>>>>>>>>>I could understand the attempt to chase 9/11 plotters in Afghanistan. But I don't think we should still be there. Its failed as a mission and every time unrestricted use of airpower kills a few more innocent civilians it fails a bit more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think that is a mischaracterization on two points : "Its failed as a mission" does not accurately reflect the removal of the Taliban as the governing power and the reduction of the 'safe haven' area. Imperfect to be sure, but far exceeding October 2001 predictions. I think the mission of getting Bin Laden failed at Tora Bora, but I don't think anyone realistically thought the drug trade, Afghan war-lordism etc was going to change as a result of the invasion or occupation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Unrestricted use of air power" is hardly accurate. Were it accurate, Tora Bora and the mountains of Wazihristan would be glowing in the dark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Look at the track record of anybody - for the last 3000 years or so - who has tried to invade or otherwise impose pretty much of anything on that area. I'd say given the challenges involved we're doing rather well (albeit with some very bad decisions thrown into the mix)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's some stuff from The Guardian for you to pick over. The bits about the terror trial failing because of precipitate US action are big news here. Even in the right wing papers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/1>>>>
>>>>And you consider The Guardian a right wing paper ? <bg>
>>>>
>>>>seems to me there is really a difference in emphasis and goals. Is it more important to try them or to kill them and sieze whatever intelligence can be obtained on site before it is relocated or destroyed. I agree that in criminal cases you should do everything possible to secure conviction and that means not doing anything precipitous to foul evidence or admissablility of testimony. But if your goal is to achieve surprise, kick down and door and kill people, it really is better sometimes (though not always) to act a a key moment. Of course in both cases you are going to get it wrong sometimes. This is really new territory for law enforcement and intelligence operatives. I don't think the answers are black and white. It is more complex in real life than in newspapers. The goal is not really how many of these people can be convicted and imprisoned but rather how can their organizations be neutralized and prevented from causing destruction in our homelands. Those are not always the same thing.
>>>
>>>This weekend Obama stated terrorists caught
on the battlefield should be read their rights...
>>
>>Interesting. Under what sort of conditions would a 'terrorist' be caught on a 'battlefield'? I'm really curious about this. If it's a 'battlefield', doesn't that sort of predefine the enemy as soldiers - in which case you certainly don't 'read them their rights'. If they are defined as terrorists, however, then are they just criminals, and is it really a 'battlefield' - soldiers on one side and "not soldiers" on the other?
>
>"Battlefield" has become a somewhat murky concept - especially in asymetric warfare. If I am a soldier in Iraq and I catch a guy planting an IED are we on a battlefield? Is he a "criminal" Does he have rights under US law?
The whole thing brings up other interesting (to me) questions. If he is an Iraqi planting an IED in Iraq, and the U.S. soldiers are invaders, then is he a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?
If the U.S. soldiers are at war, then where are the opposing soldiers? Is everybody in Iraq who, using arms of some sort, opposes the U.S. solders, a terrorist? Are there any actual soldiers against whom the U.S. is waging war or are there only soldiers on one side and terrorists on the other?
>
>This points out the absurdity of applying legalistic concepts to the most basic level of conflict.
Of course. Obama's comment (assuming it's for real) seems bizarre to say the least.
