Can Karen Hughes Spin the CIA Attack in Pakistan?

Imagine this: a drone launched from a ship off the Eastern coast of the United States fires a missile that destroys a neighborhood of Stamford, Connecticut. Another direct attack on America from a foreign enemy! The newspapers would cover the story on the front-page for days to come. It would be all over the cable shows. US officials would be bombarded with demands for answers.

Now consider the CIA's recent attack on the Pakistani village of Damadola--an attempt to kill Ayman Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 that seems instead to have ended up blowing apart a dozen or so civilians. [See the update below.] This tragic episode in the so-called war on terrorism was off the front pages by Monday and competing for time on national cable news broadcasts with runaway convicts and other local crime news. I'm not all that surprised. This was another example of how what we do there does not fully register here. There are tens of thousands of Pakistanis in the streets and outraged--as they should be--at the violation of their national sovereignty (by a supposed ally!) that led to the killing of their fellow citizens. If it turns out that General Pervez Musharraf knew about the attack in advance and okayed it (explicitly or implicitly), he may well have trouble staying in power. Meanwhile, this certainly makes one (or should make one) think of that old, cliched question: why do they hate us? Hey, I know; it's only a dozen or so lives. But here you have the big, bad U.S. of A. raining death down from the sky with impunity, treating faraway villagers as nobodies that no one in Washington needs to worry about. No one pays for this. No one is punished. Can you spell "resentment."

It was somewhat appropriate that the day the news of this errant assault broke, a source sent me a memo that Karen Hughes, Bush's communications guru who is now undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, recently disseminated to chiefs of mission, deputy chiefs of mission and public affairs officers at US embassies around the world. The subject was speaking to reporters, and Hughes wanted to share what she called "Karen's Rules" on dealing with the media.

Her Rule No. 1: "Think advocacy. I want all of you to think of yourselves as advocates for America's story each day. I encourage you to have regular sessions with your senior team to think about the public diplomacy themes of each event or initiative." But, Hughes added, do not stray from the talking points: "Use what's out there. You are always on sure ground if you use what the President, Secretary Rice, Sean McCormack, or any USG spokesman has already said on a particular subject....My Echo Chamber messages are meant to provide you clear talking points in a conversational format on the 'hot' issues of the day." Hughes ended her cable with this: "Forceful advocacy of U.S. interests and positions is critical to our effort to marginalize the extremists and share a positive vision of hope for all countries and people. I encourage you to take advantage of opportunities to speak out, and look forward to our aggressive promotion of U.S. policy."

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on how the Dems failed at the Alito hearings and other in-the-news matters.

******

So how should COMs, DCMs, and PAOs in embassies around the world be talking about the US attack in Pakistan? "I know," Hughes wrote, "that it is important to get out in front of an issue or at best have a strong response to a negative story....I want you out frequently in front of the cameras, in the columns of your local and regional press and mobilizing your staff to wake up every morning with media in mind." But in this instance it might be best for Hughes' subordinates to stay away from the cameras and the reporters. It's tough to be an advocate for "America's story" on such occasions. The message delivered by the attack is all-too clear and has far more resonance than any public diplomacy spin that Hughes could cook up.

The full Hughes memo follows:

UNCLASSIFIED STATE 00006202 [122316Z JAN 06] FOR COMS, DCMS and PAOS from Karen Hughes

9. I know this is a departure from how you all have operated over the years. But forceful advocacy of U.S. interests and positions is critical to our effort to marginalize the extremists and share a positive vision of hope for all countries and people. I encourage you to take advantage of opportunities to speak out, and look forward to our aggressive promotion of U.S. policy.

Aggressive promotion of US policy--that's the problem at the moment.

UPDATE: On Tuesday morning, AP reported that a provincial government of Pakistan had released a statement that said four or so "foreign terrorists" (they were not identified beyond that) had been killed in the CIA missile attack. And Pakistani intelligence officials told AP that Zawahiri had been invited to a dinner in the village but did not show up. Pakistan's Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao would only say that there was a "possibility" that foreigners--presumably, militants--were killed in the strike

Comments (145)

1. It's murder to be an American these days.

   Posted by Del Goldfarb at 01/17/2006 @ 12:55am

2. This is an excellent commentary. Hughes is I believe way out of her element. I also find it ironic that even with the technology of the Predator drone civilians remain the primary victims.

   Posted by DSmit at 01/17/2006 @ 01:32am

3. "It's murder to be an American these days."

   Are you trying to be ironic, as if you couldn't believe that you would be attacked by virtue of nothing more than your nationality, or are you pointing out the fact that the US' sense of its own agency has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians, and that, as an American, you (and we) are partially responsible for this?

   Posted by rtan at 01/17/2006 @ 02:20am

4. An interesting question is whether the US cares [badattitudes.com] about destabilizing Musharraf.

   According to a recent article [atimes.com] in Asia Times Online, “…the administration of US President George W Bush is now convinced that a weaker Pakistani army is as necessary now as a powerful one was when Islamabad did a U-turn on its support for the Taliban soon after September 11, 2001.

   This realization has taken root over the past few months, and developments since last November have been enough to set alarm bells ringing among the military leadership of Pakistan.”

   Posted by cdupree at 01/17/2006 @ 02:53am

5. 21 posts listed, but I see only "DEL GOLDFARB","DSMIT","RTAN",and "CDUPREE"....RESE and/or PLUNGER must be on a "cut & paste" marathon tonight....glad I'm Ignoring it.

   To Mr Corn's article, I'm sure in the interest of fairness, he'll provide us some archive links to his articles in the 90s about how bad he felt and what "justice" he wanted...when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq and Serbia and inflicting civilian casualties?

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 06:55am

6. Rese.

   Please.

   I know you're passionate, likely frustrated that the rest of us don't seem to be seeing what you see. But how about paraphrasing and linking? I take a perverse kind of pride in not using the "ignore" feature, but your volume is a real test.

   My scroll wheel and I thank you.

   Posted by drhammer at 01/17/2006 @ 07:54am

7. .

   Rule No. 1: "Think advocacy.

   Aggressive promotion of US policy--that's the problem at the moment. (David Corn)

   You bet we want our side represented with single minded, unflagging and aggressive determination. Let the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese and Europeans be too bashful and embarrassed to pipe up at full volume and at full strength.

   The short of it is, Corn is an idiot. A Democratic party that is afraid to defend the US and to push her interests to the hilt has no future.

   .

   Posted by nacl at 01/17/2006 @ 08:01am

8. Mr.CORN

   Why did you fail to mention that ZAWAHIRI had been in the area and scheduled to attend a dinner at the same place we targeted? He missed and had sent aides to attentd in his stead.

   Why did you fail to mention that that villiage had been known to hide members of AQ in the past and was sympathetic to AQ?

   Poor civilians, of course we have only the reports from the villiage to say that it was only civilians killed. Standerd Operating Procedure from these people, everytime a US bomb falls, automatically say ONLY civilians were killed, and thrwon in women and children as well.

   Perhaps Mr. Corn you yourself, should have visited the area, PRE-bombing, I am sure your welcome would have been warm, you could always say that you HATE Bush. That would have guranteed your safety, right?

   And they say the LEFT is drifting towards Anti-americanism, with articles like this it no wonder.

   Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 08:08am

9. CPT, Okay, I understand your point about Corn not mentioning that Zawahiri was supposed to be there. Yes, the Nation's articles do tend to be blatantly partisan. You, however, have responded with an equally partisan knee-jerk statement.

   "These people" always claim there were civilians killed. Please define "these people." Enemies? Arabs? Guess the only label we really need is "expendables."

   Corn, while overlooking the tactical military motivation behind the attack, makes a glaringly obvious and irrefutable point. How would Americans react to such an attack made on us? This is only minor news because Americans have been conditioned to view the deaths of people of other nations as no big deal, their lives are worth less than ours.

   CPT, you are so brainwashed by your partisan affiliation and military background that you have no compassion left except for SOME Americans who aren't "anti-American" (AKA pacifists). If being American means supporting callous half-assed military actions such as this one, or invading sovereign nations that don't directly attack us, then I would definitely be un-American. However, being an American does not mean that for me. What is unfortunate is the fact that most of the rest of the world believes that your definition of Americanism is the norm. Tragic. Expect more hatred - you reap what you sow. Also, MASK is right, Clinton deserves equal criticism for his half-assed airstrikes as well.

   Posted by AZTeacher at 01/17/2006 @ 09:20am

10. There's no way Americans would ever sit for innocent civilians being killed, or for our sovereignty to be completely violated. The ease with which we write this "collateral damage" off is stunning. How many lives are we justified in taking to finally get one bad guy. Killing innocent people because we are trying to kill bad people who killed innocent people is insane. Either human life has value, or it doesn't. Since we have killed tens of thousand of innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11 in retalliation for the deaths of ~3000 Americans on 9/11 (oh, that's right, we're not there for 9/11. We're there because they have weapons of mass destruction), I'm starting to wonder what we actually think their lives are worth? Is it 10 Iraqi's or Pakastani's to one American life? I'm just trying to figure out the ratio.

    Posted by elfrijole at 01/17/2006 @ 10:13am

11. What would Corn's article read if we had killed Zawraquri there? Would he celebrate or start a fund for his(the big Z) familys lawyers in order to sue the US?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 10:28am

12. Also, again in fairness....can we tear down the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial and remove him from the dime?

    Why?.....justice for those killed at Dresden, of course!

    And I won't even START on Truman!

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 10:33am

13. i hate bush. not really - i love all living beings, but you know what i mean. but if someone invaded my country on the premise of getting rid of him, and in the process killed some of my relatives and friends and seemed to see the lives of such as less valuable than the lives of their own citizens, i might well hate them and what they stand for more than bush and what he stands for.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 10:36am

14. ELFRIJOLE/AZTEACHER

    There is a problem with your statements, were at WAR, you pick a side and hope that side wins.

    The people who were the "collateral damage" in this, were no doubt an unintended consequence. The risk was worth it to get ZAWAHIRI or any of his associates.

    This is what the ZAWAHIRIs' do, they HIDE amongest the indigneous population. Understand that! if you understand nothing at all, do that. You play into their hands, along with articles like Corn's, with your moral indignation.

    Your outrage should be directed at AQ, for hiding amongest them. They count on articles like this, to turn the tide in their favor, I chose not to give them the moral victory.

    Let the word spread like wildfire, throughout the Afghan/Pak border.

    That there is NOWHERE you can hide that you will be safe. Although people in the cities of Pak are protesting, who normally dont give a shit about the people of the mountain region. The message has been sent to people in the villiages, who really just want to live their lives the way the want to, harbor AQ, DEAL with the consequences.

    The other way has not yielded results, if this is the only way, so be it.

    Compassion? My compassion lies with those two Afghan truck drivers, we found beheaded because the drove a truck for us. My compassion lies with their children. My compassion lies with the VICTIMS of AQ, indiscriminate violence. My compassion lies with the Navy Seal, who fell out of helio in 2002, remember, who was found with his testicles found in his own mouth, disemboweled and then shot in the head. And his family. My compassion lies with the family of Daniel Pearl the reporter who was beheaded. My compassion lies with the countless victims of Afghans from AQ sponsored violence. My compassion lies with the countless kids in that place who had no chance at hope, because of forced madrassa-type schools, which they were only taught to read the koran almost nothing else. My compassion lies with the thousands of widowed women who had no chance at a living or education from AQ's kindred spirit the Taliban.

    So in that sense, you are right AZTEACHER, I am brainwashed. I know that these people who you and others, de facto defend, dont care if you hate Bush. They would kill you if they had the chance. So pick a side and stick with it, this isnt the NFL playoffs, this is deadly serious. and if you think I am overstating, please feel free to go the Afghan/Pak border and see for yourself.

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 10:45am

15. Amen,cpt, amen and thank you.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 10:57am

16. CPT Your argument has a major flaw it assumes that all acts of war are acceptable. Your compassion and rage are the very ideals that keep us from finding the terrorists.

    Find it funny that prior to gws war on terror our leaders (on both sides) handled terrorist by quietly finding them and taking them out then talking about it maybe, no hoopla no mass fear campaigns, take them out and don't talk about it.

    This worked well the terrorists were lulled into a false seance of security and were approachable and were dealt with, now we have terrorist on high alert and we can't find them, so we kill indiscriminately in an effort to get at those who are on their toes because they know we are looking for them as hard as we can.

    What are the result, we are making allies for them of the very people they hide with, people who want to be martyrs against the evil Americans.

    While we are busy concentrating our efforts on keep gays from getting married, we are ignoring affronts to our constitution by the power grab of the ruling president and his party once again all in the name of fear.

    Now we have a "War on Terror" that is usurping the American peoples civil rights and rewarding those who can buy our government and lining the pockets of big oil at a cost of American lives and dreams.

    Suggest you take good look at this war you support so verdantly.

    All of this in the name of fear!

    Posted by dycel8r at 01/17/2006 @ 12:36pm

17. CPT, The "war" you describe is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Terrorism has always existed, and it will continue to exist. I believe that we are creating conditions for Al Qaeda to grow and flourish at least as quickly as we are diminishing it. The outrage I was expressing was confined to the issue at hand.

    Of course Al Qaeda is hiding among indigenous groups. Do I think that the villagers deserve to be killed because they don't stand up to the terrorists themselves? No. That's ridiculous. They're probably struggling just to keep themselves fed - they have no responsibility to help the richest, most powerful country in the world hunt down Al Qaeda operatives. I have no sympathy or support for Al Qaeda - that's just a rehashing of the talking point "you're either with us or you're against us."

    Your compassion is limited to those that you deem worthy - pretty short-sighted. People that aren't actively supporting our interests don't deserve any compassion in your perception. I don't doubt that Al Qaeda operatives would kill me if they had the chance. I'm arguing that by our actions, allowing for "collateral damage," we are mimicking the actions of the terrorists that we are making war upon.

    That begs the question, how do you define terror? Is it imposing economic sanctions that hurt civilians more than those in power? Is it cutting off food supplies for Afghanistan just before we attacked them a few years ago, leaving thousands to starve? Is it an offensive called "Shock and Awe?" Who are the terrorists here? Personally, I want no part of this war because of the way it is being fought. I am against terror in any form.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/17/2006 @ 12:36pm

18. Maasch, that was a thinly veiled smear, those mail order Karl Rove lessons must be paying off

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2006 @ 1:46pm

19. AZTEACHER

    That is precisely the problem with the LEFT, you dont see a difference in us and them. Terrorists who not accountable are not bound by the rules of war, are the same in your book as the US govt, merely because of UNINTENDED collateral damage. Please dont say the same old, well we arent bound by the rules either, because its completly false.

    And yes, INTENT, makes all the difference, it makes the difference in Murder 1, death penalty; and involuntary manslaughter, probation, if that.

    And a point of FACT, 10-12 AQ members were among the dead, the Paks have confirmed. Good Strike. Case closed. The Paks also confirmed that same village was known to be symoathetic to AQ. They did more than just not Stand up to the terrorists, they aided them, hell they invited them to dinner.

    How do you define terror? Well the right seems to have already, the LEFT are the only ones grappling with that question, thats why the LEFT should not be taken seriously.

    DYCEL8R

    "Find it funny that prior to gws war on terror our leaders (on both sides) handled terrorist by quietly finding them and taking them out then talking about it maybe, no hoopla no mass fear campaigns, take them out and don't talk about it."

    Yeah we were successful in finding the TRIGGERMEN, but the BOSSES, well that was too hard to do.

    And that didnt exactly work in preventing 911 did it?

    We had a policy that swatted the worker bees, not the queen.

    And you are right DYCEL, we have terrorists on HIGH ALERT, too scared to do anything, knowing that everytime the come out of that cave, they are vulnerable. Thats called being on the OFFENSIVE.

    Power grabs? what nonsense. Lincoln really tried to do a power grab. FDR truly tried at a power grab. Bush has not.

    FEAR is good, FEAR heightens the senses, it makes you cautious and not careless, its makes you aware and not ignorant, it makes you vigilant and not complacent.

    Why do you wear a seatbelt? For FEAR of being thrown in a car wreck. How often does that happen? not often. But do you want to take that ONE chance you might be wrong?

    Didnt think so.

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 2:01pm

20. CPT,

    Don't you understand that according to AZteacher and the rest, we have no business killing the terrorists before they try and kill us. We must wait until they attack us and then let our survivors coordinate a global police effort to bring them to court so they can have the justice they don't want. When are you going to get it through that brainwashed head of yours that the terrorists are the good guys. You military people and Bush are the evil ones. (LOL)

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 3:17pm

21. CPT, Again, you missed my point. If there were people that another country considered "terrorists" or a threat to their nation in the U.S., and they casually struck a location and killed some American citizens, it would be an act of war that we would retaliate for (rightfully so). You would not consider it "collateral damage."

    We are completely above the rules of warfare. We make the rules of warfare. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us directly. There are many, many other examples. You are in complete denial, and believe that the standards we expect for other nations do not apply for us.

    Your definition of terror involves a double standard, and anyone who challenges you on the hypocrisy of your position is not to be taken seriously? Apparently you do take us somewhat seriously, as you blog here quite often.

    I WANT there to be difference between us and them, but I don't believe that there IS enough of a difference. That is why I don't agree with things like this.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/17/2006 @ 3:19pm

22. Love Liberty, Terror is terror, in whatever form it takes. It is all destructive and horrific. Violence begets violence. There are many examples from history of governments trying to eradicate terrorism by force, and it NEVER works.

    I don't see the world in black and white - there is nuance for me. Bush and co aren't "evil," they are misguided, irresponsible, and many other things.

    This "war on terror" basically gives the executive branch carte blanche to use the military in any way that it pleases, anywhere it pleases. It will never solve the root causes behind Al Qaeda, though, which are complex, but have much to do with our supporting Israel and throwing our weight around in the Middle East to feed our insatiable thirst for oil.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/17/2006 @ 3:28pm

23. Quite right. I think the most exhausting thing about reading the posts here or posting here is that either-or thinking is so prevalent, and discussion with the either-or bunch is so exasperating that one often finds oneself tempted to dive in. It's just better to walk away.

    Posted by bkarloff at 01/17/2006 @ 3:36pm

24. .

    Corns' Gyrations

    David Corns writes:

    Imagine this: a drone launched from a ship off the Eastern coast of the United States fires a missile that destroys a neighborhood of Stamford, Connecticut.

    That requires imagining further a Connecticut Baluchistan out of control of the federal govt. It is part of a semi-autonomous New England where towns and villages are run by local sheriffs and mayors who have their own arms industry and financial network, and foreign policy. They sell weapons that sustain a civil war raging inside Canada. Thus, that Canadian drone from a ship off the coast of Connecticut. It bombs and kills a dozen Canadian rebel commanders and Connecticut arms suppliers at a business meeting.

    Should the Canadians be tearing their hair out in anguish over violating US sovereignty? Only if they are David Corns, only if they are morons.

    Now consider this. Between 1913 - 1916 armed Mexican bands repeatedly raided into the US. The US stationed the army along the border and after a murderous intrusion into Columbus New Mexico a brigade of infantry under General John Pershing pursued the Mexican raiders. That was a violation of Mexican sovereignty. But it was excused and justified by Mexico's failure to control Chihuahua.

    If that caused the David Corns of that time to groan over America's aggressiveness no one paid them any attention. In 1916 people believed Washington had a duty to protect the US. Any govt refusing to do so aggressively would have been voted out of office. Americans were proud rather than ashamed of Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa. That made sense and was right even if, nowadays, twits and outpatient's enjoy rending their garments in mourning and sitting in ashes.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 01/17/2006 @ 3:59pm

25. RIO

    YEP, thats what they do, every time we do a air strike.

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 5:12pm

26. AZTEACHER

    "You are in complete denial, and believe that the standards we expect for other nations do not apply for us."

    Ok tell me, where can redress AQ diplomats or authorites to settle issues regrading their methods? Ours are in D.C. and at our embassies in Bagdad and Kabul Where can we petitiion to have PFC Maupin released and/or check his condition? Ours is in the Green Zone and Kabul. Where is their officials located? Ours are in D.C Where is their signature to treaties regrading the Geneva convention? We signed it and do adhere to it. Yes, Yes Abug Grib panty parties, they were punished. Where are their holding facilites? Ours are in Bagram, GITMO, Abu-Graib and others minor places.

    I am denial? You need to look in the mirror.

    You see nuance!?!?, then how can you even compare us and them?

    But fine think what you will

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 5:26pm

27. NYT spins it too:

    Public Editor, NYT:

    This article struck me as intended to minimize and de-legitimize the Pakistan protests and to blow the CIA's trumpet . And is the US "targeting killing" (the Israeli phrase) policy it describes ever subjected to analysis?

    Please forward my comments in the text to the reporters and editors.

    Mike Munk

    Strike Aimed at Qaeda Figure Stirs More Pakistan Protests

    By CARLOTTA GALL and DOUGLAS JEHL

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan , Jan. 15 - Rallies around the country continued fitfully [the lead immediately minimizes protests] on Sunday to protest the United States airstrike on a Pakistani village that was intended to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, but instead killed at least 18 civilians, even as American counterterrorism officials said they were not ready to rule out the prospect that Mr. Zawahiri might have been killed in the Friday strike. [lead suggests we may got him after all]

    Officials in Pakistan, who have examined bodies found at the scene, have said they were confident that Mr. Zawahiri was not killed in the attack. But the American officials have said they had not seen solid indications of his death or his survival.

    At a minimum, the officials said they believed that other senior Qaeda officials had died in the attack.[or we got others at least]

    In the port city of Karachi, some 5,000 [most other reports estimated at least 10,000]demonstrators gathered for a political rally, but in Peshawar, Islamabad, Lahore and Multan, the crowds were smaller, of only a few hundred people.[no source; intended to minimize] Demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Stop bombing innocent people," and burned American flags, but [why "but'? ]they dispersed without violence. Demonstrators protested for a second day in the tribal border region of Bajaur, where the airstrike occurred.

    Protesters also denounced the government of the military ruler, President Pervez Musharrah,accusing him of being an American puppet and of allowing the attack. "Our rulers are traitors," and "Our rulers are cowards and surrogates of America," protesters chanted in the capital, Islamabad, Agence France-Presse [was AFP the source for the other demo reports?]reported. But a call by a coalition of religious parties for a general strike was largely ignored in Peshawar [says AFP?].

    The Musharraf government has condemned the attack on civilians and made a formal protest to the United States ambassador in Pakistan, but Mr. Musharraf said Saturday that there were indications that foreigners had been present in the village of Damadola, the target of the strike, and he warned Pakistanis in nationally televised speech not to harbor foreign militants.[intended to minmize his government protest?]

    The raid is believed to have been carried out by the C.I.A., using missiles fired by a remotely piloted Predator aircraft, on the basis of information gathered in an aggressive effort to track Mr. Zawahiri. An American counterterrorism official declined to discuss details of the attack, but said: "My understanding is that it was based on pretty darned good information. A decision to do something like this is not made lightly." [Mr Jehl here is a transmission belt for CIA PR]

    The C.I.A. and the White House have declined to comment on the raid, the third airstrike in recent weeks inside Pakistani territory by American aircraft. The American counterterrorism officials who agreed to speak about it were granted anonymity because they had not been authorized to speak publicly.

    They offered a defense of the attack, saying they did not believe that innocent bystanders in Pakistan had been killed. [transmission belt again]One counterterrorism official said that even if Mr. Zawahiri was not killed in the attacks, "Some very senior Al Qaeda types might have been." [ditto]The official declined to identify other Qaeda members thought to have been at the scene.

    In the past, failed attacks on senior Qaeda officials have been followed by triumphant [sarcasm against anti-US statements] statements from the group calling attention to the failure, while news about the death of Qaeda members tends to circulate in channels monitored by American intelligence. "If Zawahiri was indeed killed, it would be very hard for them to keep that under wraps for a long period of time," one official said.

    For more than a year, Mr. Zawahiri has served as the principal public face of Al Qaeda, during a period in which Osama bin Laden , the leader of Al Qaeda, has not been seen or heard from. The last audiotapes from Mr. bin Laden were made public in December 2004; in the first three years after the 2001 attacks, he was seen and heard from more often. American intelligence agencies believe that Mr. bin Laden is still alive, but has adopted a low profile to avoid giving away clues that might allow the C.I.A. to identify his location.

    In Pakistan, it has become standard for political parties to call for protest rallies after incidents of perceived American interference here, and politicians both in the government and in the opposition took the chance to criticize the Musharraf government and its policy of supporting the United States campaign against terrorism. Yet most commentators did not expect lasting trouble for Mr. Musharraf. [major conclusion minmizes protests]

    The pro-Taliban religious alliance [suggests demos not genuinely popular], Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, known as M.M.A., which has wide support in the regions bordering Afghanistan, organized some of the demonstrations and called for an end to the alliance with the United States. Its leader, Ghafoor Haidri, called on the government in a speech in Karachi to "stop using Pakistani soldiers to kill Pakistanis in tribal areas."

    Another member called for American forces to leave Pakistan and Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 American soldiers are present in Pakistan, assisting with the earthquake relief in Kashmir [only peaceful Americans in Pakistan? none ever cross border, no helicopters, predators?], and some 18,000 United States troops are in Afghanistan, largely fighting an insurgency in the south and east of the country, in areas bordering Pakistan.

    Posted by lastmarx at 01/17/2006 @ 5:38pm

28. Oooops.

    Posted by ash at 01/17/2006 @ 6:51pm

29. ZERO

    "Melting down the Pakistani government by forcing its head of state to cooperate with bombings and air strikes that kill women and children will probably not help reduce the havens for AQ operatives."

    Musharref doesnt care about AQ sympathizers in the North, they tried to kill him 3 times not long ago.

    Dont forget the operations he conducted against them in 04, to try and root them out.

    And although he publicly condemns it, privately he is not unhappy.

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:00pm

30. ZERO

    How can you claim others are "nearsighted" when you enable AQ goals and objectives by giving into the outrage over the pictures?

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:02pm

31. John McCain endorsed the attack as necessary in the war on terror. I wonder if he would endorse such an attack on a neighbourhood in Phoenix or Tucson? Racist - maybe. Stupid - undoubtedly.

    Posted by biggarcon at 01/17/2006 @ 11:44pm

32. Cpt, what is this nonsensical talk about another poster "enabling" Al Queda. What the fuck are you, the online ghost of fatboy Scotty Maclellan? You are more than stupid, and more than a coward..you are simply, a punk-ass loser. Return to the lounge chair..make sure you have plenty of "TP".

    A one-finger salute to all sissy-men

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 01/17/2006 @ 11:52pm

33. Listening to the Politicians I get a distinct feeling that they are trying very hard to keep a house of cards from crashing down. There is so little reality and so much lies build on top of more lies.

    Posted by daryoush at 01/18/2006 @ 04:03am

34. David

    Good Piece ...

    Here's how we've been dealing with Ms. Hughes on The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel

    Hughes Plans International Tupperware Party For First Image Effort http://puregarlic.blogspot.com/2005/03/tuesday-29-march-2005.html

    Hughes Makes Official Debut With Mid-East Jaunt Fall Tupperware Line Just In; Says Flood Victims could have "saved heirlooms" http://puregarlic.blogspot.com/2005/09/monday-26-september-2005.html

    Peace JTD

    Posted by JThomasDuffy at 01/18/2006 @ 08:09am

35. CPT, We follow the Geneva Convention when it isn't inconvenient for us -GITMO is an obvious example of this. I'm not completely equating the actions of the U.S. to Al Qaeda, nor am I defending any of their acts. However, I have no power over how they conduct business, but I am free to criticize our government when they don't act as I believe they should.

    You view this whole dilemma in a different framework. Yes, it is impossible for us to deal in an orthodox manner with the leadership of Al Qaeda - point taken. However, it is my repeatedly-stated contention that our thuggish military actions and foreign policy help perpetuate the terrorism that we are simultaneously trying to root out. It's like trying to swat flies hovering around a garbage heap instead of removing the trash itself.

    "Removing the trash" is a very difficult problem to solve, but as I've said before, it would involve us taking a more balanced foreign policy stance between Israel and the Palestinians, disengaging from Iraq as quickly as possible, and offering more in real non-military aid to countries that are suffering.

    I'm not overly optimistic that these things will happen, as those in power are much too apt to resort to violence to try and solve problems. Nevertheless, you have accused me and other posters here of supporting Al Qaeda. Quite to the contrary, we are advocating actions that will diminish the support and recruting power of terrorist groups, as the Muslim world would begin to see the U.S. as a symbol of peace and compassion, rather than an imperialist bully.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/18/2006 @ 12:17pm

36. Maybe I'm out of touch with today's new technological reality. But giving the CIA ( or the military ) the right to use remotely controlled aircraft to fire lethal missiles at any building suspected of having terrorist ties, without having ground realtime visual confirmation of a target, sounds like Darth Vader territory! And Darth Vader had an excuse: he was badly burned and kept alive mechanically. Now if Hughes could only explain that the CIA operatives had been traumatized like Vader maybe she could create a little sympathy for the perpetrators of such actions when things go bad.

    Posted by John Earl at 01/18/2006 @ 2:18pm

37. Wouldn't you love to see Karen Hughes explaining something using an analogy from Star Wars? Takes me back to the good old days when Wild Bill Bennet used to threaten Bart Simpson.

    The Situationists, who used to argue that capitalist culture had grown so ridiculous ("infotainment", etc) that Mick Jagger's underwear had the same significance as Mao's cap, pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to this country. And the fascinating thing is that intelligent people can look at it and not see a thing amiss.

    Posted by bkarloff at 01/18/2006 @ 3:36pm

38. Reses defense of the missile strike, calling the New York Times liars, and his Cia-blowback propaganda about the Illuminati is further proof that the Illuminati are benevolent elites trying to save the world by such acts as helping save the American revolution. Where do I join?

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/18/2006 @ 5:33pm

39. The World Trade Center was blown up by airplanes being flown into it. The house in Pakistan was blown up by a US bomb being dropped on it. Conspiracy theories are promoted by the right wing and dispensed by means of Clear Channels many UFO programs as DISTRACTIONS against the real stories of the day. The real secret societies are the ones who create these myths.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/18/2006 @ 5:35pm

40. Mr. Corn, Karen Hughes' pathetic attempts at cleaning the American image abroad(and the Illuminati silliness) aside - after all, a couple of missile strikes is a far stronger propaganda statement - there are some rather distrubing aspects to this latest attack that virtually no one in the American media acknowledges. With the latest Predator strike by the United States, in which we know the majority of fatalities were noncombatants (six women and six children out of 17 deaths) and the primary "target" seems not to have been there, this administration has once again stained America's reputation and lowered our credibility as a civilized nation. Could someone from the Bush administration please explain how this kind of action differs from what we ordinarily think of as a terrorist attack? Contrary to what appears to be conventional wisdom, what constitutes a terrorist attack is not determinded by who is committing the act - for definitional purposes it matters not whether the perpetrator is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" - but rather by the tactics and methods used in the attack. While there are definitional arguments about terrorism, the most generally accepted definition of the term usually entails "the use or threatened use of force against noncombatants for political purposes." Most state- level political entities (including the U.S. and the United Nations) prefer their definitions with the "sub-national groups"(U.S. State Department) or the "acting independently of the specific recognition of a country" (U.N.) qualifiers added - this allows states to kill significant numbers of civilians in pursuit of their political or military aims without fear of the terrorist appellation. But what difference do these qualifiers make to the victims of such attacks? Does anyone honestly believe the survivors - the men and women who are quite literally walking around picking up the pieces of their destroyed loved ones - of the American attack on the Pakistani village of Damadola are in any way comforted in their grief by the knowledge that this killing was done by people "with the specific recognition of a country" rather than a "sub-national group" of terrorists? Let us not fool ourselves, the missile attack on Damadola was unconscionable. It was an immoral act of great proportions.It was, in effect, a terrorist act, and it lends credence to the radical Muslim claims that American policies in the Islamic world are barbaric (it even gives some legitimacy to Harry Belefonte's accusations that president Bush is one of the great terrorist leaders of the early 21st century). And worst of all, it makes us no better than the mad killers we claim to abhor.

    Posted by bosonm at 01/18/2006 @ 6:01pm

41. RIO,

    Not that I expect you to honestly consider my arguments, but I will nevertheless respond to your tirade.

    "Leftwing ideologues," I would argue, have instead tried to look at the "big picture" behind 9/11, and not swallow what the administration and media offered whole, because that is rarely very close to the truth. Yes, they murdered 3000 innocent Americans. In return, our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed well over ten times that many innocent Iragis and Afghanis since 9/11 - through combat, disruption of infrastructure and food supplies, etc. Not to mention that fact that U.N. sanctions (admittedly coupled with the extremely corrupt Hussein regime) probably killed millions since they were imposed. But, again, American lives are worth more than theirs, right? That seems to be what you're arguing, though I doubt you'd admit that outright.

    So, you're arguing that it is the criticisms of us "leftwing ideologues" that is keeping the military from being able to stamp out terrorism once and for all? Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous, considering the fact that there has been NO historical example of a government being able to stamp out terrorism by brute force? I haven't seen any response to that challenge yet...

    Military solutions to global problems are always temporary, and always lead to further problems. Examples of this are replete in the historical record. To use your example of World War II, both World Wars solved very little (other than the defeat of the Nazi regime, which did have very positive consequences, but a HUGE negative one as well, the onset of the Cold War). Americans tend to want to see instant results.

    I've got news for you Rio. It will take time to reverse the effects of fifty years of misguided American foreign policy. Now, this doesn't mean that we should roll over and play dead in response to Al Qaeda. We should heed warnings about possible attacks, like the multiple warnings that came in advance of 9/11, to prevent future tragedies. Doing that would have been much easier and cheaper than cleaning up the mess afterward, as we are vainly trying to do now.

    But, apples and oranges. To you, our failure is the fault of the left. I would argue that our failure has more to do with not listening to the advice of the scholars of foreign policy, Islamic society, and world history on the left. When we don't heed the lessons of history, it tends to repeat itself. Time always proves that maxim.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/18/2006 @ 6:20pm

42. I like how Mr. Corn describes this whole ugly process as a "so-called war on terror", as if Al-Qaeda isn't really a serious threat to American lives. Truly sickening.

    What does he suggest given that both the local Pashtun population, and members of Pakistan's ISI are uncooperative. Should the U.S. do nothing and let Al-Qaeda operate in the tribal region without threat of retaliation, allowing them to continue to plot attacks on the scale of 9/11, killing thousands of people. That pretty much what President Clinton did during his eight years in office, after the World Trade Center was bombed the first time. What was the result? You tell me Mr. Corn.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 01/18/2006 @ 6:54pm

43. RIO BRAVO:

    I'm just curious. Is it possible for you to actually make a point without reverting to childish labelling? I mean, seriously, how many times can you post the same tired tripe and think that anyone cares?

    Regarding your disdain for historical revisionism, let me ask you a question. Do you actually think that the traditional deification/beatiftication of all things American (and the concomitant demonization of all things NOT American) actually resembles reality?

    At what point did you decide to convince yourself that the US can do no wrong, and that anyone, individual or state, who disagrees with the actions taken in the name of the US is an enemy, a fifth column, so to speak?

    Historical revisionism, at least the more objective version, is based on the concept of removing useless nationalist (or any other bit of subjective) perspectives from historical study. For example, there have been numerous historical facts about US atrocities which have come to light recently which just simply don't mesh with your view or understanding of the world or the US. You have a choice. Either digest this new information and synthesize a new, more accurate understanding of the world, and our place in it, for both good and bad, or you can vehemently deny these facts, and attack anyone who would challenge your parochial weltanschauung.

    I bet I know which one you will choose.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/18/2006 @ 9:59pm

44. I'm sorry, but, am I the only one who reads this Hughes memo, and has concluded that our entire diplomatic corp just graduated high school? Where is the crayola - drawn picture to go with it? I absolutely refuse to believe ANY career diplomat would take this crappola seriously. And if any of them are stupid enough to comply with this obvious agenda, look forward to a lot more diplomatic personell being attacked, and/or killed.

    Posted by dgvb55 at 01/18/2006 @ 10:56pm

45. The message has been sent to people in the villiages, who really just want to live their lives the way the want to, harbor AQ, DEAL with the consequences. The other way has not yielded results, if this is the only way, so be it. Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 10:45am | ignore this person

    Your words read like something lifted from an old Viet Cong training manual on how to deal with local village elders who cooperate with Americans. Different killing technology, same result.

    Before your fingers start flailing away at the keyboard accusing me of being a supporter of AQ – there are a few of you twisted idiots out there who label anyone critical of "Beloved Leader" a supporter of the enemy – let me say that I have no qualms about taking out AQ operatives. Further, I consider AQ to be our real enemy in this war and not the people of Iraq. I wish Bush had not taken his eye off the ball and had gotten OBL along time ago instead of setting up a straw man in the form of Saddam Hussein.

    However, the point lost on Captain Rambo and his gurgling supporters is that obviously there was some intel revealing that Ayman Zawahiri was going to be at this place at this time. If we knew where he was going to be and the time he was going to be there, was firing a missile into a population center our ONLY option? Would it not have been possible to position a sniper team in a strategic position? Even more outlandish, might it have been possible to insert a special ops team and actually apprehend this creep? If the later was possible, wouldn't his capture reveal a treasure trove of intel on AQ, possible even leading to the capture of OBL himself? But, hey, I'm only a civilian.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 01/19/2006 @ 12:53am

46. RESE, please stop with the rantings. I don't want to ignore you, but you make it hard. I know of thte Iluminati but I'm not going to ram it down people's throats. You have gotten your point across, pleeeaaassseee MOVE ON.

    Posted by k330k at 01/19/2006 @ 10:29am

47. RIO,

    Your style of writing is ridiculously verbose. For example, take this sentence, "Your arguments lucidly validate your liberal elitist extremism and unequivical embracement of political correctness philosophy." Do you believe all the fancy language might lend your arguments more credibility? I don't think anyone here is impressed, especially since you don't seem to know how to spell all the words you're using, or use them in a grammatically correct manner. Normally, I wouldn't criticize a poster for his or her writing style, but in your case it seems like you are trying to be "high and mighty" by employing such overblown, flowery language.

    Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles. I lay out my ideas, and you criticize me by labeling me with one name or another instead of substantively disproving or refuting my points. Also, your criticism that my ideas are unoriginal is obviously quite hypocritical, as your ideas (the NEA having a Marxist agenda, for example) are hardly original either. The truth is, all ideas have been espoused at one time or another in some forum. What counts is being able to back them up with sufficient logic and evidence.

    You brought up the "numbers game" first by citing 3000 dead Americans, and then you attempt to dismiss my argument by saying that I am only concerned with a body count? Well, that is one empirical measurement of the effects of the conflict, and the easiest one to quantify. I don't think that there must be an equal "eye for an eye" ratio, I quoted that to point out the fact that our military response has been very destructive, causing much more harm than good, and causing many more deaths abroad than we experienced in the U.S. That you did not attempt to refute, you tried to change the subject instead.

    Also, I did not ask for "cathartic platitudes," I made more concrete suggestions of changes in foreign policy which you have chosen to ignore, conveniently.

    Like I said, the suggestions that I made will not produce immediate results. I am confident, however, that history will demonstrate that short term military actions will not bear effective fruit in the long run in terms of reducing terrorism. You have not addressed my challenge of providing a historical example where force was effective against terrorism for anything more than a few months. Refuting my arguments takes more than labeling them in a category, misrepresenting them, or saying that "somehow they just don't wash."

    Jorcheim did a nice job of refuting your point about revisionist history being false. The only "truth" about history is that it is constantly being revised as new evidence becomes available. You seem to equate a nationalistic interpretation of history as the "truth."

    Regarding your argument blaming leftwing "diatribes," it seems like conservatives shift back and forth between trying to convince liberals that their arguments are pointless and ineffectual, to blaming them for expressing any opinions that are critical of the U.S. war machine because they are keeping us from "winning" the war on terror.

    I got news for ya, RIO. Liberals did not provide the fodder to feed terrorism that decades of bad foreign policy produced. True, some of the blame falls on democratic presidents, but I would not classify them as proponents of my definition of true liberalism.

    Anti-war doesn't mean anti-American. Stop conflating the two.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/19/2006 @ 5:02pm

48. CPT, you accuse ZERO of "enabling AQ" by condeming the US attack. If that is enabling AQ, then what would you call it whe the CIC ignores a PDB entitled "AQ determined to strike within US"?

    Karen Hughes exhorts her minions to "marginalize the extremists?" Ha! How funny. The extremists are in the White House!

    That said, the fact remains: War is hell (William Tecumseh Sherman) and cannot be made less so. Hey, at least this time the target was AQ, and not some secularist dictator who happens to have oil that we want. I've supported the war on AQ all along, and will continue to do so, and will continue to be saddened and regretfull of any civilian casualties, be they NYFD or Pak villagers.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/19/2006 @ 6:22pm

49. RIO BRAVO:

    As per usual you missed my point. Try responding to my points rather than reverting to ridiculous proclamations. Oh what am I saying? You can't. That's your problem.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/19/2006 @ 9:59pm

50. No. Rio Bravo sure as hell can't. Why bother trying to discuss anything with half of the right wing posters- or more properly, poseurs- on here.

    Posted by Legba at 01/19/2006 @ 10:34pm

51. RIO, More labels and fluff from you, nothing to back it up. Should I be surprised? BTW you misspelled "possibly" also in your last paragraph.

    Posted by AZTeacher at 01/20/2006 @ 09:13am

52. Regarding the CIA attack, and the war on terror in general.

    Let me quote Glen Reynolds from glennreynolds.com

    "No successful terror attacks against the United States since 9/11, but Osama (or whoever is playing him on the Al Qaeda audiotapes) wants us to believe that this was because of his forbearance. And to prove how well they're doing, they're asking for a truce:

    The voice in the tape said heightened security measures in the United States are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001 suicide hijackings. Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.

    "Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to merchants of war."

    Riiight.

    The truth -- though this is a disappointment to some -- is that we're winning. It's easy to spot the loser in a war: The loser is the one asking for a truce on smuggled audiotapes recorded in a cave somewhere."

    Focus on the part where he says "It's easy to spot the loser in a war: The loser is the one asking for a truce on smuggled audiotapes recorded in a cave somewhere"

    LOL

    Way to go Osama, you sure are winning the war with your terrorism strategy! Riiiight....Sure....

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 10:13am

53. Amen Todd!

    Posted by wuwei at 01/20/2006 @ 11:25am

54. Seattle, I agree with your posts but I'm having some troubel with this one:

    Your words read like something lifted from an old Viet Cong training manual on how to deal with local village elders who cooperate with Americans.

    this is revisionism, our side did the assassination of village chiefs first and more often, which was one of the reasons we lost, we had alienated more vietnamese than they had

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 1:05pm

55. nice skewering Jorchy

    Zedd, you are mistaken. under the Clinton administration the preps of the first WTC were hunted down, tried and imprisoned.

    Bush has done none of these things in an attack that was far more devastating, and one that he had some warning of. take your revisionist crap elsewhere

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 1:08pm

56. Bosonm, you are correct. the pakistan attack proves the constant "we don't target civilians" a lie. they should say instead "we target civilians if there is the slightest chance that we may hit terrorists"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 1:10pm

57. the proper ratio of americans killed to "other" is 1 to infinity. how do I know this, easy I have read Rio, CPT, Mask, Todd etc

    I don't have to read them anymore, hell I could WRITE their goddamn posts in my sleep

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 1:18pm

58. I agree with David Corn 95+% of the time. I'm not thrilled with Karen Huges or her policies.

    But, I'm inclined to believe that Musharraf was fully informed before the CIA took action. I'm also inclined to think we remain at war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the regions in which they are sheltered and supported by locals.

    It is a strange war. If Waziristan doesn't want to be in this strange war, there are actions they can take, and more power to them if they do.

    There cannot be untouchable safe havens and safe houses in the terror war.

    Posted by pointpetre at 01/20/2006 @ 1:29pm

59. Petre, so you're cool with attacking civilians in the hope of some colateral terrorist damage? whether Musharf was informed is irrelevant to me, he is a tool, trading dictator powers for US cooperation, which is dubious

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 1:36pm

60. Waziristan is a remote, mountainous region, ruled by tribal elders, and does not allow outsiders in. last year the Paki army made incursions, ostensibly to fight al qaeda, but really an attempt to project power there, which was unsuccessful.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 1:39pm

61. Of course not, but we don't have many options. We don't have troops on the gound in Pakistan that can take a more refined approach to attacking Al Qaeda. It is crude and bloody to do it the way they did, but maybe less crude and bloody than the Clinton attempt to take out a training camp in Afghanistan in hopes of getting bin Laden.

    The drones we have now are better than what we had when Clinton was President. Maybe we'll have better methods in future.

    But, I stand on my position that we cannot allow safe havens.

    The people in Waziristan have evidently decided they support the Taliban and Al Qaeda and will provide them a region in which to build bombs to use in Afghanistan and to regroup and train to fight in Afghanistan.

    Those are choices that should have consequences. The idea that people should be able to aid and abet war and mass murder, but be exempted from war and mass murder themselves while doing so doesn't cut it in my book.

    Posted by pointpetre at 01/20/2006 @ 1:46pm

62. Peter you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, you will have to make up your mind. how many civilians, innocent civilians are you willing to kill, for how many, if any "terrorists?

    you totally misunderstand the issue in Waziristan, indeed the entire region. they all hate america and they all approve of Bin Laden, can we kill them all?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 3:22pm

63. Peter, do a little reading, it won't hurt. if we had troops on the ground in Pakistan, the country would explode with islamic fervor, Musharaf would be gone, and control of Pakistan's nukes would pass to the Islamists. Bush and Musharaf are walking a very tight tighrope there. your simplistic view, does nothing to elucidate the situation there

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 3:25pm

64. Those are choices that should have consequences. The idea that people should be able to aid and abet war and mass murder, but be exempted from war and mass murder themselves while doing so doesn't cut it in my book.

    this describes the Bushwar policy to a T.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 3:28pm

65. I'm inclined to agree with the right-wingers on this point. The writ of the Pakistani government barely runs in Waziristan, with the tribal elders holding most of the power (see this breakdown in the Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA21Df02.html). The area is largely sympathetic with the Taliban/al-Qaida, although I don't know how much of this is Islamist extremeism and how much is loyalty to their fellow Pushtuns in the Taliban. Perhaps a commando strike would've done less collateral damage but that's exactly the type of tactical judgement where I do NOT want to second-guess (as opposed to broader-brush questions like the decision to invade Iraq, wiretap without warrants, etc.). As to the Pakistani protests, I have to wonder how many of them are people who protested Musharraf's cooperation with us and our going into Afghanistan as well. We may not have lost any "hearts and minds" that weren't against us anyway.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 3:42pm

66. Bruno, so the killing of civilians is something you don't want to secondguess? that's gratifying to know

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 4:06pm

67. What I don't want to second-guess is which type of strike, a commando raid or a missile strike, would've resulted in fewer civilian fatalities. If you can persuasively argue that sending in Special Ops people, and the resultant crossfile, would've done that, fine.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 4:17pm

68. how about sending a missile into a sovereign country, how does that feel in your absence of secondguessing mind?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 4:29pm

69. Pakistan's sovereignity, or any country's, carries responsibilities as well as prerogatives. The former includes not allow their territory to be used a base of operations. I would much rather have asked Pakistan to go after them, but they seem incapable of actually exercising their sovereignity in Wazirstan.

    Apparently your solution is too allow the Taliban/al-Qaida to continue to use that area as a base without any molestation whatsoever. I consider that a worse solution than what we did.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 4:33pm

70. Bruno, you have described yourself very well, and I see no point in any contiuing dialogue.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 5:18pm

71. Well, At least we know the CIA hasn't secretly arrested RESE yet. He must do his searches on google.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 01/20/2006 @ 5:26pm

72. Conservatives defend the slaughter of innocent civillians even when it undermines Americas security at a critical moment

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/20/2006 @ 5:32pm

73. Bruno, you have described yourself very well, and I see no point in any contiuing dialogue.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/20/2006 @ 5:18pm

    In short, you have no argument on the merits beyond name calling.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 7:38pm

74. I have not called you a name

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 8:45pm

75. you are lying when you say I called you a name, so now I will, liar

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 8:53pm

76. Bruno, you have described yourself very well, and I see no point in any contiuing dialogue.

    What is that but a cheap shot?

    Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 8:54pm

77. I don't need any elaborate conspiracy. The Party for a New American Century is facism. They have a website. Google it. It's not a conspiracy, it's reality. These people killed in Pakistan are among the thousands we've killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. All to spread the greatness that is America. Impeach Bush.

    Posted by Ekohyl at 01/20/2006 @ 9:47pm

78. Is it ironic coincidence or a result, that OSAMA BIN LADEN called for a truce, essentially saying "uncle", just AFTER the missile attack that killed 4 of his closest associates?

    Posted by CPT at 01/20/2006 @ 10:27pm

79. Dear David,

    You are often engaging and illuminating; however, this particular area of our "allied country" is akin to the "Bob Jones" wing of the Republican party. Pres. Musharef (please excuse spelling) gained power, we must not forget, by personally authorising an incusion into Indian controlled Kashmire.

    (wow too many Dramduies tonight) The assumption that he neither was consulted nor approved of this attack is nieve. A trait you have never exibited in the past. That he disownes it, or, at present will not acknowledge its approval is to be expected.

    To use this as a bludgeon for the Bushies head foreign policy publicity hack is lazy and gratuitous.

    Liberty is only possible when actions are constricted by the rule of law. In the tribal region of Pakistan no such conditions exist. To kill the women and children, as collateral casualties, of those who reject the rule of law and harbor those who kill the innocent as a matter of course is unfortunate but fully justified under any but the most nieve mind set.

    Now, I am not happy with the present admistration, as it is plain that they consider the rule of law subjet to the rule of their god; however, the alliance with Pakistan is one of necessity as was the death of those most innocent civilians.

    The left will lose its ground when simplistic notions of justice are transplanted to those situations where the rule of law is neither respectged nor honered.

    Liberty is of action, freedom is of the mind. When one confuses one with the other there is no justice.

    I long to hear the UCLA marching band play "Reyption Strut" at half time of the Rose Bowl. But until the meistro has been dead 50 years, and his accurate assement of Dan Quale to Pres. Havel is long forgotten, I do not expect it to happen.

    Music is best CB

    Posted by zappa1940 at 01/20/2006 @ 10:28pm

80. Zappa, why you should take that name I do not know, homage perhaps.. but your point basically is that because they behave beastly we should behave beastly. you might want to reconsider that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:07pm

81. Zap, your analysis is simple in the extreme.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:30pm

82. Bruno, that I do not wish to further discuss with you is not a cheap shot by any means. I just don't wish to. I have heard your points over and over again and you are not presuasive. I did not however call you a name, so there you owe me an apology

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:53pm

83. Johannesrolf

    When you said "you have described yourself very well", I thought you were making some sort of personal aside. I realize now you just meant that I covered my points and we reeally had nothing more to add so your right. Apologies.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/21/2006 @ 12:46am

84. Seattle, I agree with your posts but I'm having some troubel with this one: Your words read like something lifted from an old Viet Cong training manual on how to deal with local village elders who cooperate with Americans.

    this is revisionism, our side did the assassination of village chiefs first and more often, which was one of the reasons we lost, we had alienated more vietnamese than they had Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/20/2006 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

    JR,

    This is not revisionist. I won't deny our side did some brutal things to civilians over there, but let me tell you, the NVA and Viet Cong were second to none in terrorizing local villages. I can assert this with first-hand knowledge. It would be revisionist to deny this. Also, I can't substantiate or deny your claim that we "assassinated …village chiefs first and more often…" Truth is, I don't know of any official record that totaled up the score. Maybe you have a source to share?

    We lost for many reasons. Yes, the brutality you mentioned was certainly a contributing factor that motivated young men who witnessed the destruction of their home villages and murdered relatives to take up the cause and harbor a lifetime hatred for the US, as I'm certain some young Iraqis do today. However, I would begin analyzing the loss at the policy level and then drill down to the tactical level. We pursued a strategy in Vietnam that was doomed from the start and it pains me to see us repeat that today in Iraq.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 01/21/2006 @ 01:22am

85. The Mossad are ruthless fucking bastards....They did 9-11...Open your eyes. [aljazeera.com]

    Israel Jordan and Turkey are behind the Trade Center Attacks

    Posted by WORLDNEWS at 01/21/2006 @ 07:39am

86. Seattle, I have read numerous histories of the Vietnam war, and OUR program to assassinate village chiefs is well documented there. I cannot give you comparative numbers, and first hand knowledge cannot go beyond anecdotal narratives. the numbers aren't as important as the impression you created in your post. it's important to point out that both sides used this kind of killing when it suited their purpose, and this evenhanded view is what I am promoting here

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:04am

87. Seattle, here's a little copy and paste job for you, from Wikipedia:

    The Phoenix Program, known as K? Ho?ch Ph?ng Hoàng (a word related to fenghuang, the Chinese phoenix) in Vietnamese, was a covert intelligence operation, and assasination program undertaken by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in close collaboration with South Vietnamese intelligence during the Vietnam War. The program was designed to identify and neutralize the noncombatant infrastructure of Viet Cong (VCI) cadres who were engaged both in recruiting and training insurgents within South Vietnamese villages, as well as providing support to the North Vietnamese war effort. (Note: the term neutralize was used to denote action that captured, induced to surrender, killed or otherwise disrupted the VCI.) The Phung Hoang operations were officially established by Republic of Vietnam Presidential decree on July 1, 1968, although the program existed unofficially prior to that date. While the Phoenix operations were originated by the CIA, they were eventually turned over to the U.S. Army and Republic of Vietnam military, and later as part of the "Vietnamization" program they were transitioned to a Republic of Vietnam military program with just a handful of U.S. military advisors assisting. Gary Leroy and Karl Sherrick were two of the most effective advisors having 63 kills in the month of March. President Thieu would later declassify the program, and announce its existence publicly on October 1, 1969, in order to gain wider acceptance and cooperation from South Vietnam citizens.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:15am

88. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/21/2006 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

    JR,

    I am well aware of Phoenix. I did not read your initial post as even handed, but if that is what you are "promoting here," then I am supportive of that type of dialogue. You are correct that "both sides used this kind of killing when it suited their purpose." The impression your post created was that it was very lopsided and I could not then or now buy into that view.

    My views on this subject may be anecdotal, but much of my worldview is based on life experiences. I am not an aficionado on the Vietnam War. My intellectual curiosity has focused on the policy and decisions that lead our country into this quicksand.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 01/21/2006 @ 1:30pm

89. it was your statement that suggested a one sided view, Seattle. I feel that I corrected that revisionist approach.it is difficult to draw generalisations from anecdotal experience. that does not mean that this experience is in any way invalidated, just that another's anecdote could contradict that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 1:41pm

90. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/21/2006 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

    JR,

    You are driving 90 MPH on a dead end street. You insist that my pointing out that the Viet Cong terrorized village elders is "revisionist" (implying that they didn't) and then saying "both sides used this kind of killing when it suited their purpose…", (implying that they did). Please help me understand what you have corrected?

    Posted by seattlescribe at 01/21/2006 @ 2:20pm

91. Seattle:"Your words read like something lifted from an old Viet Cong training manual on how to deal with local village elders who cooperate with Americans.

    it was this onesided statement that I believe I have corrected. I never said what you stated didn't happen.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 3:03pm

92. it was this onesided statement that I believe I have corrected. I never said what you stated didn't happen. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/21/2006 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

    JR,

    My statement was not intended as a thesis declaring what side was the seminal and dominate terrorist in that conflict long ago. You are correct that both sides have bloody hands. Rather, it was a response to CPT's statement of indifference to civilian casualties in Pakistan from our missile attack launched from a predator drone aircraft.

    On 1/17 at 10:45 AM, CPT wrote, "The message has been sent to people in the villages … harbor AQ, DEAL with the consequences." I pointed out that this tactic (albeit with different technology) was used by our former enemy. (I didn't say the VC used terror exclusively.) I was curious how he felt about our using the same terror tactics among innocents that our former enemy employed.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 01/21/2006 @ 4:52pm

93. I just hope that Corn and company keep attacking the US's war efforts, and the innocent village in pakistan was an islamic hotbed and pro terrorist.I hope they use nuclear tipped bunker busters next time. The left was calling klinton a hero when he bombed yugoslavia for days killing 1000's. I hope very much that the democrats sound like corn and company, it will be another GOP landslide.Being passive anti war anti american lefties will result in a total blowout of the democrat party in 2006.

    Posted by Ben K at 01/21/2006 @ 11:20pm

94. Welcome, Ben K. Another right wing jackass clamoring for a one-party state. I hope you get what you want, too, Ben, as I doubt people in this country will ever understand what's been set loose by the right wing until you and your fellow true believers are allowed to fuck up everything. Go to it, pal.

    Posted by Legba at 01/22/2006 @ 7:59pm

95. Start with:

    "Hope is not a dream, but a way of making dreams become reality." Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens

    Mix it up inside out and get:

    "...forceful advocacy of U.S. interests and positions is critical to our effort to marginalize the extremists and share a positive vision of hope for all countries and people. I encourage you to take advantage of opportunities to speak out, and look forward to our aggressive promotion of U.S. policy." Karen Hughes

    Per possibly:

    http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/ries-trout/marketing-warfare/

    Thus:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5035961

    http://www.slate.com/id/2132087/?nav=ais/02.html

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_trying_to_round_up_all_0108.html

    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13660749.htm

    And as always:

    http://inflow.corky.net/scripts/network.html

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/23/2006 @ 2:22pm

96. of course, Seattle. I have made too much of it, my apologies.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/23/2006 @ 6:34pm

97. Interesting article by Corn. It reminds me of an article by Jesuit theologian/ethician John Ford during WWII, "The Morality of Obliteration Bombing" (Theological Studies, Sept 1944), in which Ford argued that the obliteration bombing (aka "saturation" or "carpet" bombing) being used by Britain and the US is immoral because it makes no meaningful distinction between killing combatants and non-combatants (children, seniors, people with no significant conneciton to carrying out the war). As Corn uses an attack on Connecticut to illustrate his point, Ford used an attack on Boston. This article was one of the foundations for the US Catholic bishops' public opposition to nuclear weapons and the arms race in the 1980s.

    An essential point Ford made directly addresses the notion of "collateral damage", or "unintended" attacks on non-combatants. He pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between killing non-combatants inadvertently (a bullet or bomb goes astray, a non-combatant was in a place normally employed as a legitimate military target, etc.) and simply killing non-combatants because they are in the way of the target being attacked. The distinction is between intentional and unintentional killing of innocent people.

    Referring to bombing of city residential areas, he pointed out that the air crews (and their superiors) cannot avoid full responsibility for killing innocent people by simply hoping that they will not kill an innocent person (or, as we now have it, expressing perfunctory regrets after killing them), but must do everything reasonably possible to avoid killing them. This includes not carrying out attacks on targets where it is virtually certain innocent people will be killed. If you know that the attack will almost certainly kill innocent people (such as bombing residential or other predominantly civilian areas in order to kill enemy combatants who may be hiding in those areas), then you cannot intelligibly claim that you do not intend to kill those people as well as the combatants. You know that you will kill them if you attack, but choose to attack nonetheless. As a result of your having a choice, your intention includes killing both the innocent and the combatants, even though you might prefer that the innocent are not killed. But they are in the way, and you decide they are unimportant in comparison to destroying the target.

    Some of you will recall Timothy McVeigh's comment after the Oklahoma City bombing. While his target was some government offices, his bomb also killed children, seniors, passersby, people just doing business in the building, etc. -- people who had no significant connection to his "target". When asked about this, he said he did not target these people, but described them as "collateral damage". This comment outraged people across the nation. How could he be so dismissive and callous about taking all those innocent lives? This outrage was used to help ensure he was not only convicted but executed.

    But McVeigh, a veteran of the first Gulf war, was just using the logic -- and the language -- our government and its military had long used to describe our willing killing of children, seniors, and other innocent people to achieve our desired ends.

    We used amissile to attack a residence in Pakistan in hopes of killing one or more terrorists. We reasonably knew children and other family members lived in the residence and would be killed in any attack (missiles do not distinguish among who they kill), but we attacked anyway. Since we did nothing to avoid killing these family members, we cannot intelligibly claim that we did not intend to kill them.

    The Pakistani's understand this. We understand it when we are the one's being killed. Why don't we understand it when we are the killers?

    Posted by kelseyb at 01/24/2006 @ 6:50pm

98. Dear KelseyB: They don't want to understand. Because they're not killers. McVeigh was a killer. so they killed McVeigh so they wouldn't have to talk about their cultture of butchers. Myself, I'm waiting for them to have a falling out among themselves, start killing each other. Then the rest of us can have a little peace.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/25/2006 @ 12:00pm

99. Kelseyb, fine post. the allies have never come to terms with the war on civilians they pursued in Germany and Japan. the firebombing of Tokio and Dresden is different from Hiroshima only in the scale of the weapons used.they are the low point of our civilisation along with Dachau and Bergen Belsen

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 7:31pm

100. I think the recent attack in Pakistan was justified, was the right thing to do. We believed that Al Queda's second in command was there; even though he wasn't, we killed a number of Al Queda, including, I believe, a key master bombmaker. It was not a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, because the leader of that nation, Mushareff, gave approval to the attack. The killing of civilians was unfortunate, but there are always civilian casualties in war. (How many French civilians did we kill on D-Day? I'm sure there were a few.) The number of civilian casualties should always be a consideration of course; but if military force were only used if there were -- guaranteed -- no civilian casualties, we would all have to be pacifists, because there is virtually no such thing. In short, if we see Osama Bin Laden walking around with some civilians, say a mile inside the Pakistani border, and we know we may never get another chance to kill him, should we NOT fire a missile at him, because killing him means some small number of civilian deaths? Should we not fire that missile because it will mean having Pakistanis -- who are SO morally outraged over the deaths of civilian that many of them openly cheered the news of the September 11th attacks that killed 3000 of them -- won't like it? This is war; a war to kill mass murdering, premodernist religious psychopaths before they kill us. The attack was the right thing to do. I just hope that next time we get al-Zawahiri.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/25/2006 @ 10:02pm

101. Thomas, you are nothing but a racist, grrr, kill, kill

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 10:16pm

102. I don't see how anything I said could be construed as racist.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/25/2006 @ 10:20pm

103. P.S. I don't LIKE killing people; but as I am not a pacifist (presumably you aren't either?) I see it as a sometimes necessary evil.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/25/2006 @ 10:22pm

104. the way you referred to the pakistanis, who neither attacked us or are at war with us.

     a war to kill mass murdering, premodernist religious psychopaths

     you mean any and all pakistanis? if racist is the wrong word, maybe someone can help me come up with something better. in the meantime, you belong to the grrrr, kill, kill clup, along with CTP, Nacl, Ria, Mask, Todd et al

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 10:24pm

105. I'm glad you are advocating necessary evil.

     don't be so presumptious as to MY opinions, I am a pacifist. I am also a new yorker, the perps of the first WTC attack were apprehended tried and sentenced and are in permanent custody. and this was accomplished without an illegal war, and without tens of thousand dead.

     also unlike you I know what it is to live in a country devastated by war, which no american has experienced since the civil war, and those are long gone.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 10:28pm

106. "I don't LIKE killing people;" I think you're being too modest here, your post indicates that you are quite comfortable with it

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 10:32pm

107. 1) I wasn't referring to the Pakistanis (certainly not en masse), but rather, to Al Queda (some of whom ARE Pakistani, of course). And my description of Al Queda ("mass murdering, premodernist religious psychopaths") is certainly apt. There is nothing racist in that (truthful and accurate) description. 2) As far as the war in Afghanistan being legal/justified or not, we simply disagree. Then again, how can we not? You being a pacifist, you would think ALL wars are illegal/unjustified; you wouldn't even recognize the distinction (between just and unjust wars).

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/25/2006 @ 10:44pm

108. the missile was not fired into afghanistan.

     here's a hypothetical. we know that Timothy Mcvay is sitting in a movie theatre in Canada, or maybe Mexico. we fire a missile to get him, he is after all a massmurdering psychopath, this is cool with you?

     some wars are more justified than others. when our country is invaded, I would favor a war, though not necessarily participate in it.

     the war in Afghanistan is a phony. 13,000 troops in a vast country, what has been accomplished? the Taleban, who might have been induced to hand over Osama, evicted from Kabul but not much further. that action was and is just paying a different set of warlords. we paid the Taleban a big sum to eradicate the opium planting

     the war in Iraq is a disaster for us and the Iraqis and is both illegal, they didn't attack us, and immoral, we crow about democracy when we have smashed their country to bits.

     the fact is, that war and the satisfaction the killing produces in you, comes very cheap on your part.you make no sacrifice whatsoever, you're not paying for it, our children will have that pleasure, you do not shed blood, neither do your children, and you are more than a little smug about it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 11:02pm

109. 1) So you are NOT a pacifist then. Earlier you identified yourself as such; now, you say: "some wars are more justified than others. when our country is invaded, I would favor a war" So, you DO think war is justified under certain circumstances. Ok, fine, we agree on that. You are not a pacifist; meaning, you agree with me that war is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. That is, as horrible as it sounds (and is), sometimes killing human beings is the right thing to do, is necessary (a necessary evil). Ok, so then the question is: was the war in Afghanistan justified, or was it not? You say no, I say yes. (I imagine we will never agree on that.) 2) "the fact is, that war and the satisfaction the killing produces in you, comes very cheap on your part.you make no sacrifice whatsoever, you're not paying for it, our children will have that pleasure, you do not shed blood, neither do your children, and you are more than a little smug about it." I have several responses to that: a) War (killing people) does not, in and of itself, "produce satisfaction" in me. I do not "groove" on war; I hate war. I think it should always be a last resort; I am quite reluctant to use military force in general. [I also think that strong efforts must be made (when waging a just war) to avoid and minimize civilian casualties; that should always be a concern.] So you are wrong about me; I am not a warmonger, I do not enjoy killing people. I am never smug or cavalier about war. I recognize the bestial nature of war; that is why I believe it should be avoided at many (though not ALL) costs. (Perhaps the difference between us is one of degrees, one of HOW reluctant we are to wage war; while we both have a general reluctance, you have it to an even greater degree than I.) b) Would I get a degree of "satisfaction" if we knocked off Bin Laden? Yes, I would. (Either that, or captured.) Mostly, it would give me a feeling of relief and a sense that justice has been done. I don't think feeling that way would would make me a warmonger, or a war lover, or any of the other myriad things you keep (unfairly) calling me. Whatever satisfaction I would get from that would not derive from having killed a fellow human being, but rather, would derive from having gotten that PARTICULAR fellow human being, who needs to be brought to justice and either captured or killed in order to secure (to whatever extent possible) our security as a nation. Again, wanting that hardly makes me a warmonger or a war lover; it is a far cry from stating (as you have) that I simply love war for war's sake (when I do not). c) You make a point of condemning me for being for a war that I am not willing to personally sacrifice for. Yet, you state that if the U.S. was invaded, while you WOULD favor war as a means to defend ourselves, you yourself would NOT participate in it! So who is the one not willing to personally sacrifice?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/25/2006 @ 11:48pm

110. Frank, you never address the point that the missile was fired into Pakistan, not Afghanistan, with whom we are supposedly at war.nor did you address my hypothetical situation, which wasn't so hypothetical to the families killed in Pakistan.your protestations aside I still consider you one of the kill, kill crowd, as your original post indicates.just tell me, what ratio of civilian casualties killed per terrorist do you support? 10 civilians for one "terrorist"? 100 to one ?

     tenthousand to one?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 08:21am

111. in my mother country, the allies made war on the civilian population, as they did in Japan. there the attacks had no military value, no concentration of soldiers, no munitions factories, yet hundreds of thousands perished. and that was a"real" war fought to stop millions from being "enslaved", not that phony war in Afghanistan, not a source of valor and glory, and that godforsaken disgusting thing against Iraq, killing in the name of bringing freedom and democracy.you claim a discerning attitude toward war, but do not show any in your posts.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 08:27am

112. 1) We are not at war with Pakistan. I never said we were. We are at war with Al Queda. Some its leaders are IN Pakistan. They are being sheltered by (some) Pakistanis. 2) I think you are being hostile towards me. What can I do to prove to you that I am not a warmonger? Perhaps if I tell you that I am a liberal; I hate Bush, and was against the war in Iraq. Does that help? Despite my belief that the Second World War was the most just war in human history, I think what we did in Dresden was wrong; I also think the Tokyo firebomgins were wrong. I also think dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was wrong! (I am not black and white about it -- or about anything for that matter -- but ultimately I don't think we should have dropped them.) Am I still part of the "kill kill" crowd then, as you keep putting it? Perhaps to qualify as part of that group, one has to merely NOT be a pacifist; to be for A war, somewhere, sometime? If THAT is your criteria for membership, then YOU too are part of the "kill kill" crowd, because, as we have established, you are not a pacifist either. Welcome to the club JOHANNESROLF! I happen to think the war in Afghanistan was justified. Being FOR a war that you genuinely and sincerely believe to be justified does not make one a warmonger, does it? Does wanting Bin Laden dead or captured make me a warmonger? I don't think so! 3) Civilian to soldiers ratio. That is a complex question that defies easy formulaic equations, so I cannot come up with an EXACT number. If you are not a pacifist (and you and I are not), then that means accepting that civilians will die in a just war, because, as we know, no matter how hard one tries, one can never COMPLETELY avoid civilian casualties. So, if you are not a pacifist (and you are not), then it is JUST as incumbent upon you to tell me what YOUR ratio is! Why only me? How come I have to give an exact ratio before this tribunal, but not you? How come you get to sit in moral condemnation of me, when you (not being a pacifist) ALSO therefore accept that some (unknown and inevitable)number of civilian deaths will occur in a just war? (Are you a warmonger or something?) This is an issue I have studied rather extensively. It of course is reflective of the age-old "what means are justified in the pursuit of just ends?" question. I have even come up with a summary of five basic positions on the issue, and in the process, placed myself within one of the camps as described. So, while I cannot give you an exact answer (neither can you, or anyone) as to the "how many civilians to soldiers" ratio, I can place myself within a general camp:

     Five positions, reflecting differing degrees of moral concern about the issue of killing civilians:

     1) Terrorists (All immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends): In a just cause, if violent force is justified, ignore the universally recognized distinction, based on moral, civil, international, and religious laws, between that of military and civilian targets. Not only make no effort whatsoever to avoid/reduce/minimize civilian casualties-openly and maliciously attack civilians (as opposed to military targets) as an integral point/purpose/intention/goal, in and of itself, for its own sake, of the mission. As a general principle, purposefully kill civilians whenever and wherever possible. Generally speaking, the more killed the better-don't be too concerned, if at all, with the "how many is too many" issue. Don't let moral considerations stop you. If terrorism furthers your (just) cause, then it is justifiable-that shall be the extent of your "moral consideration"-just ends justify virtually all and any means. If anything, revel in your lack of humanity by celebrating any successful purposeful taking of civilian life-show no mercy, have no conscience. (Note: there are probably degrees within the terrorist category, such as, some terrorist groups might purposely kill only 20 civilians in an attack at maximum, while others -- such as Al-Queda -- would probably kill 10 Million if they could. However, the ones that kill less are probably not doing so out of moral considerations. It's more likely that they fear massive retaliation, and/or they simply cannot get their hands on a bigger bomb!)

     2) Standard National Governments (Many immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends) (All nations, more or less, generally conform to this position when it comes to the "how many civilians are expendable in the pursuit of just ends" question): In a just cause, if violent force is justified, some (not a great deal however) efforts may be made to avoid killing civilians. Destroying military targets is certainly the goal-not civilians. However, if civilians are "in the way", if they happen to inhabit the same general area as the military targets, don't be particularly or overly concerned with how many civilians might be killed or injured. It may be a consideration, but not a major one; the overall strategic goal clearly comes first-that must have top priority. Consider the possible number of civilian casualties in any potential action-but don't bend over backwards to avoid them. (How much of this consideration is out of genuine moral concern, and how much is merely worrying about public relations and other factors, is highly debatable). An example of this strand of thought might be the following: "If saving Vietnam from communism requires killing millions of civilians (though that not being the goal in and of itself) then so be it". (The war in Afghanistan-the de facto way it was run-technically fits into this category, though I believe the Americans were considerably less caviler about civilian Afghani life than they were about civilian Vietnamese life.) What undoubtedly matters most is achieving your strategic aim-not avoiding civilian casualties. Their credo (as General McArthur put it) is "there is no substitute for victory." This means, by almost all means (including at times, outright terrorism-such as at Hiroshima and Dresden for example). This is the standard position/philosophy of most governments in war: use many (immoral) means to achieve the military and strategic goal; avoiding civilian casualties is not a large priority (though it may be to some degree).

     3) My Own Personal Position (Some -- not very many though -- immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends): In a just cause, if violent force is justified, the "prime directive" is the following: striking military targets is the purpose/point/goal-not civilian targets. Efforts at avoiding/reducing/minimizing civilian casualties (while striking military targets), should have a high priority. Never purposely target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians. (That is, never commit an act of terrorism.) How many regrettable civilians deaths you might be willing to accept/create while attempting to strike military targets will be affected by many factors, including how important the goal is/how grave the threat is, etc; generally speaking, the more at stake, the greater the risk/evil you face (take Al Queda for instance-they are horrifically evil, and will stop at nothing to achieve their political aims) the greater number of civilian casualties you might be willing to accept. (However horrible killing civilians is-and how horrible it is can almost not be overstated or described.) In any potential/theoretical military action against military targets, always weigh the number of civilian casualties that you believe will result (accidentally, inadvertently, or regrettably unavoidably) against the believed strategic gain; if the number is morally troubling -- if high -- question the morality/justification of the proposed exercise. In short, make avoiding/minimizing civilian casualties an ever-present, on-going, concern/consideration/priority. Such moral considerations are always relevant when weighing strategic options-be morally conscious, morally aware, morally concerned about the issue-avoiding/minimizing civilian casualties must be a top priority when waging a (just) war. (Note: this is why I was quite troubled by the war in Afghanistan, to the extent I was-minimizing civilian casualties clearly did not have a high enough priority – even though I was for the war there.)

     4) Never Kill Civilians (Few immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends): In a just cause, if violent force is justified, only strike military targets, and only when you are close to (if not outright) 100% certain that no civilians will be killed. No matter what-even if only two civilians are sitting next to the biggest strategic target in the military theater, don't attack it. Only kill soldiers, no matter how difficult this is, strategically or logistically. No civilians must ever be killed, accidentally, inadvertently, or for any other reason whatsoever. Of course, this position is virtually impossible to actually implement-no matter how hard one tries, one can never completely avoid civilian casualties. Therefore, some will still inevitably be killed. (Note: this also means, in practical terms, that probably only ground wars can be fought -- very carefully at that -- as this is the only way to get the close to 100% avoidance of civilian casualties this position demands.)

     5) Pacifism (No immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends): Violent force is never justified, even against soldiers. Killing people – anyone -- is always wrong, no matter what the reason, whether done purposely, accidentally, or anywhere in between, period. (Note: there are different kinds of pacifism, but for reasons of time and space, I have condensed them into one general position.)

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 11:17am

113. (All immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends):

     I'm sorry I cannot get past this, and read the rest of your post

     wehat you are describing is that in order to fight "evil" we need to become just as evil. I will never agree to this. any hostility you detect is toward your position, not you personally. I believe I have refrained from ad hominem, personal, attacks

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 11:25am

114. Frank, I realize now that what you are describing is a range of views, not necessarily your own, my apologies. I will attempt to deal with this, but cannot do so right now. something about work, which just takes up too much time

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 12:05pm

115. JOHANNESROLF,

     I think you are beginning to realize that you made several presumptions about me. You assumed, based only on the fact that I favored the recent CIA attack in Pakistan, that I therefore must be a right-winger, a Bush supporter. Why did you assume that? Is it because of the habit the (radical) left sometimes has of thinking in either/or, black and white terms? As if one is either Noam Chomsky, or George Bush, with nothing in between? Surely you are aware that most liberals were FOR the war in Afghanistan; that being the case, why did you jump to the conclusion that (since I am in favor of it), that I was necessarily a right-winger? (That is, you might have considered that I was and am one of the many liberals who was for it.) Is this yet another example of (just as I had to deal with in college), leftists attempting to marginalize my liberalism? Assuming that, because I don't adhere to the "politically correct" left-wing line or take on some particular issue, that I therefore MUST be a "fascist"? That because I am not a pacifist, I must therefore be the opposite (a warmonger)?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 1:30pm

116. JOHANNESROLF,

     Remember when we started our little debate yesterday, I called Bin Laden/Al Queda "mass murdering, premodernist religious psychopaths"? (You mistakenly thought I was referring to Pakistanis, all of them). Well, I came across the following quote today; it is not from Bin Laden or any member of Al Queda, but it does represent and exemplify the same sort of "thinking" exhibited by Bin Laden and other "Islamo-Fascists." It gives us an idea of what we are up against; it is an excellent example of what I was referring to:

     "War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory!..." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting God's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions."

     Ayatollah Khomeini, Mohammed's birthday, 1984

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 2:51pm

117. Rese,

     What you wrote about is quite disturbing. How difficult would it be for Al Queda members to get into our country via Mexico? I suspect, not very difficult at all. A relatively small amount of the $200 billion spent on the war in Iraq could have helped beef up our security down there. But alas, the dreams of neo-cons came first.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 8:29pm

118. Your email has been blocked?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 8:50pm

119. This bombing in Pakistan demonstrates the difference between the Bush Gang and Clinton. As I recall, Clinton had an opportunity to send in one of them drone missiles against Osammy bin Laden and he didn't take it because no one could tell him if the tall guy in the aerial photograph was actually bin Laden or not. Clinton didn't drone that tall guy to death becuase he didn't want to kill innocent by-standers. Now, obviously, the Bush Gang didn't so much as give the locals a second thought. They just went a head and bombed them all to kingdom come. Now, that's how you do it, especially if you're afraid to have sex, which, as we know, wasn't Clinton's particular problem. Now, that may be good, that may be bad, depending on whether or not you're the one getting bombed. But the point is this, you need a man like Karen Hughes, even more than the Secretary of State, to straighten out the wrinkles on a job like this. I mean, it may look like Dubya is wearing the pants, but he's definitely not the one wearing the jock strap, if you get my drift. Rove wears it on ocasion, but the fact is, its Karen they have doing the patch-up work.

     Posted by Monroe at 01/26/2006 @ 9:08pm

120. This bombing in Pakistan demonstrates the difference between the Bush Gang and Clinton. As I recall, Clinton had an opportunity to send in one of them drone missiles against Osammy bin Laden and he didn't take it because no one could tell him if the tall guy in the aerial photograph was actually bin Laden or not. Clinton didn't drone that tall guy to death becuase he didn't want to kill innocent by-standers. Now, obviously, the Bush Gang didn't so much as give the locals a second thought. They just went a head and bombed them all to kingdom come. Now, that's how you do it, especially if you're afraid to have sex, which, as we know, wasn't Clinton's particular problem. Now, that may be good, that may be bad, unless you get bombed. But the point is this, it takes a man like Karen Hughes, even more than the Secretary of State, to smooth out the wrinkles on a bed like they made in Pakistan. I mean, it may look like Dubya is wearing the pants, but he's definitely not the one wearing the jock strap, if you get my drift. Rove wears it on ocasion, but the fact is, its Karen they have doing the patch-up work.

     Posted by Monroe at 01/26/2006 @ 9:10pm

121. Does anyone here think we will ever actually get Bin Laden? Personally, I have my doubts. There are many Pakistanis sheltering him; there are even elements within the Pakistani govt and military that are sympathetic to him. Further, Mushareff (largely due to political reasons, not wanting to further incite and provoke Pakistani militants, possibly provoking civil war in the process) will not or cannot allow our land special ops into Pakistani territory (where Bin Laden probably is hiding). The end result? Our hands our militarily and logistically tied. This is why taking him out with a missile may be an attractive alternative; it is a way to get around the various ways our hands have been tied, and take the bastard(s) out.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 9:19pm

122. Rese, do you actually believe eveything you say?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 9:20pm

123. Maybe the Mossad also killed President Lincoln?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 9:32pm

124. Rese on (permanent) ignore.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 9:35pm

125. Frank, I'm sorry but I'm still not able to deal with this issue in greater detail, but let me just make one point. the families in Pakistan who were killed in the missile attack were just as innocent as the workers who perished in the WTC attack. the women and children were not harboring terrorists, as it is not clear who if any terrorists were killed.also the equation I proposed, how many innocents killed for each terrorist, is one, which you did not answer. you've got to take a consistent stand. to think of the "enemy" as some sort of "Untermensch" is what I got from your post and hence the racist epithet

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 09:54am

126. Johannesrolf,

     I will assume you agree that a terrorist is the rough equivilent of a soldier. (And is therefore a legitimate target in war.) I will give a number for the "how many innocents (civilians) for each terrorist" (soldier), if YOU will. To wit: 1) You are not a pacifist. 2) No matter how hard one tries, there are always civilians killed in war (while attempting to kill soldiers). 3) Therefore, you favor the killing (unintentional) of civilians in (just) wars. (Because, as stated, it is unavoidable, and you are not a pacifist.) 4) So, what is YOUR ratio (civilians to soldiers)?

     The question is rhetorical. As I explained in previous post, there really is no answer to the question. Neither you nor I can come up with any exact figure, because the nature of this beast (war and morality) defies such formulaic equations. That is why I explained what I feel to be the basic camps on the issue. As I wrote, I place myself in camp number three; SOME immoral means are justified in the pursuit of just ends. (Please reread it for more clarification of my postion.) By the way, can you please drop the "you are a racist" bit? I am not a racist; I very much resent being called one. Calling me one is a cheap tactic (further, it is simply not true). I am not going to debate it with you anymore; if you want to believe (with no justification or reason) that I am a racist, I cannot of course stop you; but if you make that accusation again, or even broach that subject again, I will ignore it entirely. (It has become quite tiresome, and a distraction from the discussion at hand.) "the families in Pakistan who were killed in the missile attack were just as innocent as the workers who perished in the WTC attack. the women and children were not harboring terrorists, as it is not clear who if any terrorists were killed" MY RESPONSE: There are some real differences in the two situations of course (the WTC attacks and the recent CIA missile strike in Pakistan): 1) Numbers DO matter. 3000 civilians (or 2800, if you don't count the Pentagon workers as "civilians") died on 9/11. I believe 14 civilians died in the Pakistan attack. That in itself makes the 9/11 attacks much much worse. 2) The 9/11 attacks were acts of terrorism. (I define "terrorism" as attacks in which the immediate POINT/GOAL/MOTIVATION of the mission is to kill civilians.) By my definition, therefore, the Pakistan attack was NOT an act of terrorism, and the 9/11 attacks WERE. I believe that terrorism is NEVER justified; attacks which result in civilians being killed, however, sometimes ARE. (They HAVE TO BE, because they are unavoidable when waging a just war.) So, since civilian casualties are inevitable in any (just) war, you have to play things on a case by case basis, in terms of the morality or justness of it. There is NO neat mathematical formula that can be applied to such complex moral questions of means and ends. As I explained in my essay, one has to weigh the perceived strategic gain against the awful loss of civilian life. One has to ask oneself, in effect, how evil should I be in fighting for what I perceive to be a greater (resultant) good? In the recent Pakistani case, we had reasonable intelligence that stated that the second in command of Al Queda was going to some banquet or whatever it was. We are at war with Al Queda. Al Queda wants to destroy us. Many Pakistanis are sheltering them. Their govt is not cooperating, not allowing us to send special ops (etc) into their territory where Bin Laden and al-Zawihiri likely are located. Our hands are subsequently tied. Al Queda is thoroughly evil, in both goals AND tactics. We have to kill THEM before they kill US. I support the attempt to capture and/or kill them 100%. (Don't you?) Taking Bin Laden (and other top leaders) out with a missile might be our only way to get them. (There is also the debate about how "innocent" civilians are -- and even if they ARE "civilians" anymore -- if they are openly aiding and abetting the enemy, but I will save that issue for another time.) I don't know what the answer is. Do you? If you believe that the ONLY military operations that are justified are ones in which it is 100% guaranteed that not one single innocent civilian will lose their life, then we have to be pacifists. BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Are you a pacifist? Think of some just wars throughout history. World War Two: did we kill any innocent French civilians when we began (yes I know the Russians had already started on the East) the liberation of Europe from Fascism? You can't have it both ways; if you are not a pacifist, then by definition you accept that innocent civilians will be killed.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/27/2006 @ 12:18pm

127. in the interest of legibility try to break up your post into paragraphs. hitting return twice once in a while will do the trick.

     I think also this argument is pointless, you are of the kill kill crowd, it matters little to you who, when and in what country.

     you may be liberal in other matters but in ths instance your point is quite clear. I don't care about labels like pacifist, which you brought up, the issues are what matter. I have made my point clear, as have you, let's leave it at that and let other readers decide, which side they are on

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 12:52pm

128. well, what scares me and apparantly scares bushco/musharaf/india is the fact that al queda/taliban actually rules a part of pakistan and too vigorous action on our part could result in a sequence of eventualities that would end in an "islamo-fascist" nukaleer pakistan.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/27/2006 @ 1:15pm

129. Ibble, that is incorrect. Al qaeda does not ruke waziristan and that area, and neither does Pakistan. it is ruled by tribal elders, who may be sympathetic to al qaeda, as is a great part of the rest of the muslim world.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 1:18pm

130. Ibbleblibble,

     This is an extremely delicate balancing act we are engaging in. We are trying to get (capture or kill) the Al Queda leaders. That of course is our (just and worthy) goal.

     -BUT: Pakistan is not fully cooperating with us in trying to achieve that goal. Partly because there are elements within the Pakistani governmental system that are sympathetic to Al Queda, and partly (perhaps mostly) because of political considerations. (The fact that so many Pakistanis hate our guts and are supportive -- to varying degrees -- of Al Queda; if Mushareff cooperates with us TOO much -- such as allowing American forces into Pakistan -- many Pakistanis might go nuts, and it might mean civil war or an Islamic fundamentalist coup or something.) So this leaves us in quite a quandry. On the one hand, we have to push Mushareff into greater cooperation (perhaps even allowing us to send forces inside Pakistan to hunt for Bin Laden), but at the same time, knowing that we can only push him SO far, largely because he himself can only go SO far. (The Pakistani people -- or significant portions thereof -- are, to a considerable extent, on Bin Laden's side.)

     The recent CIA attack is a good example of the bind we are in. We had reasonable intelligence stating that Al Queda's second in command was in that location in Pakistan. We had a chance to take him out, and we took it, even though, unfortunately, he wasn't there. We DID however, get some other Al Queda; unfortunately, we also killed 14 or so Pakistani civilians (though some of them may have been in league with Al Queda, in which case their status as "civilians" is somewhat debateable). Now, as a result of our attack, Pakistans hate us even more (angry demonstrations and so on) which may mean, in the long run, more recruits for Al Queda. So, it seems like we can't win. My own view is, if we have a chance to take out (kill) a top Al Queda leader, we probably should do so, even if that means temporarily angering Pakistanis (who already hate our guts anyway).

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/27/2006 @ 3:52pm

131. we sent a missile into a country not at war with us. is that something you are proud of?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 4:08pm

132. and why do you think they hate our guts? because of our freedom? you make me laugh

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 4:09pm

133. it might be useful to remember that both Saddam and Osama were "our" creation. I'm rushing off to work, again, but I'l leave you with a little ditty, courtesy of Bertold Brecht words, Kurt Weill music, from the three penny opera, one, two, three:

     Soldaten wohnen Auf den Kanonen Vom Cap bis Couch Behar. Wenn es mal regnete Und es begegnete irgend eine Rasse 'ne braune oder blasse Da machen sie vielleicht daraus ihr Beefsteak Tartar.

     for english translation google first line of song

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 5:30pm

134. Frank Thomas, I will take back the racist. your subsequent posts have shown a more nuanced position than the post I originally responded to. still we dis agree and that is not a calamity

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/28/2006 @ 12:42am

135. Frank Thomas, how about if we have some "intelligence" that Bin Laden is hiding in a house, say in France or Germany. send a missile? also america's lies concerning WMD makes ALL intelligence suspect. does that enter into your calculation?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/28/2006 @ 10:05am

136. Frank Thomas, your 12.18 am post was muddles thinking beyond belief

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/28/2006 @ 12:57pm

137. muddled

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/28/2006 @ 12:57pm

138. Good post, Johannesrolf. Yes indeed. If bin Laden was hiding in Paris, would that warrant a missile sent into Paris? A bunch of white guys, members of a right wing sect, blew up the federal building in Oklahoma ten years ago, I don't notice that there were any mass round ups of those jerks and their followers, or racial profiling of white men driving trucks containing unidentifiable barrels.

     So yes, tell me one more time why people like me should trust this government or its way of doing things, "unitary executives", et al. Don't blame us because a bunch of bible thumping crackers in the south are still too god damn stupid to see when a bullseye has been painted on their own asses.

     Posted by Legba at 01/28/2006 @ 4:13pm

139. you betcha, Legba. we are a divided country, more divided than since at least the McCarthy era. but perhaps we can take solace in the way that turned out. america has a history of giving in to its worst impulses, and then reversing course. it was that way with civil rights too.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/29/2006 @ 12:02am

140. it might be useful to remember that both Saddam and Osama were "our" creation.

     No, bin-Laden wasn't even in charge of al-Qaida during the war against the Russians. He wasn't our creation, he was his own. He chose to embrace the Islamist militancy peddled by Zawahiri and he chose to embark on his career in response to US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Hussein was a Ba'ath creation who took supreme power in 1979. We certainly backed him against Iran but that doesn't make him our creation.

     Frank Thomas, how about if we have some "intelligence" that Bin Laden is hiding in a house, say in France or Germany. send a missile? also america's lies concerning WMD makes ALL intelligence suspect. does that enter into your calculation?

     Paris isn't in the war zone, Afghanistan is. The place in Waziristan that was hit wasn't that far from the border and was in an area where Pakistan doesn't exercise any de facto authority. Further, I've heard that such incursions may have had Musharraf's sotto voce approval. Paris, for example, is in an allied country that is more than capable of moving on al-Qaida personnel within its borders.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/30/2006 @ 11:16am

141. Bruno, nice try, but useless. you do not know whereof you speak' here's from the BBC

     Attacks linked to Bin Laden 1993 World Trade Centre bomb 1996 Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombs 2000 Attack on USS Cole in Yemen Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

     The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

     He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

     that's strike one for you, here comes strike two. if we had not backed Saddam against Iran, Iraq would have lost that war and Saddam would likely have been gone. most countries, when you lose a war, you're fired

     "The place in Waziristan that was hit wasn't that far from the border and was in an area where Pakistan doesn't exercise any de facto authority. Further, I've heard that such incursions may have had Musharraf's sotto voce approval."

     Pakistan is also not a war zone, it is a sovereign country. first you say that Musharaf may have approved the strike, then you say he has no sway over Waziristan. so what's yer point?

     I was using Paris only for literary emphasis, but that may have escaped you. Strike three and yer out.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/31/2006 @ 4:37pm

142. Sorry I haven't been posting and responding much lately, folks. Too much personal mess going on. Anyway, here are my brief 2 coppers on the subject.

     What I find most interesting about the attack in Pakistan (and anywhere else where innocent civilians end up dead at our hands) is the lack of value we place on those lives. It's almost as if we equate those deaths with accidentally dropping a cheap $10 vase, or back into a telephone pole, i.e. no big deal. We as a nation essentially ascribe little to no intrinsic value to the lives or property of anyone or anything which is not American, and specifically US Gov't or US corporate owned.

     Which brings me to another point. I saw Syriana this past weekend finally. While it is technically fictional, I found the overall themes of the film to be quite resonant, and accurately reflects our aggregate national mindset regarding other nations.

     We have essentially lost all sense of value of anything which is not ours (in the abstract), hence when acts like the Pakistan attack occur, we shrug our shoulders and say, well, it's a war, and it was just collateral damage.

     The sooner we realize that we need to respect other nations as much as we supposedly respect ourselves, the sooner this nefarious "War on Terror" farce will end. I don't anticipate this happening anytime in the near future.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/31/2006 @ 4:56pm

143. Jorchy, true enough. I'm sending out good wishes that your personal issues will be rersolved to your satisfaction, always good to read you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/31/2006 @ 6:30pm

144. we always hear about necessary evil, but never about necessary good.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/31/2006 @ 7:32pm

145. JOHANNESROLF:

     Thank you very much. I appreciate your thoughts and kind words.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/31/2006 @ 8:56pm