<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
There may be 'bad guys' in some of those foreign lands,<br>
but seriously folks, the 'worst guys' are some where around<br>
Washington DC and New York City.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 01/09/13 1:18, Stuart Levy wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:50EC5501.8080701@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hello Mr. Helbig. Glad you are on this list, to push the discussion
beyond the choir preaching to ourselves.<br>
<br>
The article you post makes a familiar point - this seems to be the
heart of it:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">pinpoint strikes kill terrorist chieftains<br>
and their immediate adherents (or, at worst, their willing hosts) while<br>
sparing the family next door.</blockquote>
<br>
Who could object to killing only the truly deserving bad guys? We
heard this kind of line during the Iraq War's use of "precision
weapons", during the Israeli bombardments of Gaza, etc.<br>
<br>
But there are big problems with it. <br>
<br>
- The "intelligence" system, which is supposed to identify those
deserving bad guys, is flawed. Remember how Guantanamo prison got
filled with the worst of the worst, many of whom turned out to be just
ordinary people in Afghanistan who'd been turned in by other Afghanis
for the bounties we were offering? That same corruption can apply to
the targeting of people for drone strikes, as for example here. Note
the comment that the bounty system actually encourages turning in
innocent people, since they're less likely to have peers who can
retaliate.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.alternet.org/story/155723/i_met_a_16-year-old_kid._3_days_later_obama_killed_him?page=entire">http://www.alternet.org/story/155723/i_met_a_16-year-old_kid._3_days_later_obama_killed_him?page=entire</a><br>
<br>
<br>
- The job of a bureaucracy is to hide faults in the work it does.
John Brennan, nominated yesterday for head of the CIA (!), said
publicly in 2011 that there had not been a single collateral death due
to drone strikes. In April, 2012, he corrected that to "exceedingly
rare". Independent estimates suggest that several hundred civilians
had been killed among the 2500-3300 killed by drone strikes since 2004
in Pakistan - a sixth or more - and that the numbers of "high level"
militants killed was only about 2% of the total.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475659-us-official-acknowledges-drone-strikes-says-civilian-deaths-exceedingly-rare">http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475659-us-official-acknowledges-drone-strikes-says-civilian-deaths-exceedingly-rare</a><br>
<br>
- Drones aren't necessarily used in the sparing way this article
leads you to think. (If they're extremely precise, and the job's not
getting done, why not just use more of them?) Robert Naiman of Just
Foreign Policy, who was part of a delegation to Pakistan which spoke to
the US ambassador there, wrote about it (and posted it on this list
last October 5th):<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html</a><br>
<br>
He cites several studies looking into "double tap" drone strikes,
where, after having bombed some supposed militant, the operators wait
for rescuers to rush to the site and then bombs it again. Presumably
the theory is that fellow militants might be among those rushing to the
aid of injured people, but <br>
<br>
- Who is the "enemy" anyway?<br>
A few months ago we learned that the Obama administration has
adopted a high standard for identifying militants killed: any male of
military age in an area where hostilities are going on is deemed a
militant unless there's compelling reason to think otherwise.<br>
<br>
Just last week, a drone strike in Pakistan killed a number of
militants including a high-level Taliban commander, Mullah Nazir. Who
is he? Well, he had a truce with the Pakistani government, and had
been actively working for a peace treaty.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/letters/06-Jan-2013/drones-killing-our-allies">http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/letters/06-Jan-2013/drones-killing-our-allies</a><br>
<br>
This letter notes, "According to observers the timing of the recent
drone attacks is very significant; only days ago militants had offered
peace negotiations to government and the government and Pakistan Army
were also seeing peaceful solution to end the ten years of bloodshed in
the country and had agreed to negotiate with the militants to control
growing militancy and raising suicide attacks in the country. This
untimely drone attack, and killing of Mullah Nazir will affect these
peace negotiations." - and points out that there had been a similar
drone attack in the past killing another militant engaged in peace
talks.<br>
<br>
<br>
This behavior is consistent with an imperial US that thrives on
endless war. It's not so consistent with the story of the peace-loving
US, fighting reluctantly against implacable enemies, which you'd be led
to imagine from reading this New York Post article.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/8/13 6:06 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALZ0NqXsmK4rJErkETCu1VpdOkozv0uycKWj9zN200N7OXrQBg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>just saw this - he writes better than me - sorry that he works
for Fox, but he still makes sense despite my strong bias against Fox
thanks to my watching (paid admission both times) Outfoxed twice!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">16)
Drone Cold Truth--LTC Ralph Peters, USA (Ret.) </span></b><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">New
York Post</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">January
7, 2013 </span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Pg. 19</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Drone
Cold Truth</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Sparing
innocents, not terrorists</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">By
Ralph Peters</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">The
inexhaustible America-haters on our domestic left are absolutely
correct that drones — unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs — are morally
ambiguous weapons. All weapons of war are morally ambiguous, as are
even “just wars” waged for purely defensive purposes. All wars violate
a universal commandment: Thou shalt not kill.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">But in
this imperfect world, we sometimes must kill if we are to survive. In
developed societies (such as our own) that strive toward moral
behavior, killing enemies in a conflict is regulated by laws,
conventions and ethics. At times, as in the city bombings of World War
II, we cast our strictures aside in a desperate hour. But we really do
our best to spare the innocent.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Warfare
is imprecise, though, shaped by confusion and emotion as much as by
plans. It’s unlikely that humans will ever eliminate war or find a way
to wage it so “cleanly” that every noncombatant will be safe.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">But —
contrary to the reflexive claims of the left — UAVs mark a significant
in sparing the innocent: morally ambiguous still, but less so than an
artillery shell or a cruise missile.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Never
before has a state been able to target its deadly enemies with such
precision. And contrary to one of the countless myths of the left,
we’re trigger-happy. Under rules adopted in the Bush years and broadly
retained now, targets must be screened and approved at multiple levels
in a process so rigorous that, frequently, our enemies escape. It’s
hard to see how we could fight more ethically.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Instead
of bombing a city or invading yet another country where terrorists have
found refuge, pinpoint strikes kill terrorist chieftains and their
immediate adherents (or, at worst, their willing hosts) while sparing
the family next door. But our critics, foreign and domestic, hold us to
an impossible standard, questioning whether we have the right to kill
enemies proud of their resolve to murder us. Those same critics revel
in the rare drone strikes that go awry as evidence of our alleged
savagery.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">But
there will always be mistakes in war, because war is waged by human
beings, even if they command brilliant machines (which themselves may
err). What should be deemed remarkable is how few innocents have become
casualties in proportion to the number of confirmed terrorists
eliminated. That ratio is without precedent in warfare.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">What
should trouble all of us — especially those of genuine conscience on
the left — is the hard left’s willful blindness to the atrocities of
the terrorists we hunt.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">These
men slaughter teachers, doctors and aid workers, anonymous shoppers in
the marketplace and elementary-school students, especially girls. (In
Islamist terror’s homelands, Newtown is everywhere.)</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Yet
leftists romanticize America’s enemies, excusing their sins while
exaggerating our missteps. And when other accusations fall short, they
trot out the N-word of security affairs, “assassination,” equating
terrorist chieftains with JFK.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">The
hard left’s position is ultimately simple: America is bad, our troops
are monsters and attacks on our known enemies are criminal. And drones
are hateful because they not only make our military more effective, but
also because they spare the innocent: For leftists, it’s better if we
kill more civilians, since that reinforces their dogma.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">It’s
also interesting that, while the left personalized every action of
President George W. Bush, President Obama largely gets a pass, as if
he’s being duped by bloodthirsty generals. But Obama has learned to
stop worrying and love that drone: For him, UAVs are effective,
politically convenient, diplomatically defensible and (given the cost
of ground interventions) cheap.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Yes,
there are moral questions. There always will be in warfare. Practical
issues arise, as well, such as the limits of sovereignty in a world of
porous borders. And, yes, there are legal and ethical matters that
remain unresolved.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">But
there’s one more point that the left and its fellow travelers in the
commentariat get wrong: their claim that drone strikes only create more
terrorists.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Well,
no. Drone attacks deprive terror organizations of experienced leaders
and fanatical executors. And a village kid mad that his goat ran away
from the blast doesn’t automatically turn into a suicide bomber.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Do
drone strikes excite anger? You bet: not least, among the terrorists
and their supporters (including sympathizers here at home). For the
rest of us, terrorists slain by UAVs mean soldiers and Marines come
home alive — and a safer world.</span><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt;">Ralph
Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst and a retired US Army officer.</span><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Roger
Helbig <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rwhelbig@gmail.com" target="_blank">rwhelbig@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote"> since when are you a judge in an international
court of law - maybe if we had had armed drones in 2000, Bin Laden
would have been taken out and 9/11 would not have happened. You and
most of the so-called peace establishment believe the propagandists and
ignore reality. <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Karen
Medina <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" target="_blank">kmedina67@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote"> > But the US has no right to wage war in the
first place.<br>
<br>
That is, of course, very true. But it is the hard to convince enough<br>
people of this.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>