[Nuke]

i can use that next time i need to create a fascist dictatorship. there might be impaled corpses lining the streets, but my supporters will receive pie.

[Nakura]

Now that I have Netflix again, I will definitely have to check this out sometime.

You mentioned a few things that caught my eye in particular, such as the American government doing things that may appear to be against America's best interests; drone strikes on our supposed allies and what-have-you. Assuming what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise at the moment, I can only imagine that the reason behind such actions is to prevent an end to hostilities. The reason for that? Well I'm sure a conspiracy theorist would make grandiose claims about a military industrial complex, and while there may be some truth to that, I cannot help but wonder what other motivations there were behind this...

[General Battuta]

No, that is not the reason behind the actions. Drone strikes are conducted because the policymakers genuinely believe they're an effective instrument to sanction key part of the enemy command structure.

[swashmebuckle]

I dunno if getting Osama is worth any election points, but being unwilling to break the law and kill a bunch of innocent people while trying to get Osama is probably worth negative election points.

[General Battuta]

Also Nakura you seem to think that these mistargeted attacks occur on purpose - but they're more of a systemic product of figuratively itchy trigger fingers and an aggressive operational tempo that inevitably leads to mistakes.

[StarSlayer]

Also Nakura you seem to think that these mistargeted attacks occur on purpose - but they're more of a systemic product of figuratively itchy trigger fingers and an aggressive operational tempo that inevitably leads to mistakes.

and an expendable weapons platform.

[General Battuta]

In the case of drones, yeah, but some of these (like the Gardez incident) are carried out by SOF. Night raids in Afghanistan are apparently super duper common and often based on mixed intel (or, like Yemen write small, on people out and out gaming the system to sic the USA on local enemies).

[Nakura]

Also Nakura you seem to think that these mistargeted attacks occur on purpose - but they're more of a systemic product of figuratively itchy trigger fingers and an aggressive operational tempo that inevitably leads to mistakes.

A lack of oversight is the only real problem I have with drone strikes. Though it's amazing that we're more than happy to blow people and buildings up with very little evidence, yet at the same time have some of the most restrictive rules of engagement imaginable for our ground forces.

[General Battuta]

Your opinion is incongruent with facts in two distinct respects. We have really loose ROE for SOF ground forces. Lack of oversight isn't the major problem with drone strikes: they're overseen by the top.

[Nakura]

Your opinion is incongruent with facts in two distinct respects. We have really loose ROE for SOF ground forces. Lack of oversight isn't the major problem with drone strikes: they're overseen by the top.

Better to overkill than underkill, I suppose. Though if you're going to go that route, you might as well eliminate all unfriendly elements in the country, leaving only those who are vehemently dedicated to your cause. Not that this war on terror is one that should be fought primarily with bullets and bombs. No, we have to rebuild Afghan society, we have to win over the hearts and minds of the people, something that generally takes a generation or two.

[General Battuta]

The whole point of the empirical evidence gathered here, in the material discussed in this thread, is that overkill generates negative progress towards our strategic objective and breeds more problems than it solves.

[Nakura]

The whole point of the empirical evidence gathered here, in the material discussed in this thread, is that overkill generates negative progress towards our strategic objective and breeds more problems than it solves.

Collateral damage is always going to be a part of these types of conflicts, as you have an enemy that blends in with the civilian population. Of this, I am certain you are aware. What we have to do is find a way to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible, and getting accurate data is the first step in doing that. From a technological standpoint, this issue will sort itself out in a decade or two (maybe sooner), since we're developing some really neat precision strike toys that will take care of enemies in urban environments with minimal to no civilian causalities. Right now we should focus on getting accurate data, I think we are in agreement there?

[General Battuta]

No upcoming 'precision strike toy' (what an apt phrase) will solve the structural issues that cause the problems described in Dirty Wars. Each nascent system will come with its own drawbacks and its own vast terrain of policy pitfalls and doctrinal concerns to navigate. The ability to selectively target may grow; the ability to know who to target, and to assess whether that sanction actually works towards strategic objectives, is going to lag far, far behind.

No ISR asset helped us make the right decision with the Islamic Courts. No long-loiter interdiction capability stopped us from being manipulated by Saleh. No satellite platform saved civilians at Gardez.

The dream of sanitized warfare has lived on since before World War II, carried by torchbearers as disparate as MacNamara and Tom Clancy. It's always twenty years out, always a capability we'll have in the next conflict. The reality we find, again and again, is that these enhanced tactical capabilities don't save us from strategic mistakes, that the most powerful determinants of success are human and institutional factors, and that a good set of linguists and historians achieve more than any number of Nth-generation low-footprint Rumsfeldwaffen.

[Grizzly]

The whole point of the empirical evidence gathered here, in the material discussed in this thread, is that overkill generates negative progress towards our strategic objective and breeds more problems than it solves.

Collateral damage is always going to be a part of these types of conflicts, as you have an enemy that blends in with the civilian population. Of this, I am certain you are aware. What we have to do is find a way to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible, and getting accurate data is the first step in doing that. From a technological standpoint, this issue will sort itself out in a decade or two (maybe sooner), since we're developing some really neat precision strike toys that will take care of enemies in urban environments with minimal to no civilian causalities. Right now we should focus on getting accurate data, I think we are in agreement there?

That's what they told us in Vietnam, and said they had in Iraq I.

[redsniper]

Though if you're going to go that route, you might as well eliminate all unfriendly elements in the country

The more people you kill in a country, the more the remaining population becomes unfriendly...

[Scotty]

I think Nakura's major problem is that he's trying to define all "unfriendly" elements in a country as static, unchanging based on other factors.  As in, "Person A is an unfriendly element, while Person B is a friendly element", but failing to realize that killing Person A may very well make Person B unfriendly.

Hint: the reason the enemy blends into civilian populations is because a good chunk of them are pissed off civilians.

[swashmebuckle]

By far our best weapon is giving the civilian population internet access so that our cat memes can displace their extremist nutbag memes.

[Nakura]

I think Nakura's major problem is that he's trying to define all "unfriendly" elements in a country as static, unchanging based on other factors.  As in, "Person A is an unfriendly element, while Person B is a friendly element", but failing to realize that killing Person A may very well make Person B unfriendly.

Hint: the reason the enemy blends into civilian populations is because a good chunk of them are pissed off civilians.

That is a valid criticism of my world view. Most people don't put the higher ideals above all else, and as thus, are willing to cast aside lesser morals for the greater good, which is entirely subjective. I have not disagreed with Battuta taht we need to do everything we can to minimize targeting innocents or even allies. I suggested that we obtain better and more accurate information, but as Battuta pointed out, there is a structural problem at work here. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate our information is, those in command will still have the final call and some have accused them of potentially making errors in judgement (ordering a strike with incorrect or incomplete data).

[Mars]

And what's important Nakura? What does the greater good look like?

EDIT: I know you say it's subjective, but how can you suggest any course of action for the greater good, while leaving it at subjective?

[Mikes]

I think Nakura's major problem is that he's trying to define all "unfriendly" elements in a country as static, unchanging based on other factors.  As in, "Person A is an unfriendly element, while Person B is a friendly element", but failing to realize that killing Person A may very well make Person B unfriendly.

Hint: the reason the enemy blends into civilian populations is because a good chunk of them are pissed off civilians.

That is a valid criticism of my world view. Most people don't put the higher ideals above all else, and as thus, are willing to cast aside lesser morals for the greater good, which is entirely subjective. I have not disagreed with Battuta taht we need to do everything we can to minimize targeting innocents or even allies. I suggested that we obtain better and more accurate information, but as Battuta pointed out, there is a structural problem at work here. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate our information is, those in command will still have the final call and some have accused them of potentially making errors in judgement (ordering a strike with incorrect or incomplete data).

And how do you think that father who lost a son, the mother who lost a child or the child who lost all his relatives feel when you tell them that you really did everything you could to "minimize" casualities?

You'll be a f****** hero in that country I am sure.


Frankly, if you really want to win people over in a country... you will have to use nonlethal force and actually arrest people and make what happens to them afterwards as transparent as possible.
(Yes instant killing is easier ... the point is that it is also always counterproductive, if you are actually interested in what people think of you.)

Because seriously... if you had to live with the occasional neighbors house being the target of drone strikes, would you really care about the statistics of how safe or unsafe innocents are from them?
I mean...  it really is like some kind of Orwellian Nightmare isn't it? .... except that it only happens "abroad" and "Big Brother" is not quite omnipotent and blows up houses - sometimes the wrong house - or even is tricked into blowing up the wrong house for other people's purposes.