Dear Leader Authorizes Missile Attacks Killing Children

[peebeebaynut]

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

Comments

[underlankers]

Obama's been wanting war with Pakistan since August 2007. War with the Islamic Republic would ruin us. A Pakistan War....you start laying flowers on the grave of the American Empire. Everything wrong with an Iran War is five times worse with Pakistan.

[peebeebaynut]

Sure glad we got rid of bad presidents.

[underlankers]

To replace an idealist with a Wilsonian.

[chessdev]

"wanting war with Pakistan"??????
How do you figure that?

There is a difference in saying he wont let Pakistan harbor terrorists against us...and saying he **wants war**.

[chessdev]

Several things:

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.

[the_rukh]

I disagree, we still are the ones that pushed the button.

[chessdev]

Yes, but ignoring *intent*

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.

[squidb0i]

This again.
Thanks for doing the lifting.
=]

[bord_du_rasoir]

It's a misinterpretation to say Obama ordered the strikes.

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.

[the_rukh]

Agreed: actually going after the people who attacked us? What a novel idea!

[underlankers]

You mean invade Saudi Arabia, where the hijackers actually came from? Preposterous, think of the oil and the poor Sheiks who would be denied oil in order to have justice for American lives lost.

[the_rukh]

Saudi Arabia itself did not condone the attacks.

[root_fu]

This reeks of Israel's flawed approach to counter-terrorism.

Using missiles to eliminate people in leadership positions is useless. They can and will be replaced.

[squidb0i]

So you just let them operate?

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.

[root_fu]

Yes, you let them operate their way into obscurity rather than bomb civilian targets and create sympathy for them as well as resentment against the United States.

If they're willing to allow the people under them to commit suicide bombings, there won't be many ripples through their organization at the loss of another member--even a leader. They will simply say: "Well, he died in the Jihad so he got his 20-something virgins and is not int he promised land." Any psychological or morale shock will be and is negligible.

Disruption of chain of command or control is negligible. Part of organizing a proper terrorist cell is ensuring that they rely on no single person enough to cause them much harm should that person be lost. Its not necessarily like a US military chain of command where only the admiral or high ranking officers know how to do certain things. Key information is retrained within the organization regardless of who lives or dies.

A vacuum has the potential to strengthen an organization. Assassinating a person in a

[squidb0i]

Israel is hardly a good example.

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.

[carrioneyes13]

Change?!? Does anybody have any Change?!?

Nah, but srsly, important post, I was just about to put up one on it.

[peebeebaynut]

At last white men won't walk on us anymore--black men will.

[carrioneyes13]

Lol! Some of that twisted equality America's all about. You know, the kind of equality that's an equal opportunity drafter so that women can have the honor of serving on the front lines too!