When it comes to killing "terrorists", is there an acceptable ratio of innocents vs terrorists?

[cherokeeprogressive]

For me, there is a strange thing going on at DU the last few days. Suddenly it's NOT a bad thing to kill innocent civilians if they're in close proximity to those peeps we've identified as terrorists. Pre-November 4 it was antithetical to everything we held dear as progressives. Hell, the time between 11/4 and 1/20 has been described and lauded as the time when President Obama should have taken charge as the President Elect and made his feelings known about everything * did on a daily basis even though the president elect had no constitutional authority. Now he owns the actions of the United States, 24/7. Please don't tell me that's not the case. It's the ONLY reason I'd consider running for the office. OBAMA IS PRESIDENT AND CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. Isn't that what we said about * and his signing statements? Unitary Executive and all that?

So now we're sending un-manned vehicles into soveriegn territory in which we've decided we didn't need "boots on the ground" previously. We're killing civilians in an attempt to kill terrorists. Fuck me, I thought that we were in the streets protesting that very thing. Yesterday I read on this very board that it was because of policies * left behind and that we should accept it as normal in a war against terrorism because President Obama isn't in total control of the gubmint yet.

Killing civilians in an attempt to kill someone we believe might be a terrorist doesn't seem like a progressive ideal to me. Does it to you? I sported a black eye for a few days because I stated my belief at a party that we were breeding terrorists by killing people we THOUGHT might be terrorists. My lifelong bud and I made peace the very next day because we've known each other since we started kindergarten. We agreed though, once we were sober, that no person should die simply because a "terrorist" is holed up in the building next door. That simply isn't right, and attempting to defend that practice is wrong on its face.

That's what seems to be happening here at the moment. We're defending the slaughter of innocents, by telling the world how hard we're fighting against our self-defined terrorists. Shameful. Describe it any other way if you can.

We're accepting the slaughter of innocents by telling ourselves that it's what * did. Am I the only one who sees the folly in this belief?

Bring my boys and girls home. Bring them home tomorrow. Or, at least BEGIN the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of ALL troops and offensive weapons from Iraq and every other country we have servicemen and women "forward based". In this age of GPS targeted missiles and bombs, what purpose do they serve anyway? Put them to work building infrastructure in THIS country. Put their paychecks to work supporting merchants and manufacturers in THIS country.

Stop killing innocent people in countries most of us have only read about.

How many "civilian deaths" justify ONE "terrorist death"? Surely some DU'er has an answer for THAT.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I'll answer you in the same way that I did in the other thread

you started similar to this one.

Barack Obama started running for President back in January of 2007. At no time since I have ever heard him say that he would be bringing instant peace to the world after being office for less than a week.

This means that, although I can appreciate anti-war sentiments and I do not wish for civilian deaths, I believe you to be unreasonable in your demands of our new President. I wanted a bunch of shit ended yesterday, and I wanted my free health care today.....but I'm gonna be realistic instead of demanding things that are simply out of reach right this millisecond.

You might have voted for Kucinich, but we elected Barack Obama.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Thanks for a response that isn't a personal attack. I appreciate that.

I didn't mention "instant peace". That's not what I am asking for. I would ask though, as is my right as someone who voted for him, that President Obama not encourage or authorize attacks on supposed terrorists that resulted in innocent civilian deaths. Saying that the supposed terrorists caused the death of innocent civilians because the civilians welcomed them into their neighborhoods does not justify the SLAUGHTER of said civilians.

Need some pictures of those innocent civilians who have died since President Obama was inaugurated? Wait. When they're available, don't look away; Afterall, you had a hand in justifying them.

[alwysdrunk]

5. Can you tell them how? How to kill ONLY terrorists?

I personally don't have enough military expertise to tell them. Do you?

Also, what's with the "SLAUGHTER"? You think our soldiers are really out to kill civilians? We have the most powerful military machines ever created. If they were really "slaughtering" people the numbers would be in the millions, not the teens.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. I don't. And I think "SLAUGHTER" is appropos if you've seen what bombs do to neighborhoods. I have

I DO NOT THINK OUR SOLDIERS ARE REALLY OUT TO KILL CIVILIANS. I'm a vet. My use of the word "slaughter" only refers to those people whose bodies have been ripped apart by munitions intended to kill enemy combatants.

Here's the problem as I see it: A uniformed military will never defeat an armed resistance that can be categorized as a "guerilla force". At no time will a uniformed militia be able to indentify those people they are fighting. War as we know it, as we've been exposed to it, as we've seen it glorified in documentaries such as "Victory at Sea" no longer exists. Since the Korean conflict, our soldiers have been exposed to death and maiming by children with grenades under their hats just as many times as they've been exposed to death by uniformed servicemembers flying bombers or carrying AK-47's. Those days are gone.

Our response to that seems to be to kill whomever we concieve to be a threat.

My greatest sorrow is that we're now justifying the death of innocents by saying we killed a member of the opposing force. We didn't do that two months ago.

[Clio the Leo]

13. So you're criticizing without offering a solution?

naughty, naughty ;)

As for your assertion that we think it's "ok" for ANYONE to die, may I humbly suggest that the matter is too grave for divisive hyperbole.

I'm not any more in favor of ANYONE dying than you are .... but I dont have a better idea.

If you come up with something, there's a handy dandy feedback form on the White House website. I'll be happy to get you the link if you want it.

And let's not forget, he has already, even before he was in office, backed down from the ONE campaign promise that I WANTED him to break .... the promise to kill Bin Laden.

Let the man rot in a prison cell so he has plenty of time to make ammends with his maker but dont kill him for revenge's sake.

That tells me all I need to know about Barack's intent in the whole matter.

[alwysdrunk]

2. A 100% to 0% ratio isn't really possible

That's what the military says and based on their explanations I feel I have to agree. I can't tell them how to kill only terrorists in their operations so what can I say? We should do any fighting at all? That's not acceptable.

For me it's about the real threat posed but the target "terrorists". I agree with almost everything in your post, but you seem to assume that these guys are actually terrorist or aren't actually carrying out attacks. Thing is, someone is driving the truck in those truck bombs that kill 100 in a market. I'd rather see that guy killed by our military before he gets the chance.

[frog92969]

3. "Shoot the hostage" as a national policy?

No, I don't think so.

[cali]

6. my problem with the killing terrorist policy, goes beyond the innocent civilian

collateral death thing- or perhaps it's an extension of it. The business of bombing terrorists is a bad one. It inevitably creates more terrorists. And killing civilians in such attacks is an especially potent way of creating more hate for the U.S. Acting like careless gods who sweep in and destroy the pulse of ordinary life, will never be a successful anti-terrorism tactic. It can't be.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. I'm STILL waiting for an acceptable ratio of assumed terrorists killed vs civilians killed

in pursuit of an assumed terrorist.

Mk 82's destroy a city block. Mk 83's destroy that x3. Mk 84's create a blast wave that is so strong it blows your hair up when observed from 3/5ths of a mile away.

Mk 82 = 500 lb bomb
Mk 83 = 1000 lb bomb
Mk 84 = 2000 lb bomb

[cali]

8. let me suggest that it's not a question that can be answered

as it's about opinion as much as anything else, ergo there is no formula to use. Now, it may strike you as offensive that I say that it's about opinion, but clearly some people think that civilian casualties in pursuit of terrorists are acceptable. I completely disagree, but that's still opinion. Opinions are rooted in our philosophical frameworks.

[Political Heretic]

11. It would also depend on the target. Grunt - not worth was much collateral damage

Causing major disruption, apprehending or eliminating leaders / capturing strategic data - worth more collateral damage.

The other problem with your ratio nonsense is that its not possible to be absolutely certain how many civilians you might kill before you act so saying something like 1:1 is acceptable (or whatever) doesn't mean much.

What you should REALLY be talking about, my friend, is HOW we attack. We launch airstrikes because our leaders fear that our people wouldn't be as quite about troops on the ground. Airstrikes in imprecise and guarantee much high civilian casualties.

IF - a target is really so important to security that we MUST act, then we ought to be doing it with our own insurgent teams on the ground, ready to engage in targeted, stealth raid-style action which would dramatically decrease civilian casualties on the ground.

The reason we don't do that is all politics, and that's what we should be complaining about.

[MadBadger]

24. When you post a thread at 5AM ET, you're probably gonna have to wait a little to find your answer.

chill

[Political Heretic]

10. Civillian casualties is always apart of any military action

So the question is are you pacifist or not?

If you are, then great. Very consistent position. All violence is bad. I can get that.

But if you feel that no, sometimes the use of force while unfortunate, is necessary - then you WILL be dealing with innocent casualties, period.

[dcindian]

12. The answer is zero.

If that is not the answer someone's heart gives them then they too are a terrorist!


It is a shame that all someone has to do now a days to get a death sentence is to be next to someone that someone else has labeled as being bad with out proof mind you. Ever single one of the sicko's that just brush it off or make up excuses would not be the least bit quite if such things happened to someone in their family.

[leftofthedial]

14. this is Amurka! We think and dream (and kill) BIG!

I'd say our historical limit is about 100,000 to 1.

[Life Long Dem]

15. Are you saying terrorist are not civilians? Or are you saying, civilians are not terrorist?

:shrug:

[LittleBlue]

16. I don't see what we gain in killing any terrorists

For every one we kill, there will be more taking his place.

Preventative measures are more efficient than wars and airstrikes in foreign countries. For the cost of one of those bombs, we could pay people to monitor train tracks or inspect incoming cargo.

[L0oniX]

17. We can reduce terrorism by pulling out "all" of our military bases and quit f*cking with other...

countries.

[LittleBlue]

20. Exactly

However, some "progressives" have swallowed the Bush Koolaid on this one.

[L0oniX]

26. You never know who is pro military ...people want to keep their jobs even if it is killing people.

[Balbus]

18. Bush killing civilians = disgusting. Obama killing civilians = eh, okay I guess.

You are so behind the times.

[Life Long Dem]

25. Good. You did your hit, now run, like your sig says.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. There will always be civilian deaths in war

To me that's the main reason why any military actions need to be limited to key, achievable objectives. It's obviously always going to be difficult to find a balance, and there's always going to be some blowback. So you have to make a delicate strategic calculation that looks at whether the gains that are achieved are greater than the costs (angered local sentiment, civilian deaths, etc.).

For me, the Afghanistan conflict is an extremely complicated situation. I was 100% opposed to the Iraq War and I believe we need to pull out. Afghanistan is a little more complicated. We are a target of Al Qaeda and terrorist factions based in Afghanistan and those elements as a whole are also destabilizing much of South Asia. I think simply pulling out and leaving really will precipitate greater violence and instability in this case, much like the Soviet withdrawal, which saw the U.S. and the West abandon Afghanistan, lead to more decades of war, the rise of the Taliban, and the destabilization of Pakistan.

Also, the Taliban really is an extreme organization, although its ranks include both those who are ideologically committed to a harsh Wahhabism and opportunistic tribes and warlords.

I think we need a strategic review. I do think the airstrikes are counterproductive and I'm disappointed to see them continue. At the same time, we can't expect Obama to fix everything overnight and I'm willing to give the new Administration time to sort out its policies.

There have been some encouraging signs. Both Gates and Obama have scaled down their rhetoric of what is achievable. And you've had Democrats on Capitol Hill, such as Kerry and Webb openly discuss the possibility of Afghanistan becoming a "new Vietnam." So that tells me that people aren't simply mindlessly allowing this to escalate.

I'm agnostic on whether 30,000 extra troops can make a difference and I've read differing assessments. Some strategists and experts say they could provide some extra strength, but that it'll be in vain unless accompanied by political outreach and by scaling back the war's objectives. Others say it'll make no difference. I think the key point is that there will need to be some engagement with warlords, local actors and even some opportunistic supporters of the Taliban. I think we ought to stop wiping out the poppy trade and simply purchase Afghan poppies.

I do, however, think that some limited military strikes are going to be necessary in both Afghanistan and parts of Western Pakistan. Pakistan is enormously unstable. It's government is incapable of controlling the Afghan frontier. Yet we're in a real catch-22. Every strike made in Pakistan kills some civilians and inflames sentiment against the U.S. Yet simply allowing the extremists free reign in Pakistan's Tribal Areas will likely result in a Taliban-takeover of Pakistan's tribal regions and an outright civil war in Pakistan, with the real possibility that Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of Taliban or Taliban-sympathizing elements in the army and intelligence services.

So we're in a real shitstorm. I guess to tie it all back together to your original point, the civilian deaths give me a lot of pause and I know they're counterproductive; at the same time, some civilian deaths are going to expected in any military action and I think some military actions in this arena are necessary. But I don't pretend to know that I'm absolutely correct and I'm not sure anybody really knows what to do.

[sampsonblk]

21. No, the rules have not changed

Killing civilians is just as bad today as it was two weeks ago.

But I am sure Obama knows that. Let's give the guy a little time to figure out a better way. Right now he is working with Bush's apparatus.

[acmavm]

22. The military action against Afganistan was and is a just action. We had

to react and to root out the bastards who brought down the WTC. We should have stayed focused on Afganistan and never gone into Iraq.

Having said that I'll go further and add that in my opinion Obama has no choice but to 'stay the course' in regard to hunting down Al Q because unless I missed something, they haven't called off their jihad against us.

As for Osama, he's long gone. The only alternative I can see for that would be if he were in safety being hid by his family and the Saudis in a nice comfy apartment in Riyadh.

[IsItJustMe]

23. I completely agree with your post. It's called big time hypocracy. It is unpriciled at best. It

sends the wrong message. In this case the message is, Obama is our SOB so it's alright. Well it is not.

To me, being a liberal is much more than simply lining up the correct way behind a bunch of issues. So some may think that if a person is pro-choice, pro gay marraige, pro gun control, pro racial equality, against the war in Iraq, and for economic justice then that person is a liberal.

That to me is bull shit. To me, it has much more to do with a way of thinking of being open minded, receptive to different ways of looking at things, and expansive in the thinking process. It means standing on principle, much the way the ACLU does.

When something is wrong, it is wrong, no matter who is doing it, and visa versa.

[Imagevision]

27. Thinking back to Hiroshima/Nagasaki one wouldn't think so...?

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. The only thing I can say with certainty is war must be avoided when possible

Beyond that it becomes a discussion about the meaning of the words I just used. There are innocents who die in every war. They died during the American Revolution, they died during World War II. War by definition is murder. Who is being murdered and why? What is self defense? When must evil be opposed and how do we agree on what is evil and what is not?

It is easier to argue about our policy in Afghanistan than it is to give a simple answer to your question. For example, should force never be used to ressue large groups of hostages if there is reason to believe some may get hurt or killed in the process? One thing is always certain about the decision to use force; innocents will suffer and die. But what will happen instead when force isn't used also has to be considered? There are no neat and clean formulars.