So it turns out we don't need to drop bombs and level entire buildings to take out terrorists

[no limit]

The mission to take out Osama Bin Laden was by any standard highly successful. We were able to take out the world's most wanted terrorist in a fortified compound without a single American life lost and aside from Bin Laden's wife no innocent bystanders being killed.

This of course is in great contrast to what we usually do which is identify a target using flimsy sources then bomb the shit out of that target and hope that you don't kill too many innocent men, women, and children, which seems to turn out to be the case more often than not. Upwards of 1,000 people died in Pakistan last year as a result of our drone attacks, many of them innocent civilians.

The Navy SEALs is the most advanced military unit on the planet. The mission to kill Bin Laden only emphasized that. Along with the SEALs we have many other highly trained units in our military. And with such highly trained soldiers there should never be a reason to drop bombs on populated areas simply to take out one target.

After the attack on Bin Laden leaders from countries all around the Middle East lined up to congratulate the United States for a job well done. One thing that made it politically possible for these leaders to say that is because we didn't kill a bunch of innocent people just to take out one target.

Having very little regard for innocent lives when targeting terrorists does nothing to help our cause and is highly counter productive in fighting terrorism. Not to mention highly immoral. This should be an opportunity to review how we deal with terrorist targets, if we can get our special forces in and out of a city in the middle of Pakistan we should be capable of doing the same in the border region where most of these drone attacks take place.

http://www.leftunderground.com/content/243-Turns-out-we-don-t-need-to-drop-bombs-and-level-buildings-to-take-out-targets

[MineralMan]

1. Unfortunately, the time and cost required for an operation

like the one that took out Osama bin Laden make such operations rare. There's no practical way to do that for every situation, I'm afraid. I agree that there are far too many lives lost that should not be in the other type of assault.

[no limit]

8. But is that really true? We spend hundreds of billions on our military each year.

When it comes to bombing villages full of innocent people I would think we could take some of those hundreds of billions and use it to fund operations like these instead of simply dropping bombs and hoping for the best.

[MineralMan]

9. The thing is, you see, is that such operations

require specialized training and teams of highly-skilled, practiced people, or they simply fail. The cost of these operations has to include the cost of training and equipping those teams. How many such teams do you think we have, and why do you think there are so few?

For the OBL operation, they had to build a mockup of the actual location so they could train there. The planning for the operation took months. I think that you may have no idea of what such special operations really require or the cost of those operations.

It's important that some attention be paid to reality in these things. Truly.

[no limit]

11. I think you are making assumptions (just as I am) we don't know what kind of training this took

But the fact is with this mission we decided on the course of action not on how much it would cost, not on how complext this was, but on the sole fact of who the target was. This decision was political, not strategic.

Our government decided that taking great care when dealing with Osama Bin Laden makes sense while taking great care every single other time doesn't. You can argue that these operations might not always be possible and you might have a point. But I don't buy in to the argument that these operations are never possible. The reality is that such operations would be possible atleast some of the time, yet out government has decided that these operations are never worth the effort even if the effort could save hundreds of lives each year.

[MineralMan]

12. Actually, we do know. In the first place training of these special

teams has been described many times. The training for this operation has also been described in considerable detail.

Of course the decision was political and based on the importance of the target. Why would it be otherwise. Important target - special measures.

As for your last point, I do not know how many such operations are conducted each year. They're not publicized, in most cases, I'm sure. This was a rare exception. I'm thinking that you don't know, either. We aren't in the small group that has the "need to know" such things.

That the teams exist is evidence that they are used from time to time. That's all we know.

[no limit]

14. You're saying these special teams are killing terrorists all the time and we never hear about it?

That's very odd. What happens to the bodies?

Do you have a source for the claim that they were training for months to do this?

How much care do you think should be taken before we drop a bomb on a target filled with countless people?

[MineralMan]

16. No, I'm saying that we don't know what they do,

and that's by design.

You can read exactly what I'm saying. There's no need to put words into my mouth. No need at all.

The training for this mission has been described in the press a number of times already. You can find it if you wish.

As for how much care we should take before dropping bombs, I think we should take a great deal of care in doing such things. I believe we do that. Countless people? That's a lot of people. Not very specific a number, though. Countless...I'll have to think about that.

[no limit]

18. We know what they did in this case, and it showed they are perfectly capable of these operations

Saying "oh we dont know what they do so we dont have any right to question our actions" is a BS excuse that has been used by the likes of Bush supporters for a long time. Just because it is now Obama that is in the white house doesn't change the fact that this is a weak argument.

Where have they been described? You said they built mock ups of the compound and it took months of training. All I'm asking you is to provide the link of where you got this from, I haven't seen it.

You think we take great care in the operations where we kill innocent civilians in pakistan from the air? What are you basing this on?

[MineralMan]

22. Have you not read any of the accounts? Truly?

Oh, well...start here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42858824/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

Then go look some more at other stories. This information has been all over the media. Your question indicates that you have no actual information, and that you have not looked for any. I'm done with this discussion.

[no limit]

31. Being done with the discussion doesn't magically make up for the lack of argument on your part

have a nice day.

[ThomCat]

21. For the trillions of dollars we spend on war we could Afford

to have more of those teams.

And that would STILL save us vast amounts of money because we wouldn't be paying for the health care bills for the tens of thousands of wounded and disabled vets.

We wouldn't be paying for the vast amounts of equipment that gets used or destroyed and then has to be replaced.

We wouldn't be paying for the huge army of support services that are routinely ripping off our government at every opportunity.

And, most importantly, we would be minimizing the occurrences and the opportunities for war crimes.

The thousands of people who have been rounded up and held in prisons, questioned and tortured by our troops solely because they were local, wouldn't have happened. The hundreds of thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths wouldn't have happened.

The epidemic increase in rapes and sexual assaults committed by our own male troops against women in our own armed forces, and against some of the other men in our armed forces wouldn't have happened because they wouldn't have been over there!

To simply assume that vast expensive wars are the only way to hunt someone down simply because that is what was done is ridiculous. Bush did it this way because there was a hell of a lot of money to divert to buddies at defense contractors, and friends who invested in them.

Obama continued the wars because he's a Damned Coward without the political courage to refuse to give his opponents what they want. After campaigning against Bush's policies he immediately jumped to the right and kept Bush's policies and Bush's wars because he wasn't strong enough to step on anyone's toes unless those toes belonged to poor and powerless people on the left.

[MineralMan]

23. No thanks. I won't play.

Try again without the slur against President Obama.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

27. No, you know nothing of the sort.

I will not, however, participate in any discussion where you call President Obama "a Damned Coward." Sorry, but I will draw the line at that. You may do as you please.

[ThomCat]

28. Good Bye!

:hi: won't miss you.

[Swede]

2. Apples and oranges.

[KharmaTrain]

3. The U.S. Was Also Very Lucky

From what it appears bin Laden had only a couple of other people with him. He wasn't in a fortified compound and fortunately the cover was kept on this mission that enabled the SEALS to meet little resistance or to tip off bin Laden so he could run again. Credit is due to the meticulous planning that had to have taken place and that this raid could be accomplished with no casualties other than those inside the house. These opportunities don't happen often.

[no limit]

4. These opportunities seem to never happen, probably because we refuse to make them happen

we have decided as a country that putting any risk on our soldiers when targeting these terrorists is unacceptable. And as a result we are willing to kill innocent civillians on a weekly basis which we seem to think is far more acceptable.

We are told this is war, with war we have to accept some risk. Otherwise all we are doing is making things worse for ourselves.

[Myrina]

6. ... not to mention, spending gazillions of dollars on "Shock and Awe" ...

... when very tight, focused operations like this - or with pin point drones - would probably cost a percentage of what we spend on the MIC now.

[patrice]

17. Huh? "...risk on our soldiers ... is unacceptable." ?????????? Where have you been

for 10 years? Risk to our soldiers appears to have been the ONLY "strategy".

[no limit]

19. Bullshit. More often than not we level entire towns and buildings in order to not send our soldiers

and in the case of Pakistan we almost never send soliders in unless there is a political benefit to doing so, such as in this case.

[patrice]

20. k, I understand now. Of course that's true. Perhaps this is why so many of our soldiers are suicidal

[Marblehead]

5. The war on terror

should be a police action and shouldn't cost trillions, just sayin

[Bandit]

7. Exactly as Senator Kerry said it should be done when he was running for President.

He caught nothing but shit for it from the Right Wing.. WAR was their mind set and that means bombs and troops on the ground..Republicans are proved almost daily to be wrong in their assertions yet no one seems to remember. At least no one in the Media that is.. NEVER have I heard anyone in the Media remind us of things the GOP has said that turned out to be as far from the truth as possible..Remember how each and every Republican swore Clinton's first Budget would bankrupt America forever and destroy our entire economy. Could they have been any more wrong, yet nary a mention from the Media.

[Romulox]

10. Too bad he didn't have the kind of clarity on Iraq though...

On December 14, 2001, 3 months after the attacks of 9/11, Kerry said on Larry King Live that "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue against, for instance, Saddam Hussein."

More recently, Kerry said on October 9, 2002; "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown University saying "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."Kerry did, however, warn that the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war: "Mr. President, do not rush to war, take the time to build the coalition, because it's not winning the war that's hard, it's winning the peace that's hard."<77>
After the invasion of Iraq, when no weapons of mass destruction were found, Kerry strongly criticized Bush, contending that he had misled the country: "When the President of the United States looks at you and tells you something, there should be some trust."<78>

Kerry had spoken before the war about the sorts of weapons many believed Saddam Hussein had. On the Senate floor on October 9, 2002, he said that "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Iraq

[patrice]

13. K&RRRRRRRR~

[DirkGently]

15. Raises the question of who "won." OBL is dead. America is drowning in costly, soul-destroying war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Or, go broke losing unnecessary wars so that presidents can look tough.

[backscatter712]

26. The .mil originally wanted to blow up Bin Laden's compound with B-2 bombers.

They originally wanted to drop dozens of thousand-pound bombs on the compound, which would have turned bin Laden, all his thugs and everyone else on the compound, as well as half the town into fine red mist.

It was one of the options developed to hit Bin Laden, though Obama rejected it because of the potential for civilian casualties, and because there wouldn't even be DNA left of bin Laden to verify his death.

[no limit]

29. Have not heard this account, do you have any links by any chance?

Also, if they were so concerned about casualties in this case why not in other cases?

If what you are saying is true the much more realistic explaination is what you said about the DNA. Without it Obama would not be able to claim that Osama Bin Laden was dead beyond reasonable doubt. Although even there I don't know I buy that since blowing the compound up would still leave DNA.

[backscatter712]

30. Here's one.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-did-not-authorize-b-2-bombing-of-obl-then-change-his-mind/

Basically, the military developed the B-2 fine-red-misting plan as one possible option for hitting Bin Laden, but Obama did not approve this option, instead opting for the SEAL team strike.

[no limit]

32. ok, but that says their concern was not causilties. It was the concern of a lack of DNA

which sort of proves my point. They don't really care about causilties. They care about scoring political points.