Extrajudicial Executions Continue Apace Under Obama

[stormthebeaches]

So tell me General Brock, how do you propose we arrest terrorists hiding out in Pakistan's North West Frontier province?

[hongi]

You know, it would be much easier to address the grievances of 'medieval' minded terrorist types and the perpetrators themselves were it not for the idiots stuck in the darkest days of the bronze age Old Testament guiding Western policy.

A combination of good intel and police work, resulting in arrests and humane public trials that demonstrated the inhumanity of terrorism and the inexcusable inhumanity of those who would sponsor and enact it would be a whole lot more effective in defeating that idiotology than trying to match it eye for eye, tooth for tooth, let alone trying to exceed it in antihumanitarian accomplishment.

Unless, of course, the objective was to have antihumanitarian sentiment prevail as the dominant ideological spirit of the West, with right and wrong redefined by politics over objective reality.

The whole purpose of war is to kill the other side. The naivete is breathtaking. It's not practical to arrest people in backwards fuckupistan. Do you know why? Because any policeman who wanders into that region will have his head cut off. You need an army to get in there and that's what Pakistan's aborted offensive last year tried to do.

The US doesn't match terrorists eye for an eye. There is no moral equivalence between assassinations (what the US does) and blowng oneself up in a crowded market (what the terrorists do).

[General Brock]

So tell me General Brock, how do you propose we arrest terrorists hiding out in Pakistan's North West Frontier province?

How many of those people were 'terrorists' in 2003?

How did Britain respond to the IRA? Granted, the violence did get pretty bad after the Easter uprising, but a balance of civilian and military solutions was eventually pursued. One can't help but notice Ireland was never blasted back into the stone age; in fact the people there were apparently valued for themselves. Only Northern Ireland, where a significant sympathetic population resided and arguably needed some protection once the hornets nest was shot up, was occupied by the British.

This whole war on terror thing seems more like a protection racket than a legitimate war. Neocons invade, locals resist. Neocons redefine resistance as terrorism and further casus belli - then speak of winning hearts and minds like it was some prize to be seized or denied, not anything human.

That's not cool, to say the least.

[General Brock]

The whole purpose of war is to kill the other side. The naivete is breathtaking. It's not practical to arrest people in backwards fuckupistan. Do you know why? Because any policeman who wanders into that region will have his head cut off. You need an army to get in there and that's what Pakistan's aborted offensive last year tried to do.

The US doesn't match terrorists eye for an eye. There is no moral equivalence between assassinations (what the US does) and blowng oneself up in a crowded market (what the terrorists do).

Wars usually have declarations against specific and identifiable entities and clearly defined and achievable goals. There was no declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan, and Al Queda doesn't exactly count as an entity that can sign articles of surrender. Pursuing violent attrition against indigenous resistance fighters till they just give up is not exactly what most responsible military planners would hope for as a 'defined goal'.

There is no morality at all behind America's assassinations or the manned bombs delivered personally by self-styled resistance fighters. Its just hate sport, worship of a cult of murder. Enforcement of just rule of law includes adherence to it, and tends to work because it seeks to address injustices honestly and extinguish pointless cycles of violence at the source, the ever elusive 'hearts and minds', because people with a heart an mind tend to want peace and dignity for themselves and others.

Now, if justice and a fair peace isn't the desired outcome, well one can naively go along with thinking the neocon war machine will beat the world all better because they have all the guns and money and can bully whomever they want.

[Feil]

You're verging on the absurd here, General Brock. It's one thing to argue that the conquest of Iraq and/or Afghanistan were unjustified or unwise (in my mind and most definitions of Just War, the latter implies the former), or even that continued counterinsurgency operations are unjustified, but your post ignores those arguments completely, and in stead takes the very complex issue of counterinsurgency warfare and suggests that it has no more strategic depth or moral standing than a tribal feud.

Wars usually have declarations against specific and identifiable entities and clearly defined and achievable goals.

Which, in this case, is to supplant an ideologically and politically opposed state with an ideologically and politically aligned state. Or, in more straightforward terms, to make a particular body of people do what we want.

There was no declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan, and Al Queda doesn't exactly count as an entity that can sign articles of surrender.

There was, however, authorization of military force to topple the governments and destroy the armed forces of those states. Which amounts to the same thing, semantics aside. Now that that is done, further use of armed force for counterinsurgency purposes has also been authorized.

Pursuing violent attrition against indigenous resistance fighters till they just give up is not exactly what most responsible military planners would hope for as a 'defined goal'.

Which is why it's a good thing that attrition of insurgents is only one part of the more multifaceted counterinsurgency goals of the modern war-maker. To quote from a relevant document:

"At the beginning of a COIN operation, military actions may
appear predominant as security forces conduct operations to
secure the populace and kill or capture insurgents. However,
political objectives must guide the military’s approach.
Commanders must consider how operations contribute to
strengthening the HN government’s legitimacy and
achieving US goals—the latter is especially important if
there is no HN."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_24.pdf

There is no morality at all behind America's assassinations or the manned bombs delivered personally by self-styled resistance fighters.

Do you mean to imply that the killing of an enemy combatant and the killing of civilians are morally equivalent?

Its just hate sport, worship of a cult of murder. Enforcement of just rule of law includes adherence to it, and tends to work because it seeks to address injustices honestly and extinguish pointless cycles of violence at the source, the ever elusive 'hearts and minds', because people with a heart an mind tend to want peace and dignity for themselves and others. Now, if justice and a fair peace isn't the desired outcome, well one can naively go along with thinking the neocon war machine will beat the world all better because they have all the guns and money and can bully whomever they want.

Please propose a method for enforcing a just rule of law without first establishing a sovereign state, that being defined in this context as that organization which holds a monopoly on the effective employment of armed force within a given territory.

[stormthebeaches]

How did Britain respond to the IRA? Granted, the violence did get pretty bad after the Easter uprising, but a balance of civilian and military solutions was eventually pursued. One can't help but notice Ireland was never blasted back into the stone age; in fact the people there were apparently valued for themselves. Only Northern Ireland, where a significant sympathetic population resided and arguably needed some protection once the hornets nest was shot up, was occupied by the British.

The British were able to deal with the IRA in a less violent manner because the IRA were operation in a first world country their were working legal institutions to deal with them. Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, on the other hand, is in a state of near anarchy and there is no way we could realistically arrest those terrorist leaders.

[General Brock]

You're verging on the absurd here, General Brock. It's one thing to argue that the conquest of Iraq and/or Afghanistan were unjustified or unwise (in my mind and most definitions of Just War, the latter implies the former), or even that continued counterinsurgency operations are unjustified, but your post ignores those arguments completely, and in stead takes the very complex issue of counterinsurgency warfare and suggests that it has no more strategic depth or moral standing than a tribal feud.

You're injecting absurd complexity into a simple problem. America's invasions ignored the legal protocols that civilize wars, contain violence and make them 'winnable' or at least leave open avenues of pragmatic reconciliation. The whole 'exit strategy' thing where a measure of control over one's exit is not entirely determined by the endurance of the opponent. Instead, we are left with an open ended conflict which can only end if the resistance gives up or the Americans go home.

Which, in this case, is to supplant an ideologically and politically opposed state with an ideologically and politically aligned state. Or, in more straightforward terms, to make a particular body of people do what we want.

... That's still just Kill them till they are compliant. Something more tangible is needed to be a viable military goal. The only way for something that thinking to work was applied in the conquest of North America, and it still wasn't a purely military operation. Supplant the pre-existing indigenous population with a more supportive one and kill off any indigenous resistance. The survivors will tend towards a reluctant compliance because there is a real indigenous 'new order' in place after a hundred years. However, the surplus population and open lands for such a 'surge' do not appear to exist.

The closest thing to 'success' by necon definition is not post WWII Germany or Japan, but the Phillipines after the Phillipine-American war. At the onset of independence from Portugal, the Phillipines had a sovereign government (albeit untested) with a healthy network of communities behind it. It was also an archipelago in the middle of nowhere, with no means of reinforcement, support, or hideouts outside the country. During the worst of the fighting, 12 year old children were hung for resisting with stones and slings. The Phillipines still has a few ongoing problems with the whole democratic rule thingy at present.

There was, however, authorization of military force to topple the governments and destroy the armed forces of those states. Which amounts to the same thing, semantics aside. Now that that is done, further use of armed force for counterinsurgency purposes has also been authorized.

No, it does not amount to the same thing. The other side as a real sovereign entity was not given consideration. Neither Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein or the governmental bodies they headed were given any realistic opportunity to surrender sovereignty and accommodate reparations demands. The continuity of legitimacy from peace to war to peace again was disrupted.

This isn't just legal fluffery; its based on the hearts and mind stuff the neocons keep going on about. The people's habit of compliance to law and order and personal stake in it was blasted out the window along with their legitimate indigenous governments, which, despite some glaring flaws, were theirs, made by 'their own' people.

Which means, they will be inclined to resist until one day again they have a government of their own making, or the neocons mangage to kill off all the people aspiring to building their own communities and nation. If you are an American, I cannot understand why you don't recognize the motivating force of liberty at work. Jihad is just along for the ride.

Which is why it's a good thing that attrition of insurgents is only one part of the more multifaceted counterinsurgency goals of the modern war-maker. To quote from a relevant document:

"At the beginning of a COIN operation, military actions may
appear predominant as security forces conduct operations to
secure the populace and kill or capture insurgents. However,
political objectives must guide the military’s approach.
Commanders must consider how operations contribute to
strengthening the HN government’s legitimacy and
achieving US goals—the latter is especially important if
there is no HN."
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_24.pdf

If the resistance had more panache they would tape copies of that to their IEDs.

Do you mean to imply that the killing of an enemy combatant and the killing of civilians are morally equivalent?

If you are going to put it that way, the present American leadership draws no realistically enforceable distinction. Collateral slaughter happens, and with no consistent distinction between combatant and non-combatant, compliant or non-compliant citizen. There is no material incentive to not taking up arms and/or supporting the local 'neighborhood militant watch', however, there is moral and material incentive to resist.

A suicide bomber deliberately seeking civilian targets is reprehensible. Collateral slaughter some ways worse, because it seeks to hide near-deliberate civilian casualties behind second intention. So a suicide bomber targeting a patrol and collaterally slaughtering civilians in the process and a pilot of dropping a bomb that also takes out civilians and maybe a combatant is only differentiated in that the pilot flies away to bomb another day, but the suicide bomber is expended.

Please propose a method for enforcing a just rule of law without first establishing a sovereign state, that being defined in this context as that organization which holds a monopoly on the effective employment of armed force within a given territory.

Error number one, assuming you can impose a sovereign state. That's an oxymoron. That's like trying to beat the surface of water into stillness and stop it from splashing around.

Governance is accomplished not just with a monopoly on the effective use of arms, but the popularly acknowledged and agreed-to right for that government to wield such power an dauthority. By popular, I refer to the constituency from which that government arises to represent, not whether or not its popular with the neocons.

The only solution is to (1) Leave and come back when there is somebody to engage in peaceful dialogue. It may take a while for things to settle back to 2003 levels of antagonism. A long while, but in the meantime the army won't be screwed with missions impossible, nations won't be
hemorrhaging blood and treasure, and American democracy won't be contorted beyond recognition trying to make it all pay off for the neocons. (2) Remove the existing population and replace it with a compliant one. Since this isn't a video game or the 1700's, and a stack of settlers or colonists isn't waiting, option (1) seems the answer.

[General Brock]

The British were able to deal with the IRA in a less violent manner because the IRA were operation in a first world country their were working legal institutions to deal with them. Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, on the other hand, is in a state of near anarchy and there is no way we could realistically arrest those terrorist leaders.

That's still the same 'protection racket' rationalization. The British and Irish succeeded because they didn't go out of their way to foster cycles of violence as both problem and solution. Not that there weren't hatemongers on both sides willing to do just that, but the British didn't overplay their upper hand and the IRA didn't have an upper hand to overplay.

Just because clan and tribal relationships don't pigeonhole into nice neat bureaucratic levers doesn't mean there is no order. There was order there; it just wasn't a neocon-convenient order. There must still be order there, because the local will to resist continues to be expressed by effective resistance fighters. Furthermore, there is no realistic way of knowing who intends to be a terrorist threat and who is fighting just because there's an invader that needs to be fought. Since the only dialogue American engages in is to 'pig-bait' the effective leaders into the open for assassination regardless of affiliation, success as envisioned for the media by pro-war types is highly unlikely ever to happen.

[General Brock]

Um, OK the Philippines won their independence from Spain, not Portugal. I always get Spain and Portugal them mixed up on paper for some reason, despite them being so different.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The whole purpose of war is to kill the other side. The naivete is breathtaking.

I have to take objection to this. The purpose of war is not to kill people, it's to make the other side give in to your demands. Granted, one of the best ways of doing that is killing people, but it's far from the only option and the fact that very few wars have a 'no prisoners' policy attests to this.