Its nice that the military wants to reduce long-term trauma for its soldiers. I don't expect it to last. Once drone-based killing is normalized and common around the globe, leaders may find they get better performance out of drone pilots who are morally damaged enough to just go ahead and kill without giving it too much thought.
As long as they're not also litterbugs.
I've come to an uneasy peace with those who write for that blog because of their intelligent and informed anti-Trumpsterism (a bit like David Frum, and fuck him) but I find the very name of that blog odious.
3: Care to elaborate? (I find it odious too, but only aesthetically.)
The idea that law can be used as a weapon of war, so filing habeas petitions on behalf of someone who has basically been kidnapped and is being tortured would be considered a form of lawfare. That's the context in which it arose. It's vile. I'm sure Charly could say more.
You know your democracy is terminally fucked when your only friends are stalwarts of the national security state.
Another 18 years of drone-warfare in Afghanistan and we might actually see the light at the end of the tunnel.
We will not always face enemies who are so clearly evil, but so long as we currently do, honestly communicating that narrative to the crews engenders both morale and focus, and reduces the potential for moral injury.
This straight up called to mind images of racist anti-Japanese WWII propaganda. Who are they talking about here? ISIS? Al-Qa`ida (who we are arming and aiding as is Israel)? The Taliban? The only road forward to a lasting peace in Afghanistan is going to have to involve sitting down with those fuckers and talking peace.
5: Interesting, I didn't know that context. Vileness will depend on context, but of course that is logically correct. Weapons are functionally defined; that status depends on the intent of the user, not the nature of the things used. A legal process therefore could be used as a weapon in a war. Emphasis on *could*.
7: They are talking about ISIS, after a long list of their atrocities.
America really sucks at fighting wars.
Great gear. Awesome tactics. Highly trained. Sucks at what really matters.
Giap had our number. The fucked up thing is that the other side doesn't even have a Giap, no one even close. We still suck.
What do we suck at? It sounds like you're not just critiquing which wars we choose.
We haven't achieved any of our goals that we set out to with any of the wars of choice we've fought in the last 20 years at least. And we appear to be no closer to achieving them. We'll be in Afghanistan another 20 years. Syria? Iraq has stabilized, barely, and not at all how we intended (Iran has great influence there).
Victory conditions have never even been meaningfully defined in Iraq or Afghanistan. The armed forces literally don't have strategic objectives to work towards.
Never did and likely never will.
America really sucks at fighting wars.
The only way* anyone has won this sort of war is by waging total war. Keep killing people until no one with a will to fight is left. The Putin model, with no regard for human rights or lives.
*As far as I know, which, as usual, is not very far, although there was a recent paper making the rounds that came to this conclusion.
16: Which war are you talking about though? The counterinsurgent wars in particular places or the counterterrorist war everywhere? Another question America has never answered.
At least, I think it came to that conclusion. I didn't read it and can't for the life of me think how I'd find it. A+ contribution, Eggplant.
18: I've seen similar things. The conclusion IIRC was that "authoritarian" counterinsurgency is generally more successful, though not the only successful method. This hedged though with the usual caveats of quantitative political science.
I think someone must've told the generals that wars are won by superior logistics, and since we obviously have the most logistics of anyone, we *must* be winning.
Counterinsurgency. How many counterterrorist wars (I assume this means military action, often covert, comprising mostly isolated strikes, against a transnational organization or movement) have there ever been?
21: Depends how how you slice them. At least three: PLO, IRA, AQ.
Also: Cognitive Combat Intimacy (CCI)
Jesus fucking christ.
13: I assumed that's because we chose bonkers goals, not because we were particularly bad at achieving them. (I'm also super uninformed on such things.)
It's not as if there have been a lot of different strategies tried. Mostly variations on sending heavily armed teenagers into alien cultures, sometimes telling them to ease up on the wanton killing and make friends. We can't even reliably train police to help build safe communities within the US.
I wonder what the world would now look like if we'd used a fraction of our military budget to build, supply, and staff a bunch of hospitals and schools, accept that they will be attacked and there will be casualties, hope that the local population gets tired of having their services blown up, and possibly train and equip locals wanting to put a stop to it.
25 I think McChrystal understood the situation and actually tried to make some headway here and partially succeeded but his staff were dickheads so here we are.
25: Actually they tried doing all those things and more, and spent vast amounts doing so; but seldom systematically or comprehensively for more than about 6 months at a time. Same story in Vietnam.
I wonder what the world would now look like if we'd used a fraction of our military budget to build, supply, and staff a bunch of hospitals and schools, accept that they will be attacked and there will be casualties, hope that the local population gets tired of having their services blown up, and possibly train and equip locals wanting to put a stop to it.
Or what if we used it to build those things here at home and just stopped messing with other countries.
27: I mean doing those things without the concurrent military action. And committing to that strategy for decades until US involvement is welcome nearly everywhere.
28: Foreign people deserve medical care too. In my fantasy we're not actively messing other places up.
Martin van Creveld (who has his problems for sure when it comes to many things) wrote and researched this subject -- the degradation of soldiers asked to fight an adversary who wasn't really even on the same plane of existence as themselves. He noted that in every instance, the soldiers' morale was degraded by the experience, and eventually it degraded the entire military organization. I remember specifically he talked about how the Occupation in Palestine was having that effect on the Israeli Army.
1: I've been chewing on that. What really struck me about the OP was precisely that it describes a direct relationship between morality and long term efficacy. What will matter though isn't the normalization of drone killing worldwide but the interaction between the norms that develop in particular services (or even particular small units) and the actions those services are required to carry out. One possible norm is dehumanize-and-kill, as Barry describes, but it isn't the only one.
29: So your plan involves unarmed medical personnel getting killed until such time as the locals decide to defend them? With regard to foreign policy toward reasonably stable countries you have a good point, but as counterinsurgency that's ludicrous.
I have often thought it would be interesting to put hospitals, food distribution centers just outside the insurgent-held territory (e.g. parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan) and let people come to them independently. I don't know how much clearer them tribal folx could make it that they don't want no outsiders around.
What prevents the military, then, from creating a fictional (or "extrapolated") biography of each target full all the evil they've done, for the audience of drone operators only? Assuming they don't do so already.
This morality problem is only going to be an issue up until the time when the drone pilots have recorded enough flight time as to create a suitable set of training data for their AI-based replacements.
I failed to find the right SMBC. Maybe teo can. But this one is pretty good.
5 I've generally boycotted that blog for years, because the name is absolutely a calumny, and feeds into a victim complex by the victimizers. Also the credulity of its founders.
Last year or so, I've clicked on a couple of links, mostly just Goldsmith. They still have some whackjobs writing, and so I'm not lifting my boycott.
8. The claim was that it *was* being so used. It's a calumny because that suggests a coordinated effort on behalf the the adversary. (Including, apparently, the uniformed military officers assigned to defend alleged terrorists.) Propaganda spread by human garbage.
Hm, I can't think of one offhand. But I'll see what I can find.
It was about how they tried to blot out the faces of the people being killed in drone strikes while the other side was hacking the system to say how many kids the targeted man had.
This and this are the closest ones I can find, but the description in 41 sounds familiar. I'll keep looking.
34 I was going to say they've had a lot of practice in this, but the people in charge of putting together prisoner bios between 2005 and 2008 will have mostly moved on by now.
42: You don't have to or anything. I just failed also.
Eh, it's not like I have anything better to do, really.
27: I mean doing those things without the concurrent military action. And committing to that strategy for decades until US involvement is welcome nearly everywhere.
Isn't this part of the theory behind the peace corps (which has its own problems, but does seem to generate good will)
The "Peace Corpse" would be a good name for a nuclear weapon.
39 A month or so ago they published something especially egregious and took some heat for it. I can't recall what it was though or who wrote it, not one of the regulars I think.
I was unaware of the history. I just noticed them recently for what I took to be solid coverage of the Mueller investigation.
51 There coverage of the Mueller investigation is solid but they make my skin crawl all the same.
The blog post (which I can't find now) wasn't by a regular and was along the lines of we should kidnap the terrorists' families and pluck their eyeballs out. I'm caricaturing it but only mildly.
I wonder what the world would now look like if we'd used a fraction of our military budget to build, supply, and staff a bunch of hospitals and schools, accept that they will be attacked and there will be casualties,
Great recruiting pitch there. It's hard enough getting teachers for rural schools in the US. But I'm sure they'd be queueing up to teach at undefended girls' schools in Kandahar province.
I have often thought it would be interesting to put hospitals, food distribution centers just outside the insurgent-held territory (e.g. parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan) and let people come to them
FIRST INSURGENT: Hey, look, a large building full of Americans half a mile away. Shall we go over there and blow it up?
SECOND INSURGENT: No, we can't do that, it's outside our territory. We'd be out of bounds. The other side would get a free kick.
FIRST INSURGENT: Ooh, good point.
We haven't achieved any of our goals that we set out to with any of the wars of choice we've fought in the last 20 years at least.
If that's true, bin Laden's been treading water for an awfully long time now.
And yet seven years later and we're still there and show no signs of leaving anytime soon.
True - I don't want to argue that any of these have gone well. They have not; they have been badly run from the top down. But by saying that the US has achieved none of its goals I think you're over-reaching. Bin Laden is, after all, dead. Muhammad Atef is dead. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in prison. The Islamic State, as a territorial entity, has been destroyed.
22: no, the campaign against the IRA did not consist of "military action, often covert, comprising mostly isolated strikes, against a transnational organization or movement" any more than the Battle of Midway consisted of a clash between two mighty armadas of trained whales with rocket launchers strapped to their backs.
Another 18 years of drone-warfare in Afghanistan and we might actually see the light at the end of the tunnel.
That will be because we have drilled the tunnel right through to Hell and can see the reflection from the burning sulphur.
Western powers just need to get the fuck out of everywhere between the Indo-Pak border and the Mediterranean and live with whatever happens.
57.last No points for ISIS when one of those strategically stupid wars of choice created the conditions necessary for it to exist in the first place. And also pulled crtical resources out of Afghanistan that led to Bin Laden getting away and escaping justice for 9-10 years.
Therefore, the US has not won a war in the last hundred years. It didn't win WW2 because it was US stupidity that helped create the conditions for the rise of the Nazis in Germany.
I don't think the "help" is those two cases is nearly at the same level.
I never argued that. And anyway the US opposed the harsh conditions levied against Germany at the treaty of Versailles so I don't think the, ahem, analogy holds. Perhaps it was the stupidity of the British and the French that created the conditions for the rise of Nazi Germany but not the US (Tooze notwithstanding, and that's a different kind of causality all together).
If Japan had been willing to use their armored whales at Midway, they would have won the war in the Pacific. Just sayin'.
You'd feel different if Ahab really could shoot his heart at you, rather than just metaphorically.
I suppose the answer is in the book, but what parents in a society where Christianity holds a central place would name their kid "Ahab"?
54: Well, part of the point is the hardcore nationalism of the folx there, isn't it? So leave it to them -- Afghanistan free of foreign troops would be sort of novel.
Now the landmines want their own territory?
Apparently they're quite insistent that way.
Afghanistan free of foreign troops would be sort of novel.
Not that novel. Surely you remember the 1990s.
Though I suppose there were some foreign troops in Afghanistan in the 1990s. They were called "al-Qaeda".
no, the campaign against the IRA did not consist of "military action, often covert, comprising mostly isolated strikes, against a transnational organization or movement"
Was it not military action, was it not covert, was it not mostly isolated strikes, or was the IRA not a transnational organization or movement?
It wasn't covert, was it? How can you covertly assert sovereignty?
I feel like the fact that ajay in 77 snarkily corrected ajay in 76 is the greatest triumph of internet commenting, and we should just shut this section down now.
Though I suppose there were some foreign troops in Afghanistan in the 1990s. They were called "al-Qaeda".
I thought they were called "the Mujahideen" back then and they were the local equivalent of George Washington.
No, that was the 1980s, and they were the local equivalent of the French Army.
Whereas in the 1990s the foreign troops were mostly Pakistani, and called the Taliban.
As usual, in Af, 90s foreigners were recruited by one faction of Afghans (ethnic more than ideological, seems to me) to fight another. Just as we can imagine what Quebec would be like had Champlain not violate the Prime Directive 400 years ago, we can fantasize a foreigner-free Afghanistan.
Was it not military action, was it not covert, was it not mostly isolated strikes, or was the IRA not a transnational organization or movement?
It was not mostly isolated strikes.
And the IRA was not really a transnational organisation or movement, the occasional bank raid or fugitive in the ROI aside. It was based in Northern Ireland, it raised funds in Northern Ireland, it operated almost entirely in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK.
Whereas in the 1990s the foreign troops were mostly Pakistani, and called the Taliban.
No, the Taliban were Afghans. They were supported by Pakistan, but the Taliban themselves were (mostly Pashtun) Afghans.
That was Dune?
"Usul", of course, is translated as "the base of the pillar"; the Arabic for "the base" is "al-Qaeda".
The IRA pre-dates the division of Ireland and I thought the U.K. was always complaining about how much money the IRA got from the United States.
The Taliban were a confederation of militias. The central militia was made mostly of Pakistani Pashtuns.
It was based in Northern Ireland, it raised funds in Northern Ireland Boston
FTFY, no?
88 More like root, origin, principle.
And the IRA was not really a transnational organisation or movement, the occasional bank raid or fugitive in the ROI aside.
Then how come the Brits are always bellyaching about Massachusetts being full of IRA organizers / fundraisers / weapon smugglers?
OK, so it took me a really long time to write that sentence.
I can't spell MA without looking it up either.
Back when Boston was funding a war in Ireland, they didn't inflict things like "Tom Brady" on the rest of us.
The Taliban were a confederation of militias. The central militia was made mostly of Pakistani Pashtuns.
That is not my impression, but I'd be interested to read otherwise. The Taliban leadership shura, during the 1990s, was certainly not made up of Pakistanis. They were Afghan Pashtuns.
The rank and file, similarly, were Afghan Pashtuns; many of them had lived in Pakistan as refugees in the 1980s and studied at JUI madrassahs, which may be what you're thinking of, but they were definitely Afghans.
The IRA pre-dates the division of Ireland
True but not really relevant?
and I thought the U.K. was always complaining about how much money the IRA got from the United States.
Yes. Doesn't make them transnational though. They raised most of their money in NI through organised crime.
96.1 Mine too though it's been a while since I've read Ahmed Rashid's fine book.
88 More like root, origin, principle.
True, but I think it counts as "too good to check"...
96: I don't see why it's not relevant.
99: because I'm not sure how it affects the question of whether PIRA was transnational. Yes, the IRA predates partition and used to operate all over Ireland. But PIRA in the Troubles was almost entirely a UK operation, based in Northern Ireland. It wasn't really transnational in the way that AQ is; there weren't PIRA cells permanently based in lots of different countries.
That was sort of my point. I don't know why "IRA" became "PIRA".
In this thread that is. I'm aware of the rough outline of history.
Because 22 mentioned "IRA" as an example of a "counterterrorist wars (I assume this means military action, often covert, comprising mostly isolated strikes, against a transnational organization or movement)". I assumed it meant PIRA from 1969 onwards.
LOL at the Afghan wars "goal" to be killing one not very important former asset in an adjacent country.
Let me guess: it was really all about pipelines or something. WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
re: 100
This isn't a quibble about the question of whether PIRA was transnational but, as you know, there obviously were cells in other parts of the UK (London, Scotland [Sauchie, for example]).
101. Have a read. Basically it was a case of Judaean Peoples Front Syndrome. Any philosophy professors out their can weigh in on how an illegal organisation comes to be regarded as "Official".
I mean for this thread. I thought either fit.
