Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

Maybe the supposition is that ground troops are likely to be more discriminating, but if that's the proposition, it seems somewhat doubtful to me.

"Don’t judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative.”

-Barack Obama

I think there seems to be a perception that the CIA is bombing a bunch of terrorists plotting to attack America when in reality they are killing members of an insurgency against our invasion.

I agree with your math, but I think you're crossing your events in a few ways.

You're right that most are not Al Qaeda, but rather people resisting invasion. However, the use of bombs (drones) and the use of soldiers are not the same.

Additionally, I think that in terms of perception, your use of "in reality" asserts your perception to be greater somehow. What knowledge of drone bombings do you have to support this? Specifically.

I myself often can be cynical about our use of force and what motives drive it, but this may be overkill. The truth is somewhere else. Every time a Predator drone fires a hellfire missile, it would be untrue to believe either:

1) It hit a bunch of exclusive group of organized Al Qaeda agents coordinating a complex and ingenuousness new way to kill god fearing Americans.

2) Every group hit is a wedding party with some guest orphans.

Now, you work for CENTCOM, and you learn of where this group is. Does it matter if they are Al Qaeda? No. In fact, even if you knew they weren't, if they are carrying out attacks, you're not going to brush the crumbs off your lap and say "well, that's fair." You're going to pass that information on to whoever, and they are probably going to target the area. You, Robert Gentel, if you were in that chair, would do the same thing. If you think otherwise, I'd be very interested in what obstacles you'd have to move to not.

What I'm getting at is that your post seems to employ the "in reality" mindset that suggests you believe you hold the authority to correct others on what they perceive.

So when you start talking about what the American perception is on these attacks, you are addressing an argument not being made here.

My choice of two extremes in parody (methodical terrorists versus orphans at a wedding party) are alternatives to your perception.

The point of the CENTCOM thought experiment is to point out that these actions don't rely on the perception that all victims of these attacks are terrorists (as you suggested Americans believe).

I believe you're advancing the idea that drone strikes are a part of a larger suppression method by the CIA.

Such an idea then removes any sort of real consideration on the circumstances of the strike.

Better I think to discuss specific strikes, and discuss the legitimacy of them specifically, along with the human cost.

What we have right now in this thread is a blanket discussion on if a method should be used at all, which restricts the discussion in many ways.

I asked if you have specifics on strikes.

Do you have anything to support your idea that it's "in reality" more about suppressing local insurgents?

Is this view restricted to countries we are occupying?

Here's my objection to your argument: You are tailoring the use and purpose of drone strikes to your rejection of them.

There's plenty of reasons to object to the use of drones, or to support the restricted use of them to specific mission theaters. I think that is a useful discussion on the use of force.

The rest I pretty much agree with. Our presence provokes, and leaving is the right thing to do above all other things.

failures art wrote:

What I'm getting at is that your post seems to employ the "in reality" mindset that suggests you believe you hold the authority to correct others on what they perceive.

What are you on about? I claim no special authority.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

What are you on about? Specifically.

I've not commented on your "tone," but to the accuracy of your claim for which you authoritatively assert via "in reality." I specifically called for you to support your claim, but your response was:

Quote:

What are you on about? Specifically.

I think it's far too easy to summarize the American mentality toward the death toll as a git-er-dun shoot-em-up on terrorists.

Since it's so easy to characterize public sentiment as such, it often goes unquestioned.

I am challenging your assertion, so my apologies for asking that you support it better than telling me to get with the times and catch up.

Further, the idea that the Taliban/Al Qaeda makes up less than 10% of the casualties....

So yes, most are simply resisting our presence, but if they start employing methods like IEDs, it doesn't matter that they aren't Al Qaeda.

So no, I'm not concerned with your style. I'm concerned with your content.

While I'm sure you believe you have an excellent argument, you don't pause to dissect my style, when you're put on the defensive. Perhaps you should consider Graham's advice yourself.

Certainly, we disagree.

From what I can gather, your moral summation of military engagement is far more simple; closer to black and white.

Mine is more complex/complicated.

Perhaps, that grey area of nuance offends what you feel should be cut and dry.

I don't believe any of this is easy, and so discussing this in terms of a yea-or-nea on supporting Obama seems to miss the larger issue. Speaking in absolutes is easy, and nuance summons contempt. I can deal with it.

failures art wrote:

I've not commented on your "tone," but to the accuracy of your claim for which you authoritatively assert via "in reality." I specifically called for you to support your claim, but your response was:

Quote:

What are you on about? Specifically.

Actually, I told you to read what I had already said about it instead of asking me to type it again.

The claim you asked me to substantiate was that "in reality" the overwhelming majority of the people we have killed in the region are not Al Qaeda terrorists but members of an insurgency against our regional incursion.

The substantiation I cited was a simple mathematical comparison between the most generous estimates of Al Qaeda terrorists in the region (a number that is often cited in the low hundreds) to the body count. We have killed orders of magnitude more people than there were Al Qaeda terrorists. This simple bit of arithmetic is what leads me to claim that the overwhelming majority of the people we killed in the region were insurgents fighting our incursion itself.

Quote:

I think it's far too easy to summarize the American mentality toward the death toll as a git-er-dun shoot-em-up on terrorists.

Then don't put those words in my mouth.

Quote:

Since it's so easy to characterize public sentiment as such, it often goes unquestioned.

You are the person who characterized it as such. Don't argue with me about your own straw men.

Quote:

I am challenging your assertion, so my apologies for asking that you support it better than telling me to get with the times and catch up.

What assertion? Like I said, you demonstrate no comprehension at all for my argument. You are just making general calls for me to substantiate general things.

Quote:

Further, the idea that the Taliban/Al Qaeda makes up less than 10% of the casualties....

Let's just stop right there. I did not make this claim. You are distorting the claim I did make (by including Taliban, who are insurgents to our invasion).

If you distort the claim I made in this way, it is much easier to argue against it but the intellectually honest thing to do is argue against what I actually said.

You can just use basic math to realize that the overwhelming majority (well over 90%) of the people we are killing there are simply fighting our invasion and were not trying to kill us in the first place.

Quote:

So yes, most are simply resisting our presence, but if they start employing methods like IEDs, it doesn't matter that they aren't Al Qaeda.

It doesn't matter to the tactical commander, no. But it does matter to the strategic commander.

Do you understand what the difference is? Do you understand what it means when I said (before you showed up making straw men) "I have virtually no complaints about American military tactics these days, only with American military strategy"?

I have already told you that if you put me in the hypothetical shoes of a military commander in the battlefield that killing these people makes perfect sense. But this has no bearing on whether it makes sense for the military to be in that battlefield.

Quote:

So no, I'm not concerned with your style. I'm concerned with your content.

Then try to understand it better than you do.

Quote:

While I'm sure you believe you have an excellent argument, you don't pause to dissect my style, when you're put on the defensive. Perhaps you should consider Graham's advice yourself.

What are you, two? "I know you are but what am I"? You have no argument to rebut here. There's nothing to comment on but your vapid style. You've made no counterargument to anything I have argued, and pointing this out is entirely appropriate.

Quote:

Certainly, we disagree.

No, that is far from certain. You have not made a coherent point about which I can make such an assessment.

The only thing clear at this point is that you don't like my tone and I have no use for your inability to argue well.

Quote:

From what I can gather, your moral summation of military engagement is far more simple; closer to black and white.

Nonsense. I invariably reject such lack of nuance. You have no basis upon which to make this claim about me and merely prefer to imagine that you are a person of greater nuance (for obviously self-satisfying reasons). It's easier than actually addressing what I say to say that I am merely a person who likes reductionist moral clarity.

Quote:

Mine is more complex/complicated.

Then try to show how, instead of just making these vague pronouncements. It's certainly a great deal more confused and convoluted, I will give you that.

Quote:

Perhaps, that grey area of nuance offends what you feel should be cut and dry.

You can ramble on about vague "nuance" you claim I lack, or you can actually address what I say and try to point it out. One is more valuable than the other. You have regressed to the lower levels of Graham's hierarchy. Now you've gone from saying my tone was condescending to the notion that I am a person who lacks as much nuance as you are capable of. You do this with a perfect absence of any argument to support this, without any mention at all of what my position is and this is precisely the kind of reason why I say you argue poorly.

Quote:

I don't believe any of this is easy, and so discussing this in terms of a yea-or-nea on supporting Obama seems to miss the larger issue. Speaking in absolutes is easy, and nuance summons contempt. I can deal with it.

I have contempt for your lack of intellectual honesty, your problem isn't greater "nuance" but intellectually bankrupt arguments.

Why don't you try to actually argue against one of my expressed positions? You can go on and on about what you claim is lacking nuance, but what seems clear is that you can't tie this vague gainsay to anything I've actually said that you can express a concrete disagreement with.

Robert Gentel wrote:

failures art wrote:

I've not commented on your "tone," but to the accuracy of your claim for which you authoritatively assert via "in reality." I specifically called for you to support your claim, but your response was:

Quote:

What are you on about? Specifically.

Actually, I told you to read what I had already said about it instead of asking me to type it again.

No, Robert. You did not. http://able2know.org/topic/181356-5#post-4823943

I asked you where you got your read on the American perception, not where you got your math. I don't disagree with your math.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:

I think it's far too easy to summarize the American mentality toward the death toll as a git-er-dun shoot-em-up on terrorists.

Then don't put those words in my mouth.

You're putting words in the mouth of; thoughts in the heads of Americans by asserting what the public perception is. Come off it.

You opened the jar on public perception. You argument against drones employed the strawman that American's perceived these attacks as hitting terrorists set on attacking the USA (Read: If they knew they weren't they'd believe as you do). That is a strawman: Attributing a mentality to a whole group that is easily rationally defeated rather than addressing a more scattered landscape of mentalities that is not so simple.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:

Further, the idea that the Taliban/Al Qaeda makes up less than 10% of the casualties....

Let's just stop right there. I did not make this claim. You are distorting the claim I did make (by including Taliban, who are insurgents to our invasion).

If you distort the claim I made in this way, it is much easier to argue against it but the intellectually honest thing to do is argue against what I actually said.

Here is what you said:

Robert Gentel wrote:

You can just use basic math to realize that the overwhelming majority (well over 90%) of the people we are killing there are simply fighting our invasion and were not trying to kill us in the first place.

You: 90% of the people we are killing aren't Taliban/AQ
Me: 10% of the deaths are the Taliban/AQ

I'm not sure I agree. The tactical commander, we agree on, so we'll move on from that. The strategic commander has a much harder time. Let's say the SC wants to find the best road out of there. Is there a greater strategic fallout if they hit a group, or if they elect not to? What makes it easier to sell the case to come home? Moreover, can you describe a situation where not acting on intel of a threat would be strategically to the advantage? So if a TC says they know of 3 high interest areas, what is the case for the SC to say, don't fire. If one of those groups acts out a local attack, the political ramifications will make for a harder exit strategy don't you agree? Isn't that the exact rationale that is advanced by many hawks in congress to support that there is still a threat in these areas--that the threat is demonstrated by successful attacks?

Okay. Fair play. Tell me then, what would be a good strategy.

Show some examples of other countries using such a strategy...

and tell me why you think such a strategy would be applicable and could be adapted to our own military strategy.

On this matter, I'm very serious. This is what I think the real base of the discussion should be. If you'd like a jump off point, critique my own suggestions which I posted a few pages back:

http://able2know.org/topic/181356-3#post-4819868

Robert Gentel wrote:

I have already told you that if you put me in the hypothetical shoes of a military commander in the battlefield that killing these people makes perfect sense. But this has no bearing on whether it makes sense for the military to be in that battlefield.

If we're talking about active military theaters like Iraq or Afghanistan, it's too late, we're there.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:

So no, I'm not concerned with your style. I'm concerned with your content.

Then try to understand it better than you do.

Stop being so reflexive. I absolutely desire to understand your point. I have no desire to misrepresent you.

Vapid? Would that be commentary on my tone or my style?

You find my post incoherent? So do you think I don't have a point, or that it is not being communicated?

Well, we can both make declarations on what is a well made argument, but that wouldn't get us very far. You've failed to convince me about what I've challenged you on, does that make your argument poor?

I'm sure it more likely means that there is something wrong with me.

You're dictating terms, and it seems more important to you, so have at it.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. No harm in admitting that. If you say you don't believe as much, I'll take you at your word.

Confused? About what exactly?

Such as what?

I've little of actual disagreement with you. I do however think you employed a rather poor argument using what you projected as American sentiment/perception.

This is significant to me because when discussing the use of drones (but not exclusively), saying that 10% of the victims aren't terrorists implies that the other other 90% are not of legitimate concern.

You seemingly acknowledged this problem via the Tactical Commander scenario. In a question of whether or not we agree with Obama's decision to use this method, and even use it more heavily, making such an point seems to suggest that 90% of our kills from drones have nothing to do with mission objectives because Taliban/AQ are the only threat we face.

I think people understand that not all insurgents are Taliban/AQ, and the soldiers over there know this as well.

I don't think the use of such weapons/tactics hinge on the composition% of Taliban/AQ persons in attacks.

You keep grouping the Taliban and AQ ignorantly, the Taliban long has had no use for AQ

As an increasing number of suicide attacks rock Pakistan's major cities, concerns for the country's security are rising. In recent years, many new terrorist groups have emerged, several existing groups have reconstituted themselves, and a new crop of militants has emerged, more violent and less conducive to political solutions than their predecessors. Links between many of these new and existing groups have strengthened, say experts, giving rise to fresh concerns for stability. A failed bombing attempt in New York's Times Square in May 2010 with links to Pakistan also exposes the growing ambitions of many of these groups that had previously focused only on the region. The Pakistan-born U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad who confessed to the bombing attempt was sentenced to life imprisonment by a U.S. court in October 2010.

Pakistani authorities have long had ties to militant groups based on their soil that largely focused their efforts in Afghanistan and India. But with Pakistan joining the United States as an ally in its "war on terrorism" since 9/11, experts say Islamabad has seen harsh blowback on its policy of backing militants operating abroad. Leadership elements of al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban, along with other terrorist groups, have made Pakistan's tribal areas (the semi-autonomous region along the Afghan border) their home and now work closely with a wide variety of Pakistani militant groups. On May 1, 2011, al-Qaeda leader and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was killed by a U.S. raid in Abbottabad, a military town not far from Islamabad, raising questions about the Pakistani government and intelligence services' knowledge of his whereabouts.

Terrorist Groups

Many experts say it is difficult to determine how many terrorist groups are operating out of Pakistan. Most of these groups have tended to fall into one of the five distinct categories laid out by Ashley J. Tellis, a senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in January 2008 testimony (PDF) before a U.S. House Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

Sectarian: Groups such as the Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and the Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria, which are engaged in violence within Pakistan;
Anti-Indian: Terrorist groups that operate with the alleged support of the Pakistani military and the intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), and the Harakat ul-Mujahadeen (HuM). This Backgrounder profiles these organizations, which have been active in Kashmir;

Afghan Taliban: The original Taliban movement and especially its Kandahari leadership centered around Mullah Mohammad Omar, believed to be now living in Quetta;

Al-Qaeda and its affiliates: The organization led by Osama bin Laden and other non-South Asian terrorists believed to be ensconced in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Rohan Gunaratna of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore says other foreign militant groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Islamic Jihad group, the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group and the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement are also located in FATA;

The Pakistani Taliban: Groups consisting of extremist outfits in the FATA, led by individuals such as Hakimullah Mehsud, of the Mehsud tribe in South Waziristan, Maulana Faqir Muhammad of Bajaur, and Maulana Qazi Fazlullah of the Tehrik-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM).

Why are you guys gonna vote for this warmonger?