiding people on route to terrorism in order to get revenge. And the actual ratio of civilian/terrorists death in drone strikes is 1000:10
 
Raoul said:
Innocents dying is a normal part of war. To stop that from happening, you would have to end all wars, which of course is not realistic. Therefore, you have to factor civilian casualties as an expected byproduct of participating in a war. You go through extraordinary steps to avoid them (as opposed to the likes of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, who don't care either way), but there is no getting around fighting a war without the loss of innocent life.
Click to expand...

While this is true, it then begs the question - is the war against the Taliban so crucial that it makes those civilian deaths which do occur worth it? Especially when many would argue that such deaths play a major role in driving recruitment for the Taliban? What is America doing fighting the Taliban anyway?
 
Uzz said:
If the tangible effect you want is to perpetuate and continue this mindless cycle of violence and retribution under a false pretense, then yea, A* for drones.



This isn't a science experiment where we are testing the validity of results. These are people's lives being lost. Innocent people, with no affiliation, from rural backgrounds, largely uneducated, are being so casually and carelessly killed on a continual basis. It's exasperating and saddening. Who exactly is being held responsible here? Who is accountable? I can produce countless statistics for the amount of innocent civilians and children killed by US drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. The same thing is happening in Yemen. It's ridiculous. (And before anyone nit picks, yes in the most recent example, they are the Afghan army not civilians, I can see that, but I'm coming from a wider point).
Click to expand...
I was simply pointing out that intelligence in these situations is not an exact science. You can have what seems like valid accurate info and it turn out wrong. Or human error becomes involved. One of the many, many sad realities of war.
 
2cents said:
While this is true, it then begs the question - is the war against the Taliban so crucial that it makes those civilian deaths which do occur worth it? Especially when many would argue that such deaths play a major role in driving recruitment for the Taliban? What is America doing fighting the Taliban anyway?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is personally, although now with the rise of ISIS in the picture, if the Afghan government were to fall, things would go back to square one.
 
Raoul said:
You'll have to forgive my ignorance as I've only spent the past 7 out of 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm sure you're much better versed on this stuff.
Click to expand...

Those who make a living from war never really want it to end
 
Uzz said:
You'd think spending 7 out of 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'd have some clue as to what is going on.
Click to expand...

Yes, being there for so long has obviously put me with a knowledge deficit when confronted by random bedroom punters with a broadband connection.
 
Raoul said:
Yes, being there for so long has obviously put me with a knowledge deficit when confronted by random bedroom punters with a broadband connection.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just the nonsense that you were typing to me, but some of your other inferences, such as your assertions to 2cents that made me realise you really have no clue.
 
Uzz said:
It wasn't just the nonsense that you were typing to me, but some of your other inferences, such as your assertions to 2cents that made me realise you really have no clue.
Click to expand...

You seem highly knowledgeable on this matter. What part of what i said isn't sinking in for you ?
 
Raoul said:
Yes, being there for so long has obviously put me with a knowledge deficit when confronted by random bedroom punters with a broadband connection.
Click to expand...

Your deficit doesn't come from lack of experience. Your deficit comes from being a war monger
 
Could never understand how some people can be so cavalier and cold hearted when it comes to the issue of innocent people dying, would really like Raoul to take off his uncle Sam hat and actually think if one day he came home from work and all his loved ones were blown into pieces and how that would feel, because that's what is exactly happening in these places. NOTHING can justify this.
 
Last edited:
kid777 said:
Drones have killed many civilians and in turn have pushed many peacefull law abiding people on route to terrorism in order to get revenge. And the actual ratio of civilian/terrorists death in drone strikes is 1000:10
Click to expand...

I think the actual ratio is much, much closer to 1,000,000:10000
 
On a serious note, I'm actually curious as to what an accurate ratio of terorrist:civilian deaths are under drone strikes.

Anyone have anything?
 
I think nobody knows for sure, which makes sense since the whole point of drones is to penetrate remote areas where ground troops fear to land.

I'm not against the use of drones in principle, since I see them as just another method of waging war, and one probably no more destructive then, say, sending in the tanks or laying minefields. It's the decision to go to war in the first place that is the problem.
 
Kaos said:
Thanks.

The data seems to be conflicting and ambiguous. Though even the conservative estimates seem to be quite high. Regardless, it doesn't take into account the radicalising effect they have. A drone killing a father of 6 will potentially create 6 vengeful radical Muslims.
Click to expand...
The Guardian did a news story from 2014 with a farm boy from Yemen. He mentioned that drone strikes had killed up to 14(!) members of his family, all of who were farming folk (ie no affiliation with any terrorist organisation). The interview continued that after his family had been killed AQ tried to recruit him, and he wrestled with the idea before declining. Anyway, he was killed himself 2 weeks later in a drone strike, himself. I'll try and dig this story up. I've seen first hand the ramifications this can cause in Pakistan, myself. I didn't need to spend 7 years there to come to that conclusion either.
 
Uzz said:
The Guardian did a news story from 2014 with a farm boy from Yemen. He mentioned that drone strikes had killed up to 14(!) members of his family, all of who were farming folk (ie no affiliation with any terrorist organisation). The interview continued that after his family had been killed AQ tried to recruit him, and he wrestled with the idea before declining. Anyway, he was killed himself 2 weeks later in a drone strike, himself. I'll try and dig this story up. I've seen first hand the ramifications this can cause in Pakistan, myself. I didn't need to spend 7 years there to come to that conclusion either.
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember reading that article, harrowing stuff really.

I'n curious as to how they get it so wrong. You'd assume the intelligence they'd be able to accumulate is second to none, yet on a regular basis we hear of innocent households, weddings, and farms being ripped to shreds by unmanned drones. There's the argument of course that they simply don't care and its a matter of shoot first, ask questions later, but then surely they'd anticipate the huge blowback they'd get in terms of radicalised Afghans/Pakistanis/Yemenis.

Personally, I'm not surprised of the increasing green-on-green incidents of Afghan troops turning on US military personnel we're hearing of recently.
 
JustAFan said:
Yeah you might want to actually talk to soldiers who have been to war, the vast majority have one major wish....to go home to their families. Been true for centuries and still is.
Click to expand...

They are not really Soliders at war any more. There is no danger that the men directing the drone program will be in the firing line, they are safe from harm so act without consequence
 
Interesting piece by a journalist who is notoriously anti US foreign policy and once claimed non-Muslims live like cattle.
 
In a study by human rights group Reprieve into U.S. drone strikes in the Middle East, the group found that as of Nov. 24, attempts to kill 41 alleged terrorists resulted in the death of an estimated 1,147 innocent civilians, including more than 200 children, with thousands more injured. Further, "41 names of men who seemed to have achieved the impossible: tohave 'died,' in public reporting, not just once, not just twice, but again and again. Reports indicate that each assassination target 'died' on average more than three times before their actual death."

Researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School released a reportlast year claiming that Obama's drone campaign "terrorizes men, women, and children," occasionally attacking rescue workers coming to the aid of people injured in the original strike, as well as funerals and weddings. The group concluded that drones are counterproductive and radicalize otherwise peaceful populations.
Click to expand...
 
Raoul said:
Interesting piece by a journalist who is notoriously anti US foreign policy and once claimed non-Muslims live like cattle.
Click to expand...

Journalist aside, the quotes by the ex CIA director says a lot.
 

Last sentence is so damn true.

When you read all of that, it's just so damn obvious that to them these drones are no different to them terrorism we perceive them doing on our lands. Worse if anything. The only difference is that we've got the bigger, more refined stick.
 
2cents said:
Mullah Omar dead? Wouldn't be the first time it's been reported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33703097
Click to expand...
It seems to be from the National Directorate of Security, the Afghan intelligence agency. I've only read the BBC article, and so far it lacks any context: is this a net assessment, confirmed multi-source reporting, high-level Taliban leadership talk, etc.

There is little consensus among observers what Mullah Mohammed Omar's condition is. Many claim he slid into debilitating depression and just faded away from the rest of the leadership. Even in the mid to late-1990s he was highly reclusive, so his continued absence says nothing. Honestly, just about anything is possible.

If he is in fact dead, there would be no chance whatsoever of the Taliban returning to anything like their pre-2001 structure. He was the only unifying figure he had. A decade and a half of government-in-exile, continued turnover from targeting and losses on the battlefield, changed dynamics in Afghanistan, and the emergence of regional shuras raised real questions about the Taliban's cohesion. Add in the fact the Pashtun war among themselves at the best of times, they have long been a movement on the verge of splintering or morphing into a mob. Omar was a big bulkhead against that.

No one could step into Omar's role as amir ul-mominin. His deputies had derived authority that mostly kept them from the fray thst reaches all the way up to the senior leadership. Take that away and the Quetta Shura could tuen on itself outright. The rivalries and ideological conflicts are there. If that's not enough, there's the awkward and growing distance among the regional shuras.

Do the Ghilzai Pashtun dominated Peshawar and Miram Shah Shuras remain subordinate to the Duranni dominated Questa Shura? That arrangement was made possible by the mostly retired Sarujidin Haqqani. Does his son, the new leader, continue that despite the Haqqani Network's grown stature and international jihadi links? That's a lot to stitch together before even attempting to assert a unified, direct control of the Taliban in the field that have had a fair amount of autonomy for a decade.

Would a Quetta man replace Omar and have legitimacy in the eyes of the other shuras? Probably not. Would the Duranni accept a Ghilzai amir ul-mominin? Unlikely.

Post-2016 Afghanistan looks as confusing as post-1992 Afghanistan must have looked.
 
@Uzz You are very much entitled to your opinion, but I take exception to what I think you are saying. Do you really think that we who've served in Afghanistan have a fundamental disregard for civilians? Do you believe our pride and enthusiasm for our work trumps our humanism and compassion?

Vets I know that have killed civilians are haunted by it. It's nothing they intended to do, but the nature of war brought it about. Even when their actions were reasonable or the full result unforseeable, this still holds true.

Honest questions: what in your opinion do you think we are up against? How do you propose we better deal with it?

As for the drones, they do tremendous damage to the leadership of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and to a lesser extent al-Qa'ida. The TTP is fundamentally a weaker organization because of the drone campaign. A lot of foreign baddies have been set back by it too: Lashkar-i-Tayiba, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, etc al. It's kept the NWFP from becoming a militant nexus capable of regional harm. Considering the stakes in Pakistan alone (populous, weak and nuclear armed), there has been a return.

The worst part is it comes with a civilian toll. From poor decisions on who to host to wrong intelligence to mistimed attacks, there have been a lot of innocent lives reduced to bloated, mangled corpses under rubble.

It is a fair criticism to say the campaign enflames militants sensitivities and provides a powerful recruiting tool. I am not sure that on the balance swings it to being a net negative strategy. Looking at those successfully targeted, there are some big wins with big consequences. Nek Mohammed was able to turn his lashkar into a force capable of routing the Pakistani military--an inept force to be fair. Strikes in 2012-2013 reduced the TTP from an alarmingly cohesive organization to a splintered and more manageable foe.

Yemen is harder--a lot harder--to apply such methods. Al-Qa'ida there is as much a tribal militia as a threatening transnational terrorist organization. Senior leadership there is likely following the proven template of expanding local concerns into a wider jihad, but they're a ways out yet. Even with the upswing in intensity in the last year, it's still a tediously local conflict with fuzzy, weak groups. It'd be very, very difficult to bring drone strikes into that in a productive way. I see that being a far better example of how it's a failing strategy than anything in Pakistan.
 
Distracted Steward said:
@Uzz You are very much entitled to your opinion, but I take exception to what I think you are saying. Do you really think that we who've served in Afghanistan have a fundamental disregard for civilians? Do you believe our pride and enthusiasm for our work trumps our humanism and compassion?

Vets I know that have killed civilians are haunted by it. It's nothing they intended to do, but the nature of war brought it about. Even when their actions were reasonable or the full result unforseeable, this still holds true.

Honest questions: what in your opinion do you think we are up against? How do you propose we better deal with it?

As for the drones, they do tremendous damage to the leadership of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and to a lesser extent al-Qa'ida. The TTP is fundamentally a weaker organization because of the drone campaign. A lot of foreign baddies have been set back by it too: Lashkar-i-Tayiba, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, etc al. It's kept the NWFP from becoming a militant nexus capable of regional harm. Considering the stakes in Pakistan alone (populous, weak and nuclear armed), there has been a return.

The worst part is it comes with a civilian toll. From poor decisions on who to host to wrong intelligence to mistimed attacks, there have been a lot of innocent lives reduced to bloated, mangled corpses under rubble.

It is a fair criticism to say the campaign enflames militants sensitivities and provides a powerful recruiting tool. I am not sure that on the balance swings it to being a net negative strategy. Looking at those successfully targeted, there are some big wins with big consequences. Nek Mohammed was able to turn his lashkar into a force capable of routing the Pakistani military--an inept force to be fair. Strikes in 2012-2013 reduced the TTP from an alarmingly cohesive organization to a splintered and more manageable foe.

Yemen is harder--a lot harder--to apply such methods. Al-Qa'ida there is as much a tribal militia as a threatening transnational terrorist organization. Senior leadership there is likely following the proven template of expanding local concerns into a wider jihad, but they're a ways out yet. Even with the upswing in intensity in the last year, it's still a tediously local conflict with fuzzy, weak groups. It'd be very, very difficult to bring drone strikes into that in a productive way. I see that being a far better example of how it's a failing strategy than anything in Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Good post. I have no doubt that Obama would stop using them if he felt the cost benefit was lopsided on the cost side. In truth they have been rampantly successful in removing Taliban, TTP, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, AQAP, Khorsan members, and the list goes on.
 
Raoul said:
Good post. I have no doubt that Obama would stop using them if he felt the cost benefit was lopsided on the cost side. In truth they have been rampantly successful in removing Taliban, TTP, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, AQAP, Khorsan members, and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I have to add that President Obama is anot inherently cautious man and a natural dove. Though it seems he is relying heavily on drones and tier one special forces to nip problems in the bud instead of full wars later, it is reasonable to think he is seeing dead on intelligence to spur on this strategy. He is privy to things we simply are not and will not be. For him to embrace the strategy wholeheartedly, there must be something to it.
 
Distracted Steward said:
Thanks.

I have to add that President Obama is anot inherently cautious man and a natural dove. Though it seems he is relying heavily on drones and tier one special forces to nip problems in the bud instead of full wars later, it is reasonable to think he is seeing dead on intelligence to spur on this strategy. He is privy to things we simply are not and will not be. For him to embrace the strategy wholeheartedly, there must be something to it.
Click to expand...

No doubt about it. He's extremely risk averse about boots on the ground and wouldn't dare continue drone strikes unless they were extremely successful in removing high value targets from the battlefield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.