You don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.
During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”
On average, one document states, it took the U.S. six years to develop a target in Somalia, but just 8.3 months to kill the target once the president had approved his addition to the kill list.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AMQuote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AMYou don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.This isn't a war you can win in a few months.
Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AMYou don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.
Quote from: spewky bewgie on October 16, 2015, 11:07:45 AMQuote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:57:57 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AMQuote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AMYou don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.This isn't a war you can win in a few months.Apparently, thirteen years isn't enough either. This conflict is going to go down as a second Vietnam tbh.Winning this isn't in the elites' best interests. Conflict in that region is a goldmine for those selling weapons, bullets, tanks, helicopters.
Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:57:57 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AMQuote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AMYou don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.This isn't a war you can win in a few months.Apparently, thirteen years isn't enough either. This conflict is going to go down as a second Vietnam tbh.
Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:04:13 AMLook, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.Not to disregard the above body of your post, because it is correct and important, but hasn't the deterioration of the situation in Iraq again and the continued existence of Al-Qaeda illustrated that the war essentially is a matter of trying to actively delay the revival of international terrorism rather than finding a permanent solution? Essentially endless whack-a-mole because if we stop things will get worse?
Just pulling a snippet from the melodramatic 'Drone Papers' site:QuoteDuring one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”This is literally how bombing has worked for the past century. Saying 90% of casualties aren't the intended targets is kind of silly. We've moved on from carpet bombing entire bases, with much higher rates of civilian casualties, to precision strikes on key personnel and their staff. Do innocent people die? Probably, but there's far more work put into deciding targets and strikes than there ever have been in history -- we're talking orders of magnitude more effort. Dozens or even hundreds of people contribute to compiling profiles and mission parameters for each strike. From the article:QuoteOn average, one document states, it took the U.S. six years to develop a target in Somalia, but just 8.3 months to kill the target once the president had approved his addition to the kill list.Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.
but a 10% rate of success is ridiculous.
But this is in addition to the previous revelations that the administration would often order drone strikes without going through the proper legal channels. Illegally crossing borders to commit an extrajudicial assassination that isn't even legal under US law, never mind the other country's, just to not even get the guy you're aiming at (because you knew they probably wouldn't even be there), and then cover all of that up, is so egregiously, blatantly illegal, unjustifiable, and morally reprehensible.
I don't know how anyone can be so content with being lied to.
Being ignorant is not the same as being deceived.
Quote from: Kupo on October 16, 2015, 07:10:54 PMbut a 10% rate of success is ridiculous. I think you misread. 10% of the casualties are the intended target, meaning for every one target they kill, on average, they kill 9 other militants.
I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to Anwar al-Awlaki, but his death was pretty well-justified. As for supposedly sweeping authority to kill Americans abroad, that's an entirely separate issue from what is discussed in 'The Drone Papers'. As for the legality, it's plainly clear that targeted killings and assassinations are completely different legal and ethical entities. Killing a leader of an active militant group is tantamount to national self defense, just like any other strike or attack.