Raid inside Syria by US SOF huge success (Bill Roggio)

[abdecken5]

If you figure that something is right and is worth dying for, then go for it.

That was basically the attitude of the 9/11 terrorist.

If elements within the US 'knowingly' facilitating said 'negative occurrances' on human beings whom otherwise are trying to go about their daily lives, which may include 'working' for money in order to sustain, protect, or otherwise benefit human life, ie 'innocent' people, then are they legitimate targets too? From the ME perspective some are even willing to live extremely dishonorable lives in order to see them cry. That's what 911 was all about. They would die for that not to happen again. Even if it means having to feed a lot of people Boeing 767/improvised JDAM sandwiches.

And how would you feel if America was occupied and deverstated by a foreign invader in order to deal with this top level "terrorist" minority, becuase America is unable or unwilling to deal with them itself and even supports and harbours them? And how would you react if your home was layed to waste while being used as a magnet to draw out this enemy into open conflict?

You see how your rhetoric was easy to turn around? My point is that 9/11 wasnt just solely becuase they wanted to see Americans cry.

It takes two to tango and war is usually(perhaps always?) the result of failures on both sides. Conflict is however, sometimes a necessary reality. But becuase the innocent almost always suffer, it has to be used as a tool to ultimately save more lives then it costs. My fear is the Iraq war, or the support of Isreal, will not do this, so perhaps it is time to cut our losses.

[abdecken5]

my ethical values are all I've got

If your ethics place you in opposition to Islamic extremists, and citizens of countries that support and harbour them, do your ethics also put you in opposition to Christian fundamentalists, and citizens of nations that support and harbour them? Or, becuase Christian fundamentalists pose not direct harm to you right now, do you not consider them not to be in violation of your ethics and therefor not your enemy?

[meade95]

That was basically the attitude of the 9/11 terrorist.

If elements within the US 'knowingly' facilitating said 'negative occurrances' on human beings whom otherwise are trying to go about their daily lives, which may include 'working' for money in order to sustain, protect, or otherwise benefit human life, ie 'innocent' people, then are they legitimate targets too? From the ME perspective some are even willing to live extremely dishonorable lives in order to see them cry. That's what 911 was all about. They would die for that not to happen again. Even if it means having to feed a lot of people Boeing 767/improvised JDAM sandwiches.

And how would you feel if America was occupied and deverstated by a foreign invader in order to deal with this top level "terrorist" minority, becuase America is unable or unwilling to deal with them itself and even supports and harbours them? And how would you react if your home was layed to waste while being used as a magnet to draw out this enemy into open conflict?

You see how your rhetoric was easy to turn around? My point is that 9/11 wasnt just solely becuase they wanted to see Americans cry.

It takes two to tango and war is usually(perhaps always?) the result of failures on both sides. Conflict is however, sometimes a necessary reality. But becuase the innocent almost always suffer, it has to be used as a tool to ultimately save more lives then it costs. My fear is the Iraq war, or the support of Isreal, will not do this, so perhaps it is time to cut our losses.

Trying to create a moral-equilivence between the United States and that of Islamic Jihidists is simply not dealing with reality. By any and all reasonable measures. For those that think there is.......than there is simply a conflict of visions between these two mindsets, one that all the talking and eloquence in the word isn't going to bring together to mutually agree on anything of substance.......So no need to continue....

Which is exactly why after 9-11 the United States and this Administration recognized on/in the macro-sense (even if not getting everything right on the micro-levels.....which no war has....again on the micro-level one can make a case that WWII was one blunder after another up until the time we...won!)...

But the United States/GWB Administration recognized in the macro-sense we were not at war with just AQ....but with Islamic Jihidists and those Nations supporting them. Now, that doesn't mean you can go to war with each nation simultaeously....or even with all eventually........but it does mean we had to go directly after those elements most threatning (and unstable) along with looking to provide a path/atmosphere for a mass self-deporation away from radical Islam.....(as those nations within the ME, itself, were not going to create such an atmosphere)....and I don't mean by putting mandates down or laws.......but by creating and introducing the value of self-worth (but in order to do so, we were going to have to remove a dictator or two, kill numbers of evil SOBs, show the people of the ME we were willing to suffer and stay the course with them)....through such a process / path......the ability to create an atmosphere that allows people to make their own choice away from radcial Islam (not Islam, mind you), would be possible.

Such a path would provide security (immediately, in the short-term) while also looking to address the long term solutions as well.

This is how you move the ME out from under such Jihidists.......

[costard]

"I lost my quote"

meade95 -

"Trying to create a moral-equilivence between the United States and that of Islamic Jihidists is simply not dealing with reality. By any and all reasonable measures."

Trying to create a moral equivalence is exactly what we're trying to do. The end-point is the peace, where no conflict in morals exists that cannot be managed by means other than war. I would argue that no society does well when it's only recognised political power is that of the military. This highlights the need for other solutions, or combinations. And, perhaps, my morals.

abdecken5 -

"And how would you feel if America was occupied and deverstated by a foreign invader in order to deal with this top level "terrorist" minority, becuase America is unable or unwilling to deal with them itself and even supports and harbours them? And how would you react if your home was layed to waste while being used as a magnet to draw out this enemy into open conflict?"

You describe ours enemies feelings so very well (as Devil's Advocate, of course).

JonS -

"The only real difference is which circumstances are right, proper, moral, ethical, and laudable. And that is different for everyone."

So what is the same is that we can, to some extent, choose our behaviour, can change our values. And that is the same for everyone.

BigDuke6 -

"Point being, ethics and the concept of what is right and wrong - in a particular case do not just come out of whole cloth, they come from a social and historical context. Generally every one agrees killing is bad, but people and cultures differ on when exactly an exception to that basic human value is ok. Failure to acknowledge that reality, that different human societies will view right and wrong differently, and to deal with it somehow, almost inevitably condemns you to enforcing your morals in ignorance on some one who will resist you, fired by his own belief in morals."

Where's the editor when you need him. Moon? - can fix [italics] thingy?

Morals are imposed by social mechanism - dominant behaviours and religious teaching. I.e. the dominant behaviours are taught and learned at the weekly religious meet: in Savannah, in York and in Baghdad. Most large population centres cater adequately to the presence of groups of religions, by and large they live in some sort of harmoney. And we value that money... it tends to grow in peace.

Back to Meade - in the period immediately after 9/11, the American people had the will and the moral right, as seen by most of the rest of the world, to go kick some butt. Had weapons of mass destruction been found, or any evidence of material or financial support for the 9/11 attacks been found and published, the moral right to the instigation of foreign conflict against the nation state of Iraq would have been a non-question - again, to most people's minds. What has been published is the stuff that continues to sell and the Yanks have been running on high adrenalin hate for eight years now, with little to show. No wonder most of them are going for a change in direction - and isn't this exactly what we are trying to change about our enemies?

[JonS]

JonS -

"The only real difference is which circumstances are right, proper, moral, ethical, and laudable. And that is different for everyone."

So what is the same is that we can, to some extent, choose our behaviour, can change our values. And that is the same for everyone.

Where "we" and "our" = "one" in my post, yeah. I agree.

But that implies a fundamentally different approach to solving/fixing/resolving (what are 'we' trying to do in Iraq now? :confused: ) Iraq than many here seem to recognise. It is also, generally, an approach that armies are really, really bad at. They can assist and support, but - again as a general rule - they aren't very good at leading those kinds of approaches.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Western Civilization has lost its moral convictions. We can't even tell the difference between terrorists and NYFD. This is why we are doomed to being overrun by barbarians.

[meade95]

"I lost my quote"

meade95 -

Trying to create a moral equivalence is exactly what we're trying to do. The end-point is the peace, where no conflict in morals exists that cannot be managed by means other than war. I would argue that no society does well when it's only recognised political power is that of the military. This highlights the need for other solutions, or combinations. And, perhaps, my morals.

Completely wrong - Did we create moral equivalences with Nazis? No. Was it needed to end the war? No. Ditto that with Radical Islam (not Islam, but Radical Islam). There is no ability to compromise with such radical elements. They do not want it.

Killing those elements while at the same time helping to create an atmosphere for mass self-deporations away from radical Islam is key to a long term victory over this element / enemy. But killing them (those already leading this cause) is a damn well key part.

[costard]

JonS - 'we' are looking like crazy for good leaders not produced by the army, so that they might design and implement some effective measures. Like political stability and functioning state infrastructure. A big, a FOB ask.

Completely wrong - Did we create moral equivalences with Nazis? No. Was it needed to end the war? No. Ditto that with Radical Islam (not Islam, but Radical Islam). There is no ability to compromise with such radical elements. They do not want it.

Killing those elements while at the same time helping to create an atmosphere for mass self-deporations away from radical Islam is key to a long term victory over this element / enemy. But killing them (those already leading this cause) is a damn well key part.

Well, at the end of the war and the beginning of the peace we did - we stopped killing each other. Behaviours fundamentally changed. Getting to a point where [the Allies] could do that took the combined industrial output of the entire western world, plus the Soviet Union. The US had some enormous percentage of its population either under arms or in wartime production, luxuries were scarce and the investment in the war machine was such that the Manhattan Project, with the equivalent industrial output of the entire US automobile industry in (1930's? my history is shaky here) was blueprinted and built in three years.

It's also useful to look at the casualty figures for both sides for that period - if you're going to do the killing thing, and make the world a better place thereby, bloody well do it already.

I have seen no indication that the American populace is wiling to undergo similar travails in the prosecution of this war on terror, and if it goes hot in Iran and Syria, that's where they'll be.

Changing peoples' belief systems is not easy - why should it be? The biggest help, perhaps, is providing an alternative to some aspects of their beliefs that are not helpful. In some cases, this is nigh on difficult: try to build a society where females have equal rights to pay and property, control over their fertility, political sufferance from the age of eighteen. In Afghanistan. I haven't seen much progress in political theory as it is practised - mostly the media only provides me with saturation coverage of media tarts and dickheads in suits. At least, by the quality of their arguments, they might possibly be viewed as dickheads. But that is our media and my opinion.

I agree that the presence of US and NATO soldiers most probably provides for the security of many people in IraqanStan - I personally, would be much more comfortable being policed by people who spoke my language and had grown up in a similar (broadly, New Testament) set of values as preached. I suspect the same would apply to the peoples of IraqanStan.

I'd like to know if you count Vietnam, by the fact of having a US presence for an extended period, gained from the exposure to the US culture? (I can certainly see some of the positives of the French occupation - the better bakers around here in Melbourne are Vietnamese, the traditions of European bakery coming out in their skills...I digress).

I do agree that the broader US culture has important values to hold up to the world, and proudly so; I don't think we're seeing the best.

WoD - for why you think barbarians would want to overrun you? In this case, the grass is definitely greener over here.

end of ramble

waffle on to the

end of the page

[Pak_43]

But the United States/GWB Administration recognized in the macro-sense we were not at war with just AQ....but with Islamic Jihidists and those Nations supporting them.

But why pick on Iraq then? Was that not one of the most Secular states in the ME at the time? (at least before GW1) If that really was their aim then taking on Iraq makes no sense at all? Iran under that thinking I could understand, but Iraq?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Clavicula_Nox,

I too am an Iraq vet. I served in the Baghdad AO from 2004 to 2005 doing HUMINT at the task force level. I'm not a school trained intel guy, but I worked in that capacity due to my civilian job as an investigator.

I respectively disagree with you with your linkage of Sadr, Iran, and Zarqawi. During the Battle of Holy Week in 2004, we fought a hard fight against both the Shia and Sunni. I believe many people mistakenly thought that this was a coordinated effort between the two groups. What people fail to see is that the battle came about because of two seperate events: The first Battle of Fallujah and the arrest of one of Sadr's top leaders. Both the Shia and Sunni rose up at the same time...the Shia in reaction to the arrest and the Sunni in reaction to the seige of Fallujah. I heard alot of G2 types at division level try to make the argument that the Shia and Sunni actions were coordinated. I believe it was just coincidence. I wish I could elaborate more, but I don't want to violate OPSEC.

My other point is that Zarqawi would have never communicated with Iran or Sadr. He was a strict Wahabi who would have been completely against that. I know the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but it doesn't apply here. Its been my experience that Wahabi's hate Shiites more than any Westerners. Also, how would Zarqawi have met or communicated with Sadr. Its not like he could walk into Sadr city unmolested or look him up in the phone book.

I do agree with you about Zarqawi's limited involvement with AQ. AQ by its own doctrine is a decentralized organization. Zarqawi didn't really come to the Western Media's attention until he started his car bombing campaign along Airport Road (RTE Irish) in the fall of 2004. An arguement could even be made that Zarqawi was a direct challege to OBL's leadership of the "global jihad".

In summary...

Zarqawi, Iran, and Sadr working in concert...no.

Zarqawi working independantly of AQ...definitely yes.

By the way, did you work for an ODA based out of RPC?

I have some notes somewhere regarding the link to Zarqawi, Sadr, and Iran. The biggest argument against their involvement is, as you said, Salafi/Wahabism vs Shi'a Islam. There was already a precedent, however, for the cooperation of Sunni and Shi'a groups established in the 90's by an Al-Qaeda man named Ali-Mohammad who, with Bin Laden, was able to secure a degree of cooperation.

If I recall from my notes, Zarqawi's escape from Afghanistan was facilitated by Iranian agents (whom were operating in collusion with the Northern Alliance, and who's presence was known by the US Military), his escape was also into Iran. Interestingly, there is a great deal of educated speculation that Bin Laden may no longer be in Waziristan, but instead, may be taking refuge in Iran.

Of course, it could all be coincidence, but I'm not so sure. The hallmark of Eastern warfare is deception, and when looked in context, they are following the framework to the letter.

By the way, did you work for an ODA based out of RPC?

I don't know what RPC is, but I was never on an ODA. My detachment was attached to an ODA from 7th Group in Afghanistan, and I in-directly supported one from 10th in 2004, but other than that, we were our own separate entity.

[abdecken5]

I thankyou Mead for complementing the "eloquence" of my assertions. I am trying to be very careful exactly how I express my counter points to test your arguments (which I dont entirely disagree with). For the record, I find this debate quite fascinating and I`ve learned a lot. I have a rule not to talk religion or politics in real life with people becuase it seems to always lead to argument and bring out the worst in folks (plus im no expert) but I have decided to risk it in cyber space, and I dont regret it.

To clarify, I was not trying to create a moral-equilivence between the United States and that of Islamic Jihidists (which I agree is not true), but between American Christian fundamentalists and say Islamic Jihidists in Afghanistan, both of whom support global terrorism. I feel that I've made my point now and I wont labour it. I'm using Christian fundamentalists as an example here becuase of the parallels with Islamic Extremism, but other self-serving parties such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests groups lobbying, influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.

And how would you feel if America was occupied and deverstated by a foreign invader in order to deal with this top level "terrorist" minority, becuase America is unable or unwilling to deal with them itself and even supports and harbours them? And how would you react if your home was layed to waste while being used as a magnet to draw out this enemy into open conflict?

My second point was that I'm trying to humanize some of the enemy, and show that there is a real moral-equilivence.

For instance, I do agree that there is no exclusively military solution to the Iraq/stan situation and to create a stable and secure state governed by its people, that does not represent a strategic threat to free democracies, is a better solution. This is working in the Musa Qala provence of 'stan where a taliban leader has changed sides and is now the district govenor. This could only be achieved by talking to the enemy and finding a moral-equilivence. However other Taliban leaders unreasonably refuse to negotiate becuase of a fundamental "conflict of visions" and bloodshed is a necessary solution. The enemy is a collection of groups, each one requiring a different approach.

however, perhaps it is naive to think we can bring western style democracy to ancient tribal societies by force. It took 100's of years in Europe to evolve our system of government. I do beleive we can win these wars, but only if winning means not losing.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Let me ask this question:

What would anyone say if I, or anyone else, made the claim that Iran controls Iraq, and wields considerable influence in Afghanistan? Would our efforts be seen as a good thing?