 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! May 6, 2009 RevelationsBy GreyhawkSo, the Red Cross complains that Obama is just airraiding villages and killing civilians. Women and children were among dozens of bodies in two villages targeted by airstrikes, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported Wednesday, after sending a team to the district.Fortunately, the NY Times was able to get in front of this story, publishing an an interview with a "Pakistani logistics tactician for the Taliban" who "showed himself to be knowledgeable of Taliban activities, and the information he provided matched up consistently with that of other sources". Among the shocking revelations, civilian casualties are actually part of the plan: “The Americans cannot take control of the villages,” he said. “In order to expel us they will have to resort to aerial bombing, and then they will have more civilian casualties.”Although he admits that the drone attacks are actually the most effective weapon used against Taliban/al Qaeda forces: The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. “The drones are very effective,” he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes.One must conclude that successfully bringing internal and international pressure on the Obama administration to halt the attacks is a significant enemy goal, and the higher the number of civilian dead the more swiftly that goal can be achieved. Obviously, "International Red Cross" reports like the one relayed by the AP in the first link above - regardless of how well intentioned - further this goal. Certainly such reports should never be withheld or concealed, but we're fortunate indeed to have the New York Times explaining this tactic to their readers who can then put the entire discussion in its proper perspective. I'll resist the urge to condemn them for not acknowledging this back in 2006 when tangible evidence of the use the media tactic first became available and will suppress my personal desire to speculate why they choose to expose rather than play along with Taliban/al Qaeda sources now (certainly something must have changed) and instead welcome what appears to be their first tentative steps to "our side" in the battle. They could be coming "just in the nick of time". Continued: Revelations (II) Recent/related: The Plan for a 'Stan (or two) Part Two Posted by Greyhawk / May 6, 2009 12:44 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksVicodin and valium mix. Valium side effects. Valium. Read More Some in the White House might get a bit wobbly in the knees reading this Washington Post story, but in the end author Rajiv Chandrasekaran only provides some additional details of how the Obama administration wasted a year "focused" on "the Karzai prob... Read More 13 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Hope and change from the NYT.
Are you arguing that the Obama Administration, absent UN authorization and absent Congressional authorization, should conduct a war against people living in Pakistan?
A war in which robots indiscriminately kill both enemy combatants (assuming this is true) and innocent bystanders which include children?
Is that your argument. That Obama should be allowed to kill men, women and children with robots in a country we are not at war with?
wondeerer, now that you mention it as far as I know the United States isn't at war with any country in the world today.
Amazing, isn't it?
You did not answer the question.
Because the question makes no sense.
Actually, that's wrong. To paraphrase a common truism - there are no senseless questions. The lesser known and generally unspoken companion to that is that there are, however, senseless people who ask questions and expect answers. If in this case the questioner is not senseless he must think I am.
Since I have a spare moment I'll explain in generic terms: answering the question "are [unspecified 'you'] arguing [for subject x] to take action z without [A AND B] but limited to [C modified]?" - is pointless, and further compounded in this specific example by a likely disagreement on definitions of terms ("war" for instance). One could respond "no" or even "no, I'm not arguing" - and that answers the question, but there remains a high likelihood the questioner would misconstrue the meaning of the response (one could also argue the answer in fact grants license for him/her to do so).
Asking it in the first place says more about the mentality of the questioner - and likely his/her overestimation thereof. Throwing in "robots" doesn't help.
I urge you to study the works of English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson for further discussion on this topic.
Ok, I'll ask the question in a way that does make sense:
You seem to be of the opinion that the enemy has a goal of halting attacks by pressuring the Obama administration.
I'm of the opinion that the Obama Administration never got Congressional authorization to make war against the citizens of Pakistan. I'm of the opinion that Obama never went before the United Nations to receive UN approval to attack the citizens of Pakistan.
I'm also of the opinion that it's a war crime to torture people; and I submit that using unmanned Predator drones to fire missiles into areas known to be the home of non-combatant women and children is torture. Those women, and those children are being tortured to death very quickly by Missile-Boarding them.
So, what I'm asking is:
When did Barack Obama get authorization to torture to death non-combatant women and children in the country of Pakistan?
And the answer is: Never.
Barack Obama isn't authorized to conduct a war against the citizen of Pakistan, and he's committing war crimes in the indiscriminate way he's using Predator drones to attack those people.
The next Republican Attorney General might want to start taking notes today about who they're going to haul into the dock to answer for these crimes.
First I must say for the record I expanded my initial comment at 06:32 - it originally read simply "Because the question makes no sense." I mention that because it's likely (given the timing) that wanderer's response was to that brief initial remark.
More shortly.
Wonderer: are you serious here? As in getting huffy over what Obamessiah wants to do? Lie back and enjoy it, my man! Remember, if Bush did it, it was per se wrong. If Obama does it, no problem.
I am almost enjoying the moral free-fall, just to watch the convolutions of the faithful.
"You seem to be of the opinion that the enemy has a goal of halting attacks by pressuring the Obama administration.
"I'm of the opinion that the Obama Administration never got Congressional authorization to make war against the citizens of Pakistan. I'm of the opinion that Obama never went before the United Nations to receive UN approval to attack the citizens of Pakistan."
The opinions expressed above are actually facts.
However, one can argue
a) the definition of "war" in this context (can a nation wage "war" on people, vice another nation?)
and
b) the tacit approval of bodies (governing or otherwise) who offer no opposition to an action
But the overriding point is that civilians aren't the target in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anywhere else on earth. As I noted above, their deaths serve the enemy's cause. All sides are well aware of this.
I will add that my point is that once (say, prior to November 2008) the NY Times would gleefully make the case you appear to be making here, that the administration was slaughtering women and children without concern or consideration of consequences. Now they seem to be of the opinion that the administration is concerned and considerate when attacking women and children.
But despite reports to the contrary, there's been no fundamental change in strategy, plans or ROE from October to May. Odd, that.
#Greyhawk at May 6, 2009 08:28 PM
No need to speculate. This is the same tactics terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah used against Israel. As we all know, the media bought the line, hook and sinker. Leftists love terrorists more than Jews, George W Bush and Americans, but less than Obama. They only mentioned this tactic to cover Obama's ass,
"“The Americans cannot take control of the villages,” he said. “In order to expel us they will have to resort to aerial bombing, and then they will have more civilian casualties.”
And when the Americans do bomb, they become murderers, killers of women and children and innocent boys. Does that make you happy? That people will start calling American soldeirs baby killers...and be correct?
Your answers exhibit a moral blindness. You simply will not see. Can you explain, how, exactly, you are better than the terrorists?
"And when the Americans do bomb, they become murderers, killers of women and children and innocent boys. Does that make you happy? That people will start calling American soldeirs baby killers...and be correct?"
No - I believe we should avoid civilian casualties at all cost. But I know of incidents where al Qaeda in Iraq had assaulted villages and were "caught in the act" of slaughtering civilians there. U.S. forces intervened, to include airstrikes. The result was lives saved and a devastating blow to AQI. Arguably none of this would have happened without combat air support - support that obviously would have been denied under any blanket removal of authorization.
Your question over-simplifies the moral question which I recognize as complex: should an airstrike (the definition of which I'm currently not certain you understand - no offense) option be pre-denied an on-the-ground commander? Or, for a fundamental moral argument: if an action could save lives AND result in bad press is it morally wrong to avoid the action? (An accurate but misleading headline regarding the event I cited could have read "U.S. strikes village; dozens slain".)