Comments on: Civvie Kills Endanger COIN: Mullen

By: BuddhalovesPaine

BuddhalovesPaine — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:42:08 +0000

Anthony’s Pizza is made with the finest indigents that precious water supplies can produce.
Do not forget that anyone selling Anthony’s Pizza including a local national could in fact be a CIA agent.
This Anthony Pizza Add* has been paid for by
1LT Harro Schulze-Boysen.
98% or 20% When I learned the Law of Land Warfare it would have been unquestionable that one can not call in an airstrike on a civilian target jut because you are taking fire from that position. You have to move in and clear the target with small arms. But of course we have a miltary that knows they are on the wrong side of the law anyways so why make things worse and get yourself killed trying to commit a crime. And as for the drone strikes at targets carried out because we have no forces in the area to carry out the attack that is like saying it is OK to torture POWS to find out where their next ambush will be.
Shi* the way I see the whole US military should just march itself in to prison, who are not needed. The US can then hire decent Finnish and Swiss soldiers to defend America since the only reason anyone wants to attack us is because we have not stopped attacking them for the past 60 years. But then they do not teach history in the US any more now do they. A person has to actually listen to what non Americans have to say to understand how they might see things.
Ever eat a socialist? Some parts are edible.
Place you order for an AAFES Socialist Party Platter for the upcomming playoffs and receive a free Che Dart Board. Offer good only while supplies last.
Add* paid for by Mildred Harnack

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:44:41 +0000

…are you saying that pizza is made of Jews?

By: BuddhalovesPaine

BuddhalovesPaine — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:38:29 +0000

As I observe US military personnel on Installations in Germany I see happy people chatting away, eating their Anthony’s pizza, thinking that they are minding their own business. But then Adolf Eichmann thought that he was just minding his own business too. That was in fact the basis of his legal defense. Now the people that I see certainly do not see any similarity between themselves and Adolph Eichmann, but I do. That is what is really important to me. It will no doubt not have the slightest interest to you though. After all anyone trying to kill you is a bad guy because it is you that they are trying to kill. There is no way in hell that you could be mistaken and there is no way in hell that those who are trying to kill you could not know better.
So the next time a Pond’s Guard checks your ID you should wonder, who is she really working for?
Remember anyone could be a CIA agent!

By: DARK KNIGHT

DARK KNIGHT — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:04:31 +0000

YOU KNOW THE TALIBAN ARE COWARDS WHEN THEY FORCE THERE WAY INTO INNOCENT AFGAN CIVILIANS HOME BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY WILL NOT BE ATTACKED AND THEY CAN TAKE POT SHOTS AT OUR SOLDIERS AND GET AWAY WITH IT WRONG!!!! THE MILITARY TRIES TO KEEP COLLATERAL DAMAGE DOWN TO A BARE MINIMUM BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE TIMES WHEN INNOCENT CIVILIANS ARE GOING TO DIE BUT IF THEY THINK THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BECAUSE THERE ARE IN AN INNOCENT CIVILIANS HOUSE THEY ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY WILL BE ATTACKED THAT’S JUST THEY WAY IT IS.

By: Crossdecker

Crossdecker — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:57:26 +0000

The article misses the point. I’ve recently heard Australian Army (retired) Lieutenant Colonel Kilcullen speak (at Northwestern University) and am reading his book, “Accidental Guerrilla,” in which he makes the point that Predator strikes in Afghanistan that miss kill civilians. These regrettable deaths make generational enemies for America.
Not simply for awhile but for generation after generation.

And this factor outweighs the strike’s tactical advantage – particularly in a war where we’re trying to win over ‘fence-sitters’ within the populations.

By: armamentsoldier

armamentsoldier — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:12:12 +0000

“Greg Grant, who did the first story pointing out Kilcullen’s claims about the drones’ low success rate, called sources at the Pentagon to try and see if the military agrees with Kilcullen’s numbers. No one said a word. Our conclusion: if the numbers were off base the military would be screaming, if only to put pressure on the CIA, who are responsible for most — if not all — the drone strikes.”

I think the military did exactly what they were suppose to do, tell you nothing. It’s a Military operation, not some study for a think tank. Mabe that last bunch would have talked, but not this one. Besides, I think thats “need to know” information and you don’t need to know.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:41:07 +0000

The uniforms are AK-47s and RPGs. If you blow up a house with 20 middle aged males armed to the teeth, its safe to say they aren’t civilians minding their own business.

By: VAPOR_ONE_NINE

VAPOR_ONE_NINE — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:45:06 +0000

Explain to me again how you can tell the difference between the enemy and civilians in this conflict? Which uniform are the bad guys wearing?

By: Bob W

Bob W — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:44:58 +0000

The CIA executes policy; sometimes they make policy. In their copious free time, they provide “information, data or facts” to back the administration’s assertions and/or support their own actions and previous findings, cloaking their failures with plausible deniability… unless they need to take a fall for the president or vice president.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:07:18 +0000

It’s a hell of a conundrum..we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Killing the AQ and Taliban before they cross into Afghanistan helps to protect the Afghanis, but it pisses of the Pakis. If we don’t kill as many high level targets as we can in Pakistan, then we *might* stop pissing off more Pakistanis, but then it is likely that more Afghanis will be getting killed. It’s lose lose for us..but I still believe targeting high value targets in Pakistan, despite any collateral or perceived collateral damage, is better than doing nothing — especially if we are getting high level leaders and/or one or two dozen militants planning large attacks in each strike.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:38:01 +0000

Court,
I think you need to cease fire on “mad” Mike Mullen. He was my XO on the USS Sterett and I know him personally. He is a good steadfast and honorable man and leader. We all know the sacrifices our families, and yours are doing for our fine country. Lets find common ground to attack the bad guys and not make the good guys appear less than they are.
God Speed my friend.
MKC

Court May 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Admiral, Sir, when the bad guy are allowed to live in amongst the civilians ————- then civilians are going to get killed along with those trying to kill us —–
WE are war ————- fight it as such — NOT you semil-political playground. IT is MY Grandson’s life at stake over there — NOT yours! Let hinm do what he has to do to stay alive and come back home.
Fr Court (Ret’d USAF)

By: mike j

mike j — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:30:04 +0000

Alex– I know what you’re saying. I don’t think we have any good options in Af/Pak. I think Rhyno327 is right when he says “nation building” is a pipe dream. It’s like that part of the world was designed to favor insurgency– culture, terrain, borders, distribution of population, etc. We need to reduce our goals to something achievable, and then we have to stay out of our own way.

So with Pakistan, we need to avoid destabilizing Pakistan, first and foremost. If we can help stabilize them, we should do that too. In Afghanistan, we have to protect the population, whatever our goal is, if we want to leave with something more than a total loss.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:26:32 +0000

I know exactly what you are talking about mike, and I agree with you, but you aren’t listening to me. Unless we invade Pakistan, your “plan” is not an option. We can’t put boots on the ground going door to door gaining intel like we did in Iraq. Our only option in Pakistan is drone strikes or no drone strikes, and we have to weigh the pros and cons of each. Obviously our administration has decided that preventing a planned attack on coalition troops by killing 20 militants in their sleep inside Pakistan is more important than the prospect of turning a few more Pakistanis against the U.S. As I said, this is not a long term sustainable solution — but it’s the best we have at the moment.

I suspect that if the Pakistani military starts to take control of the situation, then we will see less drone strikes.

By: 3warLTC

3warLTC — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:24:03 +0000

We can debate the Innocent Civilians [India charlies] issue until we are blue in the face. We must always work to be surgical and keep IC deaths to a minimum. That being said, let’s admit that 1. Someone will always be killed and 2. The bad guys may kill some ICs and try to make it look like we did it! In fact if they don’t kill them outright they will fire weapons [mortars/rockets & HMGs from positions surrounded by ICs and thus bait us into counter battery fire that kills the IC’s!
Remember we must work to minimize IC deaths and woundings but in COIN there must always be factored in a certain amount of IC deaths. Have CA and PSYOP SOF resources ready to step up and mitagate as much ill-will as possible and righlty so put the blame for the IC deaths on the bad guys who were hanging out in their villages/urban neighborhoods.

By: mike j

mike j — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:36:28 +0000

Alex, Rhyno327–

You don’t get it. “The population is the prize.” You focus on killing insurgents, or whatever the Taliban is, and you will lose the war.

Protect the population, and they’ll give you all the intel you’d ever need.

I don’t like dealing in hypotheticals, but factor something like this into your scenario: every civilian that dies because we screw up, adds a week to the war.

By: Court

Court — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:33:28 +0000

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:48:38 +0000

Colin: You claimed that the military didn't deny it and so it must be true. I understand that you're trying to give both sides a say, but you're adding a bit of viewpoint into the reportage. And again, I understand that you're adding some analysis to try and improve the value of the piece, but I think it's also important to mention that OPSEC rules require a "no comment" answer, and therefore a "no comment" answer doesn't necessarily translate to "these numbers are totally correct".

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:25:57 +0000

If there was reliable intel about the t-ban’s shura meeting in Quetta, and you had the option of taking them out, wat would you do? Hellfire’s? Spec. Ops teams? Or a couple 2,000lb JDAM’s through the roof? No matter how you cut it, the PAKI’s hate us, no matter wat we did or will do. P-stan is where they lie thier heads at nite, operate with impunity, plan attacks. This “nation” is at the crux of our problem there.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:17:14 +0000

T-ban/AQ know we don’t bomb civ., so they seek shelter there. Civ. casualties are almost unavoidable, unless ur gonna dig them out, which puts men in danger. There is no way I would stop the airstrikes, its almost a given civilians will die. If this war goes no-where within 2 yrs., I think it would be time to pack up and leave. Nation building, all that crap, just don’t work. Iraq is on its way to chaos, and A-stan is much more complex. We will see..

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:48:35 +0000

Sorry Mike, I thought Kilcullen believed the 2%/98% numbers.

I agree that what the Pakistani people believe is more important than the actual numbers, but this is not a failure of our drone strikes, this is a failure of our information warfighting capabilities. There is a serious risk-reward scenario to consider when deciding to stop or continue drone strikes inside Pakistan. These strikes aren’t just targeting every militant they can find — they are going after high value targets and large groups getting ready to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan. If you have reliable intel that 20 militants are sleeping in a hut on the Pakistani side of the border one night, and the next they will be crossing into Afghanistan to carry out IED attacks against U.S. soldiers, what do you do?