The Case for Targeting al-Qaeda in Pakistan: Two Views.

[KoKo]

KEVIN DRUM...Washington Monthly:

TARGETING AL-QAEDA....We may not have gotten Zawahiri, but we did get one of al-Qaeda's big fish in the attack on Damadola last week:

ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.

...."Pakistani intelligence says this was a very important planning session involving the very top levels of al Qaeda as they get ready for a new spring offensive," explained Alexis Debat, a former official in the French Defense Ministry and now an ABC News consultant.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.

Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008037.php

----------------------------------------

Response To Kevin Drum

by tristero (Digby's Guest Blogger)

Kevin asks liberal bloggers to respond to a hypothetical and I will cheerfully do so, although my argument won't please Kevin, I think:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.

Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?

My answer, which will surprise no one who knows my writing, is that what Kevin has written is so loaded that it is utterly incoherent as a spur to an honest discussion of terrorism and what to do about it. The only appropriate way to answer is ask the questions that should be asked in the first place, the ones that are being sidestepped. To explain:

Although it seems there are two questions here, there are exactly no real questions being asked. In fact, Kevin simply has crafted a blunt accusatory phrased as a question which can only elicit one possible answer: his. He's really saying, roughly, "You'd be out of your mind not to bomb them, even if 18 innocents died. Thousands, if not millions, of lives, will be spared."

The question, "Was the attack justified?" is not meant to be seriously disputed and a little bit of thought will show that it never can be. Let's just say you answer no and with tremendous eloquence you discuss the morality of it, invoking not only the Bible, but the Bhagavad Gita and a few scientific studies of moral dilemmas. It's all meaningless, for all Kevin needs to do is follow up with, "Okay, let's say the people in that building were putting the finishing touches on a plan to nuke Boston. Would you now say it's justified?" And if that doesn't change your mind, Kevin can simply continue to up the ante - in the house, say, was enough Chemical W to obliterate the Midwest for generations. Eventually, even you will be forced to abandon your objections.


FOR THE WHOLE REBUTTAL ARGUMENT (a great read) GO HERE......

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

[CJCRANE]

1. Whether it's justified or not is irrelevant.

It was just a Rovian PR stunt (that backfired).

[KoKo]

2. I see you read the interesting rebuttal on Digy which reaches that

conclusion. Getting to that conclusion is worth the read though. Shows how the Bushies and their "OP's" manipulate the average America through the Media.

[CJCRANE]

3. My reasoning is slightly different:

After 9/11 Bush said "he who harbors the terrorists is with the terrorists" then proceeded to carpet bomb Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and his crew slipped over the border ot Pakistan. Then all of sudden the tone changed, they were worried about the sovereignty of Pakistan, they couldn't go in there, it was up to Musharraf to sort it out etc.

Now they're in a spot of trouble with Abramoffgate and Spygate and all of a sudden Pakistan's sovereignty doesn't matter any more, it's ok to go in and blast up a village.

Then Pakistan complains about this and we're back to square one.

It's clear that Bushco just make it up as they go along, there's no logic or consistency. In fact the only consistency seems to be that they take action whenever they need a distraction.

[KoKo]

4. Actually the Neo-Cons and Conservative Supportive "Think Tanks"

write the script for them. As clueless and bumbling as they may seem...remember they are only "THE PUPPETS."

but, that sort of gets away from my OP...

[Terran1212]

5. It was an illegal attack that led to murder

Where exactly is the debate here?

Even if there were potential aggressors in the village, why not arrest them and give them fair trial like civilized people?

Why just lob bombs in the general direction? Isn't that terrorism?

[Neil Lisst]

6. I don't believe a word of it. Cover stories are common for screw ups.

The Bush administration needed cover, and after two weeks, the Pakistani government helped provide it.

Hell, these guys are making up letters and tapes supposedly from Osama. They forged docs to make the case for war in Iraq. I don't believe anything they report.