B 52S Bombing the Taliban?

[humahuma]

A Taliban leader playing a large part in the takeover of Afghanistan turns out to be a prisoner released by former President Barack Obama. Khairullah Khairkhwa was found to have been previously released from Guantanamo Bay Detention Center during the Obama administration.

According to reports Tuesday, he was released back in 2014 along with four other Taliban leaders. However, the Pentagon had classified Khairkhwa as “too dangerous to release.”

The group was exchanged for a U.S. soldier who was captured by the Taliban after deserting his post in Afghanistan, a charge he plead guilty to and was dishonorably discharged for. At the time, Obama assured Americans the released Taliban leaders would not take action against the U.S.

 

[mchammer]

Afghanistan was a ghastly display of how wokeness weakens America

 

[Chop]

I guess the old hippie trail won't be running through Afghanistan again for some time...

 

[Chop]

I think you've won this site for the month with that one.

 

[bystander]

Is CIA activity moral and constitutional? You have to find an acceptable strategy to deal with external threats that often crosses the line of morality and legality. The alternative if is formal declarations of war and military occupation around the globe. The cost (treasure and human) is simply too great compared to the more limited scope of drones/CIA.

Absent that we setup security at our borders and take the isolationist approach. We tried that and landed with 9/11. Americans and business wouldn't accept the level of security (and reductions in freedoms) that would be required if we allowed terrorism to go unfettered internationally and tried to stop it at or within our borders.

It's funny (or maybe not) but as I was picking up my daughter at the airport the other day, I was commenting to my wife about the security that was clearly evident from 9/11 days along with all the masks. Very surreal.

There is a level of acceptance of civil rights violations and inconveniences as we've seen at the airport. Fear abdicates freedom. That seems to be the case.

I only asked about the morality of drone strikes because of the usual hypocrisy or whatever you want to call it depending on who's party is doing the droning. Obama was seen as a damn saint due to the emotional needs of so many. But he was a Machiavellian when necessary. I didn't hold it against him when Bin Laden was assassinated. It was probably a crime.

But on the streets with no name, he got what he had coming, even if he was the legitimate hero of those who had box seats at our shock and awe shows.

 

[Chop]

Taliban vow to respect women, despite history of oppression

We believe you, scary looking guy with beard and black turban.

"I grab my respected woman by breast and squeeze like this."

 

[Chop]

A Taliban leader playing a large part in the takeover of Afghanistan turns out to be a prisoner released by former President Barack Obama. Khairullah Khairkhwa was found to have been previously released from Guantanamo Bay Detention Center during the Obama administration.

According to reports Tuesday, he was released back in 2014 along with four other Taliban leaders. However, the Pentagon had classified Khairkhwa as “too dangerous to release.”

The group was exchanged for a U.S. soldier who was captured by the Taliban after deserting his post in Afghanistan, a charge he plead guilty to and was dishonorably discharged for. At the time, Obama assured Americans the released Taliban leaders would not take action against the U.S.

I'd think one of those "civilian advisors" who like to hang out around US bases and servicemen overseas, would have made sure this guy ingested something that would kill him a few months after his release. Guess this one slipped through our fingers.

 

[Monahorns]

I only asked about the morality of drone strikes because of the usual hypocrisy or whatever you want to call it depending on who's party is doing the droning. Obama was seen as a damn saint due to the emotional needs of so many. But he was a Machiavellian when necessary. I didn't hold it against him when Bin Laden was assassinated. It was probably a crime.

I read somewhere that 90% of the people killed by drone strikes are civilians not being targeted. So they are more or less immoral. It's a big reason why Muslim men become terrorists these days.

Assassinating Bin Laden wasn't a crime. The US government was allowed in by the Pakistani government and we took out the guy who murdered 1000s of people.

 

[bystander]

Assassinating Bin Laden wasn't a crime. The US government was allowed in by the Pakistani government and we took out the guy who murdered 1000s of people.

What law is in force? All's fair in love and an undeclared war? The Geneva Convention? The idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

 

[SabreHorn]

What law is in force?

Your rights end where my bullet lands. There should be no single person in the entire world that the CIA cannot takeout with a single shot, and without anyone knowing how, when, where it was done. When the "bad guy" left Cuba and was traded for the former soldier, the swap should have been made and then he has seen his last sunrise.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I read somewhere that 90% of the people killed by drone strikes are civilians not being targeted. So they are more or less immoral. It's a big reason why Muslim men become terrorists these days.

Assassinating Bin Laden wasn't a crime. The US government was allowed in by the Pakistani government and we took out the guy who murdered 1000s of people.

And how many civilians are killed between direct confrontations in Afghanistan and other theaters of war? The number in Iraq was hundreds of thousands. That's a lot of drone strikes to approach theaters of combat.

9/11 happened before drones were prevalent. It was a time when terrorists could setup training camps in isolated places with supportive local governments. Drones changed that equation. If you're a terrorist or adjacent to terrorists you are at risk of a missile from a drone at any time. To me, that's a far better tradeoff than having boots on the grounds, US soldiers as targets and trying to nation build in countries that don't want us there.

Do drones create terrorists? ANY US involvement abroad creates terrorists. 9/11 showed that even after our involvement dissipates the terrorists still exist. I'm of the belief that I'd rather take them out abroad than try to catch them at our border which would require much more personal freedom sacrifice than we've already given up thus my reluctant acquiescence.

The way we deal with Al-Shabab is my preferred strategy.

 

[Chop]

So how are the wokies gonna deal with this situation? Some (mostly) moderately dark-skinned 'indigenous' Caucasians from Asia who adhere to a non--Judeo/Christian religion just took over their country and deposed the toady for "imperialist" Westerners. Oh yeah, they also treat women roughly equal to cattle = less than horses, and want to kill all LGBTs on sight. (Although their men do wear dresses and silly hats...) They also really hate the Communists.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

So how are the wokies gonna deal with this situation?

Oh, somebody please put a BLM t-shirt on him.

 

[mchammer]

So how are the wokies gonna deal with this situation? Some (mostly) moderately dark-skinned 'indigenous' Caucasians from Asia who adhere to a non--Judeo/Christian religion just took over their country and deposed the toady for "imperialist" Westerners. Oh yeah, they also treat women roughly equal to cattle = less than horses, and want to kill all LGBTs on sight. (Although they themselves do wear dresses of sorts...) They also really hate the Communists.

Taliban=whiteness just like Asians are white too

 

[Chop]

I guess it's a love-hate relationship with the wokies and these Taliban guys.

 

[Chop]

Taliban=whiteness just like Asians are white too

Well these particular Asians (Afghans) are certainly Caucasians, however else people want to describe them.

Look for some sort of narrative like this:

"The Afghan people, who before US intervention lived for 1000s of years in peaceful harmony with nature and each other, were suddenly thrust by Western imperialism into decades of awful civil war. Meanwhile, a group of chauvinist misogynist religious fanatics (not specifying which religion), aided by the US, took power, (note that part is actually true...). George Bush screwed it up, then Donald Trump screwed it even further. The entirety of the blame rests on those two American men. The poor Afghan people are now victims of the Bush/Trump legacy. Thus, we must open our borders to an unlimited number of Afghan refugees. Since they don't have i.d., we must accept the word of any sort of Middle Eastern/Western Asian looking person who arrives at our airports claiming to be Afghan and put them on a fast track to citizenship, and register them automatically to vote. And if you oppose this sort of plan, you must be a racist -- even if you're of the Caucasian race like these people yourself."

 

[Monahorns]

What law is in force? All's fair in love and an undeclared war? The Geneva Convention? The idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

Lack of law doesn't mean crime does it? Maybe there are international laws though. The US DOD did know that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were guilty of 9/11 right? If so, then no problem in my mind. If not, then the problem was even worse.

 

[Chop]

In reality, "International Law" is a farce. International courts are an even bigger farce. In international affairs, we're just bound by our own law to treaties that we make and duly ratify through the Senate. If a nation does break a treaty, economic sanctions and military force are usually the only ways to punish the breach.

 

[Monahorns]

And how many civilians are killed between direct confrontations in Afghanistan and other theaters of war? The number in Iraq was hundreds of thousands. That's a lot of drone strikes to approach theaters of combat.

Yes. At least 500,000 non-combatants were killed in Iraq. That's really awful. Afghanistan was always a smaller scale but the 90% indicates how sloppy even drones are. This is all without a declared war and against governments that never threatened the US. The US just went in killing.

9/11 happened before drones were prevalent. It was a time when terrorists could setup training camps in isolated places with supportive local governments. Drones changed that equation. If you're a terrorist or adjacent to terrorists you are at risk of a missile from a drone at any time. To me, that's a far better tradeoff than having boots on the grounds, US soldiers as targets and trying to nation build in countries that don't want us there.

It is a terrible trade off if you don't want to multiply the number of anti-US terrorists in the world. It also means that we are the Empire now. We should have no pretense that the US is the good guys if we are willing to go where ever to kill people not associated with terrorists. Boots on the ground with special forces at least sounds more precise than missiles and bombs. I think the US has a responsibility to do everything they/we can to minimize collateral damage. Missiles and bombs don't do that when the goal is an assassination.

Do drones create terrorists? ANY US involvement abroad creates terrorists. 9/11 showed that even after our involvement dissipates the terrorists still exist. I'm of the belief that I'd rather take them out abroad than try to catch them at our border which would require much more personal freedom sacrifice than we've already given up thus my reluctant acquiescence.

Maybe. I know that US occupations and bases in the Muslim world creates terrorists. Some of that maybe is justified but not much. Plus, the more innocents the US kills the more lives ruined and terrorists created.

I would rather fight them abroad too, but I don't think the choice is catch at border or over throwing governments that haven't attacked us and trying to nation-build.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes. At least 500,000 non-combatants were killed in Iraq. That's really awful. Afghanistan was always a smaller scale but the 90% indicates how sloppy even drones are. This is all without a declared war and against governments that never threatened the US. The US just went in killing.



It is a terrible trade off if you don't want to multiply the number of anti-US terrorists in the world. It also means that we are the Empire now. We should have no pretense that the US is the good guys if we are willing to go where ever to kill people not associated with terrorists. Boots on the ground with special forces at least sounds more precise than missiles and bombs. I think the US has a responsibility to do everything they/we can to minimize collateral damage. Missiles and bombs don't do that when the goal is an assassination.



Maybe. I know that US occupations and bases in the Muslim world creates terrorists. Some of that maybe is justified but not much. Plus, the more innocents the US kills the more lives ruined and terrorists created.

I would rather fight them abroad too, but I don't think the choice is catch at border or over throwing governments that haven't attacked us and trying to nation-build.

There is no single solution which is why I combined CIA, Drones and Special Ops. It's absolutely a terrible tradeoff amidst what are only terrible tradeoffs.

What's your solution?

 

[Monahorns]

There is no single solution which is why I combined CIA, Drones and Special Ops. It's absolutely a terrible tradeoff amidst what are only terrible tradeoffs.

What's your solution?

First, I would only attack those who are responsible for acts of violence and terrorism against the US. The "state sponsor of terrorism" has been shown to be problematic and wasteful of lives and money. If a state does violence to us then declare war on them and destroy them. If it is a decentralized organization like Al Qaeda go after them and try to get other states to help.

In terms of tactics you are right there are terrible tradeoffs. They should only be born in cases such as I mention above. Then tactics that have a track record of killing 9 innocents for every 1 target is a tactic that needs to be ditched until it can be improved. But not sure how you take out a terrorist at a wedding with a missile without killing most of the party. Special forces sound like the better option to me. If the target is outside a city or an isolated city block a drone strike could be reasonable.

 

[Seattle Husker]

First, I would only attack those who are responsible for acts of violence and terrorism against the US. The "state sponsor of terrorism" has been shown to be problematic and wasteful of lives and money. If a state does violence to us then declare war on them and destroy them. If it is a decentralized organization like Al Qaeda go after them and try to get other states to help.

What does "responsible" mean? Committed the act? Helped plan it? Funded the act? A family member that was present during the planning? State actors are easy targets. Unfortunately, "individual" actors are gray. Evidence them is typically more ambiguous and open to abuse by the terrorist and the US. Remember the US manipulation of the evidence against Sadam for justify the Iraq 2 war? Any hard and fast rules would not doubt be manipulated by wannabe terrorists too who aren't bound by any ruleset.

In terms of tactics you are right there are terrible tradeoffs. They should only be born in cases such as I mention above. Then tactics that have a track record of killing 9 innocents for every 1 target is a tactic that needs to be ditched until it can be improved. But not sure how you take out a terrorist at a wedding with a missile without killing most of the party. Special forces sound like the better option to me. If the target is outside a city or an isolated city block a drone strike could be reasonable.

I'd wager part of the challenge is that intelligence has a shelf-life and is limited. You might learn that a terrorist is going to be at a wedding but you don't know how/when they are arriving or departing. At that point you have to make a judgement call on whether this target is worth this one opportunity of attack, not knowing when/if another chance will come. It's a tough quandary that there is most definitely a decision matrix used within the DOD that involves a chain of command. This isn't a drone pilot making the "kill" decision but likely multiple people higher up based on the information at hand.

Unlike Mission Impossible, Special Ops take months to plan and are not particularly adept at seizing emerging opportunities. For example, the OBL raid was weeks/months in planning. They also put US lives at risk. Additionally, there are logistical challenges that drones simply don't have. Drones can hover for hours (and days with refueling) waiting for a terrorist to return. Dropping a special ops unit deep in Afghanistan takes and entrance and exit plan that carries significant risk that is best remembered in the Blackhawk Down situation. Armed crowds in urban or rural situations with limited intelligence are rip for operational catastrophe.

I think we agree on a lot, specifically that ground intelligence is probably the most important aspect of our military targeting. You need that CIA agent or trusted informant with verified intelligence to best target enemy combatants. Think these combatants know that the US wants to limit collateral damage and use that to their advantage by surrounding themselves in crowds whenever in public or around non-trusted members of their org? I'd expect supporters of terrorism (leaders?) would generally sacrifice a member of their org if they get the benefit of 100 dead wedding attendees with video evidence.

 

[Monahorns]

What does "responsible" mean? Committed the act? Helped plan it? Funded the act? A family member that was present during the planning? State actors are easy targets. Unfortunately, "individual" actors are gray. Evidence them is typically more ambiguous and open to abuse by the terrorist and the US. Remember the US manipulation of the evidence against Sadam for justify the Iraq 2 war? Any hard and fast rules would not doubt be manipulated by wannabe terrorists too who aren't bound by any ruleset.

Those are all good questions that would have to be further defined and reviewed. But to your point state actors are easy targets. That is one reason why they are attacked regardless if that is the correct option.

I'd wager part of the challenge is that intelligence has a shelf-life and is limited. You might learn that a terrorist is going to be at a wedding but you don't know how/when they are arriving or departing. At that point you have to make a judgement call on whether this target is worth this one opportunity of attack, not knowing when/if another chance will come. It's a tough quandary that there is most definitely a decision matrix used within the DOD that involves a chain of command. This isn't a drone pilot making the "kill" decision but likely multiple people higher up based on the information at hand.

Yeah. But it is murder to kill dozens of other people on purpose to get one guy. I wouldn't even consider that collateral damage but straight up murder to bomb a whole wedding.

Unlike Mission Impossible, Special Ops take months to plan and are not particularly adept at seizing emerging opportunities. For example, the OBL raid was weeks/months in planning. They also put US lives at risk. Additionally, there are logistical challenges that drones simply don't have. Drones can hover for hours (and days with refueling) waiting for a terrorist to return. Dropping a special ops unit deep in Afghanistan takes and entrance and exit plan that carries significant risk that is best remembered in the Blackhawk Down situation. Armed crowds in urban or rural situations with limited intelligence are rip for operational catastrophe.

All those things have to be balanced, I agree. But if we can expect 90% of the people killed are not the targets that's a bad option regardless of how easy it is. An Afghan life may not be valued as much as an American one, but they can't be considered fodder without making yourself the villian.

Plus the example you give belies the point. If there is an armed crowd, the drone won't be able to hover there indefinitely. It will be fired upon and destroyed.

I think we agree on a lot, specifically that ground intelligence is probably the most important aspect of our military targeting. You need that CIA agent or trusted informant with verified intelligence to best target enemy combatants. Think these combatants know that the US wants to limit collateral damage and use that to their advantage by surrounding themselves in crowds whenever in public or around non-trusted members of their org? I'd expect supporters of terrorism (leaders?) would generally sacrifice a member of their org if they get the benefit of 100 dead wedding attendees with video evidence.

They of course know. The thing the US needs to know is that guerrilla warfare involves public grievance and claims of legitimacy. If you indiscriminately kill innocents, the terrorists now have a real grievance against you and therefore legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. When you fight 4th generation warfare using 2nd or 3rd generation tactics you will lose. Just like we did in Afghanistan.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yeah. But it is murder to kill dozens of other people on purpose to get one guy. I wouldn't even consider that collateral damage but straight up murder to bomb a whole wedding.

I'd agree but keep in mind that the leader could be responsible for past and future killings which I'm sure is considered in whatever decision matrix the DOD follows. When I was in the military collateral damage was a HUGE consideration in any decision we made. I trust whatever process they follow in assessing the potential collateral damage is weighed against the value of the specific target. Just glad I don't have to make the decision.

All those things have to be balanced, I agree. But if we can expect 90% of the people killed are not the targets that's a bad option regardless of how easy it is. An Afghan life may not be valued as much as an American one, but they can't be considered fodder without making yourself the villian.

Plus the example you give belies the point. If there is an armed crowd, the drone won't be able to hover there indefinitely. It will be fired upon and destroyed.

Collateral Damage will never be zero, even with Special Ops. Leaders are often surrounded by supporters, family and in most cases embed themselves directly in communities of non-combatants (see: Hamas). This isn't about not valuing an Afghan, Palestinian or Kenyan life but rather trying to eliminate an individual bent on attacking America, whether through their own actions or influencing others.

Drones are rarely shot down because they fly so high. Unless the target has advanced ground to air weapons (see: Iran) US drones are fairly safe from attack and are build to stay in the air for days at a time as they are controlled from a base in Nevada.

They of course know. The thing the US needs to know is that guerrilla warfare involves public grievance and claims of legitimacy. If you indiscriminately kill innocents, the terrorists now have a real grievance against you and therefore legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. When you fight 4th generation warfare using 2nd or 3rd generation tactics you will lose. Just like we did in Afghanistan.

I take issue with the "indiscriminately kill innocents" because from my experience in the military (74C - Telecommunications Operator) where my job was to send secretly encoded messages between bases (just after Gulf War 1), these kill decisions are heavily scrutinized from many angles. The wrong decision, without all the correct approvals is career ending.

"Real grievance" is a bit of a moving target right? We know from OBL's writings that simply having a military presence in the Middle East was a motivating factor. The USS Cole was attacked idly sitting in Aden, Yemen. Having allies in the ME (see Saudi Arabia) draws their ire. There are many valid reasons to hate American if you are Middle Eastern but equally as many invalid reasons.

 

[Monahorns]

There are many valid reasons to hate American if you are Middle Eastern but equally as many invalid reasons.

Yeah. Need to make them as invalid as possible though. What the US did in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan give terrorists and others valid reasons to hate.

 

[Monahorns]

I take issue with the "indiscriminately kill innocents"

I'm basing that statement on the data that says 90% of those killed by drones was a noncombatant. That by definition is indiscriminate.

 

[OUBubba]

I was critical of "shock and awe" as it showed the cards we were playing and motivated many people to be disillusioned. Disaffected young men with revenge on their mind are where terrorists come from.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm basing that statement on the data that says 90% of those killed by drones was a noncombatant. That by definition is indiscriminate.

It's not indiscriminate though. There is a lot of "careful judgement" applied when collateral damage is a possibility. It's actually discriminate.

Of course, in the wedding scenario we are assuming the DOD knew it was a wedding. For all we know intelligence may have led them to believe it was a meeting of all the leaders and it was a tragic mistake. Collateral damage is in the terrorists best interests.

 

[Monahorns]

Definition of indiscriminate

1a: not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment
indiscriminate reading habits indiscriminate mass destruction
b: HAPHAZARD, RANDOMindiscriminate application of a law
2a: PROMISCUOUS, UNRESTRAINED indiscriminate sexual behavior
b: HETEROGENEOUS, MOTLEYan indiscriminate collection

This definition is more what I was thinking. Not discriminating. You can think a lot about the something and analyze things for a judgment. But if the decision results in killing innocents 9 to 1, it's indiscriminate.

 

[Chop]

Give it a few years, but watch for a potential alliance of sorts (complete with plenty of funding and weaponry) with the Taliban, against China’s influence in the region. They sure don’t like us, but they really f@cking hate Communists who encroach on their realm.