Friday, February 05, 2010

 

Taking the Moral High Ground Part Deux

Obama's claim to take the moral high ground by closing Gitmo and trying terrorists in civilian courts stands even more ludicrous in contrast to some of his strategy in fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. What impacts the minds of potential terrorists from the Mideast - trying terrorists in U.S. civilians courts or remotely bombing sites with drone missiles killing innocent civilians in the process?
In the meantime, the U.S. has been pounding it with missiles. A pair of missiles hit a house in the Mishta area of South Waziristan on Friday, the 10th such attack in roughly two weeks in Pakistan's tribal belt bordering Afghanistan. Two intelligence officials told The Associated Press that the two people killed were suspected militants. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not have the authority to make such disclosures to the press.

Four of the drone-fired missiles landed Friday in the Zarniri area of North Waziristan, killing three people. The area is near where a strike Thursday killed 12 people but is thought to have missed its apparent target, Pakistani Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud.
"Suspected terrorsts" in a country where we supposedly have no combat troops. Twelve people killed in a strike that missed its target? Who did we kill? What kind of trial did they get?

Moral high ground indeed.

Comments:
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we become to fond of it." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

"I will make Georgia howl." - Gen. William T. Sherman

You win wars through something called Total War. Your entire society vs. their entire society. You draft citizens of fighting ability, train them, arm them and send them to war - and you do so in numbers that will swamp the enemy. Those who do not go to fight go into factories, making the implements of war. Food is rationed to supply the front. Gasoline is rationed to better move the supplies. Everything is recycled because it is easier to do so than making all new stuff.

You go after everything that gives an enemy strength. If they have roads, bomb them. Bridges? Blow them up. Radio stations? Wreck them. Factories & supply lines? Play havoc.

Population centers? Sorry, kids. Your parents should have made better choices. We'll try surgical strikes & limiting the damage, we'll not use incindiaries, but understand we do so because of our sensibilities, not those of our enemies.

A thousand B-29's to blacken your skies and incinerate your cities is faaar cheaper than laser guided cruise missiles and drone bombs we currently use.

And when you surrender or are captured? We treat you more humanely than you would treat us. We do this because we want you to know that surrendering to us, or being captured by us, is a far better thing than continuing to fight us.
 
And when you surrender or are captured? We treat you more humanely than you would treat us. We do this because we want you to know that surrendering to us, or being captured by us, is a far better thing than continuing to fight us.

Yes, but lets don't pretend that this has any effect on the recruiting of Muslim terrorists except that maybe it aids them because they see us as weak for being so soft on them.
 
It is not my fault so many Americans prefer to be infantilized by their politicians and the media. I think that what we do has little effect on actual terrorists, and much more to do with international image regarding our allies, but phrasing it in such ways is oversimplification.

Not as simple as "they hate us for our freedoms," or as hyperbolic as "Axis of Evil," but simple nonetheless.
 
I agree with you completely on you second comment.

If you want to have civilian trials because you believe it's the right thing to do, do it. Just don't give me absurd reasons and be prepared to accept the consequences, if any.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]