We lost the "war" on terror, the fact that we use drones for assassination...

[Humanist_Activist]

is evidence of this. I mean, we kill one suspected terrorist, create a dozen martyrs, most of them innocent, and give terrorist organizations a boost in recruitment, and a propaganda victory. That's just fucking great, and while this may prevent some short term attacks, I can just see, 20 years down the road, some terrorist cell is going to be able to successfully pull off a 9/11 level attack again, and the prime suspect will probably be some kid whose dad worked at a halal deli on the wrong day and wrong time while we were targeting some terrorists in the same building, and he ended up dead and buried as collateral damage.

It just seems rather obvious that we are, at best, treading water when it comes to this, or making it a push. Sure we kill a bunch of terrorists, but frankly, that just seems to strengthen them in the whole "hearts and mind" thing that we fail at. Look at what happened with the Arab Spring, in some countries moderation, in most others, radicalization, and I'm afraid its going to get worse, before it gets better.

Not to mention that some of these countries that allow drone strikes are not the most stable, and their populations can turn against us on a dime. What then?

[polly7]

1. Was the 'war on terror' ever meant

to really end / be won? Like the 'war on drugs' .... look how many places in the world those two 'wars' have created opportunities for intervention.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. When Bush the lesser set up this initial war, it was a forever war...

I think we all knew that, I just am surprised that people, even on the left, have now embraced the bullshit of this forever war as an excuse for actions that I don't see as reasonable or defensible.

[polly7]

5. I agree on that. nt.

[Katashi_itto]

2. Having vague wars is good for the 1% You need a war to drive the MIC.

[TwilightGardener]

4. You bring up some good points. I don't know what the answer is, beyond

improving our intelligence gathering and vigilance in heading off attacks--and if we use drones, they'd better hit their target and only their target, and it better be someone who is plotting (or has tried) to kill us. If we routinely hit innocents and terminally scare the shit out of a population, then we obviously can't have the moral high ground on terror.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. The first step would be acknowledging that it isn't a war at all, but criminal activity...

and hence should be pursued and prosecuted as such. Right now we are playing wack-a-mole with no end in sight because more moles keep popping up. Even if drones were 100% accurate with 0% collateral damage, it wouldn't solve the problem, just make the attacks slightly less offensive to the population, and again, replacements will pop up for the people we kill.

Once you change the language, you change the perception, its not the United States attacking countries on a whim, as is perceived now, but rather police agencies, local, national, and international, that are working together to solve this problem, any military involvement should be limited to logistical support to local and national police. We should also flex political muscle to have countries enforce their own laws to pursue the terrorists residing in their countries.

To actually win against international terrorism, we need cooperation, not antagonism, and we need support from local groups and populations to actually have any long term effects. It won't be eliminated, but we could at least reduce the power, financing and effectiveness of terrorism groups.

[green for victory]

6. ^

[libtodeath]

7. The war on terror is just a way to funnel money from the middle class to the elite

[quaker bill]

8. The war for "Hearts and Minds" was lost well before drones.

I am pretty sure the whole invasion and torture thing took care of that completely.


I would put a dollar on the notion that the emotional impact of drones is bigger here than it is there. When folks around you are being killed on a regular basis, the specific equipment used probably becomes far less relevant. However, when you are sitting in an armchair many thousands of miles away, you have the luxury to imagine that the specific weapons used actually matters. You can imagine that you might think better of the folks killing your neighbors, if they only used different weapons....


In so far as strategy is concerned, I don't see any reason that this approach would be more of an incentive to join Al Queda than another. One sitting comfortably here might imagine it to be the case, but the bottom line is that whether there a person in the cockpit or not, your neighbor is just as dead. Either that inspires you to revolt or it doesn't.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. No, I definitely see a difference, remember, in none of these countries are we at war...

with their governments. These are countries that are supposed to be at peace, and the choice isn't between invading them or attacking them with drones, but either attacking them with drones, or leaving their populations alone. That, it seems to me, would be a huge difference, for their neighbors would still be alive.

Also, if you actually would read the reports from media in countries like Pakistan, you would notice that the population isn't happy with the U.S. drone strikes, indeed, they are quite pissed.

[quaker bill]

16. From what I have read

You have the "government" objecting to the strikes and the ISI (the secret service there) assisting with the targeting.

If Pakistan really objected, they would shoot the drones down. They are far more than capable of doing so. Pakistan doesn't really want Al-Queda operating within their borders. Waziristan has never really been under their control, so it is not like they can go in there and arrest these folks. I believe they tried a ground force intervention for a little bit toward the end of the Bush* admin and were quickly routed.

I actually do read quite a bit, to include the story in the Times a few years back on how the ISI was assisting....

Can you really be in a war against Pakistan, if their secret service is assisting?

The war is not against Pakistan, it is against Al-Queda.

I do not support warfare, but I do like to be honest about it. I am pretty sure a good portion of the Pakistani population became upset with us the day we invaded Afghanistan. This is why, when the Taliban and Al-Queda had to flee, they went to Pakistan for safe haven.

I am sure you recall the Tora Bora thing, it was a mountain hide out on the road to Pakistan.

I don't think it is hard to find people unhappy with the US anywhere in the ME. Why do you think they were taking classes on how to fly large jets at our flight schools but skipping the sessons on landing them? I am pretty sure it was because they didn't like us well before anyone strapped a missle to a drone.

The whole "we are making more terrorists" thing is a poor line of logic. It does not take that many, and there were plenty there a long time ago.

[madokie]

9. No doubt

Kinda like with torture, for years we didn't torture for fear of what would happen to our soldiers if they were captured. Now we've opened that door to never be closed again. It sucks, when the rich have so much control over the masses, this is what we get

[GoneOffShore]

10. We lost the "War On Terror" with the passage of the "Patriot(sic) Act,"

The formation of the DHS and the TSA and a 100 mile Constitution Free zone.

[leftstreet]

11. DURec

[MuseRider]

13. Agreed.

We do have to keep creating more "terrorists" so we can keep putting money in some people's pockets.

None of this is about anything more than corporate greed IMO. We are fed the lines (lies) of freedom and number oneitude and we suck it up but really, who is getting any benefit from this? There lie the answers.

Oooh wee baby look at this new missile! Look at that new fighter jet, baby oh baby hear those afterburners! They are coming to get you so we need these new things. You need us to protect you from all the scary folks.

Gotta keep creating those people who hate us for out freedom.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. For politicians and the Pentagon, it's not that we obviously lost, but admitting that we lost.

Again.