Deadly missiles strike Pakistan ``Two missile attacks from suspected US drones have killed 14 people in north-western Pakistan, officials say.''
President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks' ``Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually
(
Read more... )
Comments 127
Reply
Reply
Reply
How do you figure that?
There is a difference in saying he wont let Pakistan harbor terrorists against us...and saying he **wants war**.
Reply
1. The militants he's firing on seem to hold meetings NEAR civilians. If these guys are conducting raids over the border and then hide in the midst of civilians -- that is NOT Obama's fault is civilians get hurt; It's the militants.
2. Missiles dont help Pakistan war effort -- but then again, not stopping the blatant terror cells over there dont help either.
Again, when terrorists stop using human shields by hiding in the middle of towns and villages full of children....THEN people can be outraged when innocent people are sometimes harmed.
Reply
Reply
Our intent was NOT to kill civilians -- it was to kill the militants.
The militants purposely place themselves near civilians;
We can do our best to contain the damage, but ultimately the intent is to kill the militant .. NOT the civilians.
Is it right? No, but it's the least of the evils we're presented with.
Reply
Thanks for doing the lifting.
=]
Reply
The Bush Administration began a policy months ago of allowing CIA officials to use their discretion in launching attacks into Pakistan.
Is Obama allowing the Pakistan strikes? Absolutely. Is he ordering them? No.
That being said, I hope Obama enforces policies that put civilians less at risk with the air strikes. However, I support military strikes against AL-QAEDA much more than I support fighting a war in Iraq where less than 5% of insurgents ever identified with Al-Qaeda.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Using missiles to eliminate people in leadership positions is useless. They can and will be replaced.
Reply
When you disrupt leadership, you create ripples in the organization.
First, at the process level, by disrupting command and control, which can effect operations all the way down the chain into the field.
Further, creating a power vacuum can trigger a power struggle to fill the empty seat. Lines of ascension are not set in stone, and terrorists tend to settle things with violence, not peaceful transfers of power. Factions fight, more leadership is lost, and the organization and its operations disrupted further.
There's a very good reason we target command and control first.
Reply
Reply
They're completely surrounded by hostiles except for Egypt, and they're hardly an ally, rather, a moderate in a sea of anti-Israel nutjobs.
Again, command and control are primary strategic targets in warfare. And it can encompass everything from counter-intelligence, disinformation, and signals to strikes against physical C+C targets as we are discussing.
What is the first thing we did when we took down both Iraq and Afghanistan? Total destruction of C+C targets followed by overwhelming ground forces.
Standard universal military doctrine, such that even a civvie like me knows about it.
Reply
Nah, but srsly, important post, I was just about to put up one on it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment