The key issue is precision. If they killed a bunch of A-Q lieutenants, I'm all for it. But if they killed a bunch of innocent bystanders...

They did kill a few lieutenants sent by al-Zawahri in his place. I am not blaming our government for trying. This was a fairly good attempt on paper. What I am saying is that in trying for small tactical victories they may be suffering larger strategic defeats. Killing women and children on Eid plays right into the hands of the terrorists.

The key issue is precision. If they killed a bunch of A-Q lieutenants, I'm all for it. But if they killed a bunch of innocent bystanders...

This was a fairly good attempt on paper.

I disagree. This isn't a hot war like WWII, immediate self-defense (e.g. they're firing at a manned plane) or averting an impending terrorist attack. Absent those conditions, killing innocents is immoral. We've posted so many times about two guys mistakenly killed in the U.S. and UK, but killing 30,000 civilians in Iraq and Pakistani villagers we don't even mention. I agree with GGK, we need assassins on the ground, Munich-style.

I agree with GGK, we need assassins on the ground, Munich-style.

As do I. Who knows, maybe we do.

Re: the location of Osama and his main men, it seems like intelligence-wise, the CIA has been flailing for a while now.

I'm all for precision strikes, but as Kosovo and Iraq have shown, they're far less likely to hit intended targets, than test results indicate.

The question then becomes: how much longer is Bushie going to look the other way when dealing with Mushie & Co.? Notwithstanding the fine pickle they've got themselves into, there needs to be a more public effort to recognize that Pakistan is in fact a foremost fomentor of discontent in the region - that might better buttress both their military and humanitarian campaigns.

Did anyone else find it weird that the pic has a poster demanding that the US Army be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Kashmir???? Is the US Army carrying out ops in Pakistani Kasmir?

Is the US Army carrying out ops in Pakistani Kasmir?

Yes. Quake Relief. U.S. helicopters are all over. See the MTV link. That is what makes this so sad.

Is the US Army carrying out ops in Pakistani Kasmir?

some relief work. PS they have been attacked with RPGs for that effort

PS they have been attacked with RPGs for that effort

Really? Can you point to any reports? I blogged about one such incident on SM but it was later retracted. My understanding was that all Kashmiri militant groups had ordered their members to not lay a hand on any aid workers civilian or military.

lesson(s) for next time around -

1) Be careful who you invite for dinner. I sure wish the other side put their Michael Moore's / Cindy Sheehan's on the tele to talk about "blowback" and "look what we've brought upon ourselves." (not that I'm holding my breath).

2) Sovereignty isn't just a right but also carries responsibility -- you've gotta police your internal crap or stand helplessly by when someone else comes in to do it for you.

3) The fog of war means we'll never have 100% precision. Even Munich had many "innocent" victims.

4) Our opponents have a "media wing" (Al Qaeda's, for ex., is partially described here) - My first reaction to seeing Kashmir & Afghanistan conflated was that these guys are in full effect. I'm certainly not quick to assume that the protests were grassroots efforts. It doesn't eliminate the "damage" from an "indelicate" attack but, there's a huge grain of salt. Dubya had a quiver of reasons for going after Iraq but played up the WMD angle as the most media receptive, these guys have a full quiver of tactics for achieving their goals including direct media manipulation.

The fog of war means we'll never have 100% precision.

But we should strive for it.

Even Munich had many "innocent" victims.

This single attack had more collateral damage than Israel's entire operation:

The collateral damage assessment [for the Israeli operation] included: one KGB officer, four PLO security men, one free lance assassin, and two team members. [Link]

Doctors told the AP that at least 17 people died [in the U.S. attack], including women and children, but residents put the death toll at more than 30. [Link]

Not to mention the 30,000 mistakenly killed in Iraq.

Dubya had a quiver of reasons for going after Iraq but played up the WMD angle as the most media receptive...

So you're drawing an equivalence between Dubya's lies about the war with fundie Islamist propaganda? ;)

Killing women and children on Eid plays right into the hands of the terrorists.

Yes Israel does this all the time and this is why they are plagued with regular terrorism. Nothing but bad can come from these kind of missions done openly. Bad PR for the USA.

We need assassins on the ground, Munich-style.

Oh hell yeah. Why doesn't the CIA's special Ops have this already? This is the right solution. Not sending in some unmanned (read cowardly) aircraft to blow up a bunch of houses in a village. Thats realy really bad PR.

I have the feeling that there is a great deal of misinformation in the mainstream reports including BBC and CNN. No foreign militants had been reported in the area, only civilians have been reported to be amongst the dead, the US military in Afghanistan have denied American operations in the area, while the CIA is reported to be responsible for the attacks. ICH argues that this incident is a a side-effect of “spineless Musharraf’s” bowing to Bush and Blair after September 11, and now ‘turning the other cheek’ to receive the aggression of the US.

> America should never stop trying to kill Bin Laden

The problem with America is that it is trying to wage a war on terrorists, but not on terrorism. It's war on specific terrorists like Bin Laden has been a losing battle. And in doing so they're actively fuelling the flame for the war on terrorism. Which they are also losing, sadly, not just for themselves but the entire world.

The way to engage in a war on terror is to seek out the causes for terrorists springing up everyhwere and to kill those CAUSES and educate the terrorists about western / non muslim culture and educate themselves about Islam and the way the world sees each other. Not by trying to take an eye for and eye and act like a big, childish hit man.

Manish - how do you know we don't strive for 100 % accuracy? What's your metric? What's your experience? About the same as mine, I'd gather....

Also, how many of the 30,000 are coalition casualties? Seems every day I hear about another mosque, school, or police station blown up in Iraq. They are not blown up as a result of a stray US bomb, rather, they are the intended target of a suicide bomber.

The same intelligence which "thought" AlZawahiri was coming to feast on kebabs (after tracking him for 2 weeks), now says foreign operatives were hanging around(who?where? no idea) and these are the same men who also had concrete proof of WMD. Frankly, why should anyone of us bother to take anything from such intelligence? It's all crap.

how do you know we don't strive for 100 % accuracy?

Empirically, because we keep killing lots of bystanders and have not switched tactics.

how many of the 30,000 are coalition casualties?

Good point, thanks. I looked it up, and it looks like around 40%, or 11,000. Of course, most of the remainder would not have died if not for this reelection campaign masquerading as a war.

Empirically, because we keep killing lots of bystanders and have not switched tactics.

Even if we strive for 100% and achieve 99%, you're still going to see *some* bystanders killed. You've gotta have a denominator and not just the numerator before passing judgement on the entire system. it's like saying "the stock market sucks" because you've found an instance of a stock downtick.

Good point, thanks. I looked it up, and it looks like around 40%, or 11,000. Of course, most of the remainder would not have died if not for this reelection campaign masquerading as a war.

Your de rigeuer "Bush Lied" point aside, you still need to decide what the baseline is for comparing that 11K number. Iraq ain't Switzerland. 11K dead sucks... BUT, if you look at some comparison stats here-

The Iraqi government now believes that at least 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the last 18 months. In the last ten months, about 800 Iraqi civilians and police have been killed each month. Adding a bit more to account for unreported deaths (especially in Sunni Arab areas where chaos, not the government, runs things) the death rate is running at the rate of about 45 dead per 100,000 population per year.

...During Saddam’s long reign, the Iraqi death rate from democide (the government killing its own people) averaged over 100 per 100,000 a year. . This does not include the several hundred thousand killed during the war with Iran in the 1980s.

...South Africa has a sufficiently effective government to actually keep track of the death rate, mostly from crime, but it’s over 50 per 100,000. It’s worse in places like Congo and Sudan, but the numbers there are only estimates by peacekeepers and relief workers. In southern Thailand, a terror campaign by Islamic radicals has caused a death rate of over 80 per 100,000.

In other news,

Professor Clive Williams from Macquarie University says he has been provided with evidence, by an Indian colleague, to support the theory that bin Laden died of massive organ failure in April last year.

Who is this mysterious all-seeing eye in the East?

Guys, BBC is passe, I prefer Cryptome

A good book that came out a couple of weeks ago that covers the political and issues involved in tracking Bin Laden and his ilk is "Jawbreaker" by Gary Berntsen.

The CIA has been hamstrung by incompetent bureaucrats unable to understand the situation on the ground. Berntsen talks about how Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora because of a risk averse mentality where nobody wanted to put U.S troops on the ground in large numbers. As one of the previous posters said, without a ground initiative, it is going to be literally a shot in the dark to hope that this war will be won by high tech means. Ultimately I think it will come down to a spec ops operative in the right place at the right time positively identifying Bin Laden or Zawahiri through a telescopic sight.

DDA, man that report is so full of laughable neither-here-nor-there statements. I guess ABC Australia just wanted to fill up some blank space..and their reporter happened to be in the same bar as this prof. :)

17 poor villages fucking blown away and leave it to your right wing mutineers to dissect the killings as a numbers game and and as usual give us some inane perspective on relative number of deaths under Saddam.
So now our new achievement is that we are not 'killing as many civilians as Saddam was'. Hoorah! Freedom is on da march and our freedom bandwagon has a license plate which says 'we wont kill you in the same numbers that your own dictator does'. So let me put on my red white and blue sweatshirt, hop on to the computer and add some perspective because God forbid if somebody mourns the death of the Pakis and wonder if the CIA could have exercised more caution.

Iraq ain't Switzerland

Ha! the man says its not Switzerland. In our stock exchange of human life the P/E for an Iraqi is shit compared to the P/E for a Swiss.
Of course, we will ignore the total number of deaths because of the occupation because that skews the numbers. If the relative number game is to prove whether the occupation made the life better or worse, why should we not compare the total deaths versus the total deaths under Saddam?

Manish - how do you know we don't strive for 100 % accuracy? What's your metric? What's your experience? About the same as mine, I'd gather....

The metric is the dead Iraqis and the Afghanis who keep getting mowed down because they like shooting guns at their weddings.

Even if we strive for 100% and achieve 99%, you're still going to see *some* bystanders killed.

Lets be clear here. This is not a case of Michal Moore Inc. demanding 100% efficiency from the United States Military/CIA.

The choice is not between insisting 100% efficiency or retreat from war. The choice is between the calculus that goes into deciding whether to blow away a couple of houses in Pakistan because it has Zawahiri in it/ blow away a 'gathering' from air because shots are being fired from the ground OR whether we exercise restraint and not drop da bomb unless we are 100% sure that civilians will not be killed especially when their is no immediate threat to us.

There are other ways to kill or capture Zawahiri. This is not a choice between whether we should kill a terrorist standing with a suitcase bomb ready to blow up NY or whether we should try to arrest him.
If you are not 100% sure that Zawahiri is not there, then exercise caution and live to kill Zawahiri another day.

No one blames the poor 18 year old grunt from Bethleham, Pa for killing a bystander when he was being shot from 3 directions in the armpit of Fallujah.
What we do blame is the F-16 bomber who drops a 2,000 lb because he saw some sparks which looked like people shooting in the air. This is not self defense. When there is no threat to the F-16 they shouldnt be dropping bombs unless they are 100% sure, especially when the war is over.

What we blame is the calculus used to weigh the life of a Paki against the stategic importance of killing Zawahiri. If the ONLY way to kill Zawahiri was to kill him with a bunch of Paki civilians then maybe the calculus will make more sense. Here, its a question of convenience: We think Zawahiri is there, but we are not sure and we might end up killing 20 Pakis. So lets go ahead and drop the bomb.

I am referring to 'we' as people who agree with me.

You've gotta have a denominator and not just the numerator before passing judgement on the entire system.

This is analogous to the issue of mistaken executions. In the absence of immediate danger, when innocent lives are at stake, it's only the numerator that counts.

Saying we're only killing half as many as Saddam killed is setting an inanely low bar, and at its root is a conversion factor on the worth of an Iraqi life which is WAY less than for a Western one. How long would killing this many bystanders be tolerated if the operations took place in America? We've blogged like nine times about one dead Brazilian guy because it took place in London. Here you've got 20x the number of dead bystanders, and you're giving me actuarial tables on the worth of a life, like Ford and the tobacco industry.

This is analogous to the issue of mistaken executions. In the absence of immediate danger, when innocent lives are at stake, it's only the numerator that counts.

Exactly!

DDA, man that report is so full of laughable neither-here-nor-there statements. I guess ABC Australia just wanted to fill up some blank space..and their reporter happened to be in the same bar as this prof. :)

Right on Suhail. Hence my obviously tabloidlike comments.

What we do blame is the F-16 bomber who drops a 2,000 lb because he saw some sparks which looked like people shooting in the air. This is not self defense. When there is no threat to the F-16 they shouldnt be dropping bombs unless they are 100% sure, especially when the war is over.

Then we have situations like this one chronicled by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker:

The latest evidence of a parallel comes from Seymour Hersh in the most recent issue of the New Yorker. Hersh reports that US military intelligence had located Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, and failed to take him out. When CIA officials spotted Omar via a Predator spy-drone, they had to go through at least two bureaucratic layers before General Tommy Franks, who as commander-in-chief of the US Army Central Command (CENTCOM) oversees the Afghan operation, rejected it on the advice of — get this — his legal adviser. " Instead, the Predator was authorized to fire a missile in front of the building [where Omar was hiding] — ‘bounce it off the front door,’ one officer said, ‘and see who comes out, and take a picture.’ " Oxymoron: Military intelligence

Interesting to see the US borrowing tactics from Israel, i.e. targeted assassinations on Hamas leaders during the second intifada. Evidence actually shows that these attacks did reduce suicide bombings, but was it worth adding to existing ill will, hate, & distrust? Maybe...if in the end it brings about an opportunity for peace.

Given that Osama Bin Laden has probably shaven his beard and could very well be sitting on a beach chair sipping a mai tai in Peshawar or Baluchistan at this moment, maybe this was a good thing. And Musharaff hasn't shown the ability to control these areas. In fact, has any other Pakistani leader? Not to discount the legitimate discontents of the Muslim world, but maybe if these regions had been controlled during the 80's and the 90's, 9/11 never would have happened. Then again, I believe we (the US) did send some school supplies to Peshawari madrassahs in the 80's (probably not colored pencils & Rambo lunchboxes).

Of course Islamists in Pakistan are already at the boiling point and every day Musharaff stays alive seems like good news to me, despite his many failings. But the benefits of this kind of activity, even if there is only 99% accuracy, will not only prove beneficial to Londoners on the tube, or Americans wherever they may be, but to the increasing number of Iraqis of all brands who are desperately fighting against the Al-Quaeda led insurgency and the wide majority of Muslims who do not support violent means of political change for practical and religious principles. I'm not saying that one life can easily be forgotten, or that the attitude that an American life is worth any number of non-American lives isn't completely unacceptable or morally repulsive. But...this is a war.

And it seems a bit unjust to compare this to the "fog of war" when I believe that term referred to American strategies that killed millions of Southeast Asians and Japanese, and for which I hope Robert McNamara finds an uncomfortable place in the hottest region of hell. Indeed, that was a holocaust that should be given more attention in high school history books and that does not easily draw comparisons.

Sadly, the fact that I am of Indian origin and I'm justifying an attack on Pakistan robs me of all credibility.

Our opponents have a "media wing"

Of course, Bush has a media wing or two himself.

This is analogous to the issue of mistaken executions. In the absence of immediate danger, when innocent lives are at stake, it's only the numerator that counts.

well, if you're only dealing with numerators, then I guess mathematically, every decision for you becomes binary 0 or 1. Alas, the real world isn't, uh, binary.

Saying we're only killing half as many as Saddam killed is setting an inanely low bar, and at its root is a conversion factor on the worth of an Iraqi life which is WAY less than for a Western one

no, what I'm saying is that we've gone in and we've INCREASED the value of an iraqi life vs. what it was before. And hopefully, that trendline will continue....

I suppose you're a glass is half empty sort of dude when it comes to stuff like this and won't stop claiming total failure until the casualty rate in Iraq is the same as in Detroit (40/100,000 (violent crimes, not neces. deaths... but you get the picture)? Unfortunately, the world isn't quite so.... binary.

Those people who are striking on the streets have too much time on their hands, they should help the victims of the earthquake, the protesters are a bunch of chickens.

Interesting to see the US borrowing tactics from Israel, i.e. targeted assassinations on Hamas leaders during the second intifada. Evidence actually shows that these attacks did reduce suicide bombings, but was it worth adding to existing ill will, hate, & distrust? Maybe...if in the end it brings about an opportunity for peace.

The assissinations didn't really quell the suicide bomings. Bending on Gaza by Sharone and Arafat's death leading to internal changes and the Sharm al Sheikh summit eventually did.

The second intifada killed more children on both sides. Oslo and hardliner Netenyahu put an end to the first one but did it ever really go away and calm the emotions of the Palestinians. Also the lull between the two intifadas was a result of multiple issues, change in attitudes of neighbors and shifts in strategies within the PLO and Israeli army. The rhetoric calmed down but the sentiments have never gone away.

Hatred of this level is deep rooted in history and propoganda keeps it going. Targeted assisinations when NOT done right (Israel for the most part has been doing it "right") are only going to perpetuate the hatred while not really getting the target.

Personally I think it's bullshit that the CIA doesn't know where bin Laden or Zarquawi is. How is that even possible????

Why must Bush supporters also support the empirial project in Iraq? One of the justification for Iraq was that its 'possible'. How arrogant. Anyways, If Bush hadnt engaged in this tactically stupid (and unjust) war in Iraq, targetted assasinations in Pakistan wouldnt have created any noise, even from the farthest left side.

Afterall, Al Queda did attack the US and that war is going on. Since they have declared war on US (and incidently even India) they strike without care for collateral damage. So, when response (from the US) causes collateral damage, its hardly unfair. (for example: Ask, the family of the professors who got shot in IISc Bangalore) But Bush's idiotic war is fucking up the real war.

Porter Goss on why US cant go after sin laden [link]

In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice. ... when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.

I seem to be thinking along the same lines as AlMfD on this issue.

The problem here isn't their end-goal or the motivations for conducting the war against Al-Qaeda, but the methods which are being deployed. If you wish to maintain any level of "ethical authority" or moral high ground, then your own conduct and military techniques need to be above reproach.

In that sense, the very modern notion of "collateral damage" is completely unacceptable, unless it is unas a very last resort and in most extreme circumstances (ideally, not even then). If such incidents are occurring regularly, then a) you need to amend your battlefield tactics, and b) plough more money and resources into military R&D to develop more precise (ie. more "surgical") weaponry.

And yes, killing civilians is just going to add fuel to the fire and drive people into the arms of the fanatics.

*unless it is unas a very last resort

Obvious typo, should read: "unless it is as a very last resort"

Unfortunately, the world isn't quite so.... binary.

This is quite rich coming from the side which supports ... "You are either with us or against us".

An update:

"The final results of from the airstrike in the Pakistani border town of Damadola are now known. In addition to Abu Khabab al-Masri, who was al-Qaeda’s chief bomb maker, head of the WMD program, and former terror camp commander, two other al-Qaeda commanders were killed in the strike. ABC News confirms that Khalid Habib [or Khaled al-Harbi] and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi perished in the attack."

"The meeting in Damadola was a high value target of opportunity which could not be passed up. U.S. intelligence took the risk, pulled the trigger and bagged three senior al-Qaeda commanders. Masri, Habib, and al-Magrabi have been removed from the chain of command, and must be replaced by junior operatives who possess neither their stature, experience or connections. Al-Qaeda has been weakened."

...Seems that our intelligence wasn't so bad after all. But does anyone really think that this updated story on the "CIA intelligence blunder," which actually reports a huge success in the war, will make as much news as all those previous, incendiary "bombing of innocent civilians" headlines?

Ha.

Links:
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=334
http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/01/alqaeda-commanders-almagrabi-a/

... a huge success in the war...

A 4:18 target:collateral kill ratio (18%) is only considered a success by the standards of an air war. In the meantime you've created 18 more families deeply pissed off at the U.S. and marching with 'Death to America' and 'Jihad jihad' banners in Peshawar.

The whole issue of "ethical warfare" is a fairly loaded topic.....

It all comes down to what one's priorities are. If your cause is just, then should you also restrict your warfare strategy & tactics to "righteous means" ?

If not, then surely one risks losing any moral authority, indeed credibility, in the struggle. Not to mention the corrosive effect on one's own psyche.

It's a tough question: Do you aim for victory at all costs, even if it involves breaching the boundaries of what one would normally regard as ethical behaviour, or do you "draw the line" somewhere and thereby risk defeat and possible death, along with potentially disastrous consequences for the people you seek to protect ?

Do you fight the Mughals and risk being on the receiving end of torture and genocide (Sikhs), or do you reluctantly join forces with them in order to secure your own survival and to prevent any aggression against your citizens (most Rajput states) ?

Do you restrict your warfare to military personnel and sites only (even if the enemy doesn't), or do you inflict mass bombings against civilian locations as well (most modern warfare post-WW2 inclusive) ?

Do you torture prisoners in order to extract information from them, or do you refuse to do so, even though your refusal may cost lives ?

What are your priorities, your "higher goals", the "big picture" ? Is it purely "survival", or something more ?

Breaching ethical boundaries which you know are wrong, especially if they involve attacks against civilians or sadism/torture, can be a corrosive course of action to take and corrupts the perpetrator internally, even if they find ways to justify/rationalise their actions and motives in the name of "the higher purpose".

Some things are more important than victory, and some things are worse than death.

Questions which can be raised at this point include:

--What should have been the appropriate target:collateral kill:families-deeply-pissed-off ratio?
--Shouldn't the ratio be: target:collateral kill:families-deeply-pissed-off:American-families-who-would-be-deeply-pissed-off-if-the attack-didn't-take-place-or-took-place-using-a-method-which-caused-US-casualties

Considering these and other variables/constraints, I think that the attack was a success...others will disagree

Considering these and other variables/constraints, I think that the attack was a success...

You think it's a success only because it didn't take place on U.S. soil. If this were a hostage situation in the U.S., and all were killed-- 4 hostage-takers and 18 hostages-- you'd think the authorities screwed up as bad as the Russians.

"You think it's a success only because it didn't take place on U.S. soil. If this were a hostage situation in the U.S., and all were killed-- 4 hostage-takers and 18 hostages-- you'd think the authorities screwed up as bad as the Russians"

I would have to agree...other variables/constraints do include location; the further away from me, the more successful I would think it is :) ...is that such a bad thing?

the further away from me, the more successful I would think it is :) ...is that such a bad thing?

What's your personal exchange rate from dead innocent Americans to dead innocent Pakistanis? A three-fifths compromise?

"...A three-fifths compromise?"

Trying the race card now?...I'll raise you:

Putting the ugly racism of the 3/5 compromise aside, the 3/5 compromise states that the life of a free men is worth more than an unfree man's, and, in the context of a war, I would have to agree. So yes, in a war, if I had to make the choice of ending the life of a civilian member of a free country as opposed to a civilian member in, let's say, a enemy dictatorship, I would choose to end the life of the latter. Your turn now: Is location not a variable in your equation? Where would you rather have the war fought? South Dakota? What's your exchange rate?

if I had to make the choice of ending the life of a civilian member of a free country as opposed to a civilian member in, let's say, a enemy dictatorship, I would choose to end the life of the latter

Why is that?

Lets see:

-Civilians in a dictatorship often, unfortunately, are more likely to be a tool/instrument of the regime, and in the case of an enemy dictatorship, that's bad
--Unfortunate as it may be to end the life of an innocent civilian, the responsibility ultimately lies with the government whose role was to protect him; sadly, un-free goverments often don't take that responsibility
--Also, though we are assuming innocent civilians in this case, the innocence of a civilian is more difficult to confirm/assume in an enemy government

Do you know any reasons why civilians of an enemy government should be given higher priority than your fellow citizens in a war, how that war could be won, and actually, why that war should even be fought in the first place? I'm curious.

I would have to agree...other variables/constraints do include location; the further away from me, the more successful I would think it is :) ...is that such a bad thing?

It's not exactly the most idealistic philosophy to aspire to. Let me flip this around:

"A believer's life is worth more than an infidel's."

"An able-bodied person's life is worth more than the life of someone mentally and/or physically handicapped."

"A rich, powerful man's life is worth more than the life of a poor man."

You get the idea. We do not want to go down this particular way of thinking. Nobody's life is worth more than another's, no matter what, and regardless of how one may attempt to rationalise or justify it.

Unfortunate as it may be to end the life of an innocent civilian, the responsibility ultimately lies with the government whose role was to protect him; sadly, un-free goverments often don't take that responsibility

Which is exactly why one should not attempt to shirk one's own responsibility and say "it's their government's fault". Innocent people should not have to pay the price for the actions/ideologies of their corrupt and/or tyrannical rulers.

Do you know any reasons why civilians of an enemy government should be given higher priority than your fellow citizens in a war,

Not higher priority -- equal priority. Why ? Simple -- the fundamental unity of the entire human race and the fundamental value each human life has, regardless of their location and status in the world.

how that war could be won,

-Superb strategic & tactical military planning & execution
-Charismatic, brilliant, ethical, and inspirational leadership
-Choose the right people to do the job
-Use only ethical tactics: fight the right battle for the right reasons, with the right people and using the right methods
-Do not attack civilians, do not torture or abuse prisoners, do not rape or mistreat women, do not engage in the concept of "group guilt/collective responsibility", use the minimum required force in each situation (no more, no less), and do not be driven by hatred, arrogance, vengeance, or anger.

and actually, why that war should even be fought in the first place? I'm curious.

-Only in self-defence or to protect a vulnerable, innocent third-party from unwarranted aggression.
-Not to gain territory, resources, or wealth.
-And certainly not for "believer vs. infidel/heathen" reasons, especially if you think that killing members of other religions is somehow going to win you "bonus points" for getting into heaven.

"It's not exactly the most idealistic philosophy to aspire to. Let me flip this around:"

It is idealistic...it's based on my rational self interest, and as I said before, that not a bad thing

As for the rest of what you say, you dropped the context of this disscussion entirely: we are talking about the context of war, where a tough choice may have to be made, where priorities actually have to be assessed, and where innocent civilians unfortunately do die, no matter hard one tries and how much care is taken. And of course there is a "fundamental value [of] each human life... regardless of their location and status in the world" If everybody believed that, there would be no war in the first place, and no discussion would be necessary. Look at the discussion again; this discussion is deeper than the fact that "charismatic, brilliant, ethical, and inspirational leadership, etc. is necessary" and that fact that war should "be in self-defense and not to gain territory, resources, or wealth." The context is already defined, so if you have anything substantial/illumating to add, let me know.

(an interesting and substantial point of view on the subject can be found here:
http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/109692.html )

PCM,

Every single thing I included in my previous post has real-life precedents -- individuals and groups espousing exactly this mindset, and engaged in warfare for exactly the reasons I stated, using exactly those military strategies. We're not talking about purely hypothetical scenarios. Successfully achieving victory using ethical warfare tactics, combined with the aim to "win hearts & minds", is not a new idea.

It is idealistic...it's based on my rational self interest, and as I said before, that not a bad thing

You may well be able to rationalise your view that one life is worth more than another, and possibly that the ends justify the means, but engaging in such self-serving arguments still doesn't mean it's necessarily the morally-correct attitude to take -- even if you've managed to convince yourself otherwise.

an interesting and substantial point of view on the subject can be found here: http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/109692.html

Interesting article, but again: very self-serving logic. It also veers dangerously into the kind of mindset followed by OBL/Al-Qaeda (and their supporters), ie. espousing "collective responsibility/group guilt", and that citizens of enemy states should also suffer for the perceived crimes of their leaders.

My original arguments still stand.

"It also veers dangerously into the kind of mindset followed by OBL/Al-Qaeda (and their supporters), ie. espousing "collective responsibility/group guilt", and that citizens of enemy states should also suffer for the perceived crimes of their leaders."

I find my "mindset" (aka philosophic standing) the exact opposite than of collectivism or Islamofascism. My "mindset" ultimately derives from my rational, individual self interest, not Allah's, society's, etc. Its derived from my responsibility to secure my liberty in response to a government that had stepped beyond its proper bounds by violating my individual rights, and even the rights of its own innocent civilians.

...and if a rational self interest, is, according to you, not the morally correct position in a war, than I am guessing you must be, in reality, against targeted missle and bomb attacks against enemies in civilian areas of any kind, even in World War II. And, in this war, since terrorists are often in civilian areas, we should pretty much do away with bombs of any kind. Am I right? If so, fair enough.

Jai is a good example of the degeneration and collapse of the post-modern left:

"Nobody's life is worth more than another's, no matter what, and regardless of how one may attempt to rationalise or justify it."

No life is valued above any other... not a cop above Ted Bundy's, not yours or mine over Osama's. Note what's missing in this picture - any form of moral distinction. The cloaking of the view in a pious faux-morality that demands a perfection (cynically known in advance to be unrealistic) tends to hide this, until one considers the implications.

The notable fact that this leaves one as the undefended prey of any and every human predator out there is glossed over by this professed view, and may even be a feature rather than a bug for those who espouse it.

Jai is a good example of the degeneration and collapse of the post-modern left:

The notable fact that this leaves one as the undefended prey of any and every human predator out there is glossed over by this professed view, and may even be a feature rather than a bug for those who espouse it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm a Sikh; do some research on Sikh history, the affiliated saint-soldier ideal, and (most importantly) the life and actions of a certain gentleman called Guru Gobind Singh (who lived and died by exactly the kind of military/humanitarian principles I've described in my last few posts here), and you'll be able to place my views into their proper context.

Every single thing I've said is fundamentally part of the Khalsa (google it) ethos on achieving victory via ethical warfare. And, as I mentioned earlier, there are major precedents for this along with a number of current world events.

I trust that this will clear up any confusion that may be present.....

Let me briefly supplement the message above with a well-known quote by the person I have mentioned regarding the use of force:

"In a righteous cause, when all other ethical means have been exhausted, it is lawful to draw the sword".

My point is that it is not violence per se which is immoral; in fact, in certain situations it is the only possible solution. However, what is important is the reason for using it and the methods by which it is deployed (ie. the means are as important as the ends).

" 'In a righteous cause, when all other ethical means have been exhausted, it is lawful to draw the sword' ...My point is that it is not violence per se which is immoral; in fact, in certain situations it is the only possible solution"

Fine then, let's "place your views into their proper context": war, with terrorists in civilian areas of an enemy country

...if your 'sword' is the bomb, then a discussion wasn't necessary.

Fine then, let's "place your views into their proper context": war, with terrorists in civilian areas of an enemy country

Pakistan is nominally an ally. This operation would've been a CIA body snatch if conducted in Europe, but because it's in a less-developed country, we just lob a missile. Imprecise and racist.

Good point, but I'm guessing a CIA 'body snatch' in Europe sounds less risky than in the northern regions of Pakistan. Anyway, the context was "war, with terrorists in civilian areas of an enemy country", and I'm still wondering what the 'sword' is, according to the Khalsa ethos.

"This operation would've been a CIA body snatch if conducted in Europe, but because it's in a less-developed country, we just lob a missile. Imprecise and racist."

It's racist to attack a less developed country? Didn't know that.

PCM means pico-cranial mind? Didn't know that.

Enlighten me then

...if your 'sword' is the bomb, then a discussion wasn't necessary.

and I'm still wondering what the 'sword' is, according to the Khalsa ethos.

The 'sword' is a metaphor for the use of force. The exact weaponry depends on the specific situation.

Manish has actually inadvertantly summarised my own viewpoint (and, incidentally, the Khalsa teachings in this matter) in his new thread "Tactics". The key point is precision. You utilise every possible means to deal with the situation while minimising the risk to innocent, unarmed civilians caught in the crossfire. Which means special ops units, siege tactics, and so on. More difficult than just indiscriminately firing a missile/dropping a bomb, certainly, but more ethical, and in the long-run it's a hell of a lot more effective.

Maintaining the higher moral ground (irrespective of how far into the gutter the enemy goes with regards to their own ruthlessness) has the following effects:

1. Does not drive otherwise-neutral parties into the arms of the enemy;
2. Undermines the enemy's credibility with regards to any "greater morality" they may claim with regards to the ideology they are promoting or claiming to represent;
3. Maintains your own credibility as a "force for good";
4. Maintains the clarity of one's own thinking and judgement.

It's racist to attack a less developed country? Didn't know that.

It's racist if you use heavy-handed tactics that you certainly would not deploy under similar circumstances in either your own country or in another "developed" nation, especially if one believes that their lives are worth less than your own purely as a result of their underdeveloped status.

The latter is a dangerous step towards the road to fascism -- which is particularly pertinent in view of PCM's own views on his blog that concepts such as altruism and caring for the needy are "evil".

"This operation would've been a CIA body snatch if conducted in Europe, but because it's in a less-developed country, we just lob a missile. Imprecise and racist."

It's racist to attack a less developed country? Didn't know that.

As Manish explains pretty clearly, differential tolerance for collateral casualties is racist. A third world life should be worthy of the same regard as a first world one.

Pakistan is nominally an ally. This operation would've been a CIA body snatch if conducted in Europe, but because it's in a less-developed country, we just lob a missile. I

"Maintaining the higher moral ground (irrespective of how far into the gutter the enemy goes with regards to their own ruthlessness) has the following effects"

At least we now agree now that a moral distinction has to be made before even a very precise action, which is quite different than what you said before: Nobody's life is worth more than another's, no matter what, and regardless of how one may attempt to rationalise or justify it . "No matter what" means "irregardless of context."

You mention the term "indiscriminate firing of a missile/dropping a bomb"...well, that's exactly what would happen if you don't make a moral distinction. Anyway, the more interesting question is, and which is the question we have ultimately been discussing all along, is: what is the moral distinction between yourself, innocent civilians of your own country, and innocent civilians of an enemy government, in the context of a war?

And by the way, I see your point when you mention people who "believe that their lives are worth less than your own purely as a result of their underdeveloped status", but that's not "racism"; I think you may be confusing it with another term.

And, by the way, "caring for the needy = "evil""? Where'd I say that? And before you misrepresent me any further, what's your definition of altruism? Make your definition clear: is it the same as mine?
Heres a definition I agree with: http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Altruism.html

At least we now agree now that a moral distinction has to be made before even a very precise action, which is quite different than what you said before: Nobody's life is worth more than another's, no matter what, and regardless of how one may attempt to rationalise or justify it . "No matter what" means "irregardless of context."

No, you misinterpreted my earlier statement. "No matter what" means that one human's intrinsic worth is fundamentally the same as another's, and that you should not diminish the worth of foreign citizens in enemy territory purely because they live in distant locations. However, this should not stop one from using appropriate means to stop a malicious individual from terrorising/persecuting/attacking you or another innocent third-party. The point is that the extent of the response should be in proportion to the transgression, limited to the extent required to prevent the attacker from continuing their malicious actions (in the most extreme cases this limit will of course be "terminal", especially in the context of warfare), and not cross the line into excessive brutality or sadism. And, as repeatedly mentioned previously, you go out of your way to make sure that unarmed, innocent civilians are not injured, ie. no collateral damage, and certainly no "collective guilt" or "guilt by association".

Anyway, the more interesting question is, and which is the question we have ultimately been discussing all along, is: what is the moral distinction between yourself, innocent civilians of your own country, and innocent civilians of an enemy government, in the context of a war?

There is no moral distinction.

May I remind you that Osama Bin Laden uses exactly the kind of logic stipulated in the earlier lionk you supplied in order to justify 9/11 and continued Al-Qaeda-affiliated attacks (and threats) against civilians.

And, by the way, "caring for the needy = "evil""? Where'd I say that?

Topic: Interpretations.

Extract: "the philosophic axis of evil: altruism, collectivism, and mysticism. In India, these ideas have created a culture of extortion, anti-individualism, and dehumanization."

1. You're ignoring the fact that Indian society isn't necessarily based on the contents of the Bhagavat Gita, and hasn't been for a very long time indeed. Moreover, there have been huge cultural influences from other, originally non-Indian groups and religions over the past 1000 years. Blaming everything that's wrong with Indian society on the Gita is the wrong conclusion to make.
2.

(Extract continued):

"These ideas have trickled down through the generations and have created a herd mentality, ultimately making each human being a disposable, expendable member of a collective group (Mother nature, a race/ethnic/tribal group, the needy, etc.).

These ideas have not been supported by any scientific examination of what each human being needs and requires in order to live in this world happily and successfully."

This is completely wrong. There are multiple scientific sources available to refute your statement, but here's a good paper which gives a particularly thorough answer: http://biology.binghamton.edu/dwilson/Wilson%20publications/DSW01.pdf

Pages 11 (near the bottom) onwards are particularly relevant.

what's your definition of altruism? Make your definition clear: is it the same as mine? Heres a definition I agree with: http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Altruism.html

The definition you have referenced is an excessively black-&-white interpretation of altruism. An interesting discussion with some alternative definitions can be found here.

My own definition ? The following two from the quoted website:

being helpful to other people with little or no interest in being rewarded for one's efforts (the colloquial definition). This is distinct from merely helping others.

an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help others, if necessary to the exclusion of one's own interest or benefit. One who holds such a doctrine is known as an "altruist."

However, altruism in the Sikh context would be the most accurate description of my own interpretation of the concept. You would have to understand the basic tenets of the faith along with some of the history in order to understand what this precisely involves.

"disposable, expendable member of a collective group (Mother nature, a race/ethnic/tribal group, the needy, etc.)."

"caring for the needy" and becoming a disposable, expendable member of a collective group such as the needy are very different things. And evidence has also shown that becoming a disposable, expendable member of anything does not allow a human being live in this world happily and successfully, especially when humans are recognized as entities who are different from animals. As far as your article is concerned, the differences between ecological/ecological/evolutionary definitions of altruism vs. the definition I provided gets into a very different discussion altogether than the one we have been having (though I have to admit, it would be a very interesting discussion!) But back to the point: since you were quoting my blog without using the definition that I assume in blog, it was a misrepresentation nonetheless.

"You're ignoring the fact that Indian society isn't necessarily based on the contents of the Bhagavat Gita, and hasn't been for a very long time indeed. Moreover, there have been huge cultural influences from other, originally non-Indian groups and religions over the past 1000 years. Blaming everything that's wrong with Indian society on the Gita is the wrong conclusion to make"

More misrepresentations? I do not blame everying that's wrong with Indian society on the Gita, but rather saying that certain philosophical interpretations of the Gita, when manifested in reality, have not had a positive effect on the country. I see the Gita with a lot more positive potential for the country if a more individualistic interpretation of the book is made.

"You would have to understand the basic tenets of the faith along with some of the history in order to understand what this precisely involves"

I am thinking that you have to understand the basic tenets of my philosophic standing in order to understand what this precisely involves, too.

Jai: You say that there is no moral distinction between your life, innocent civilians of your own country, and innocent civilians of an enemy government, in the context of a war.

Ah, now that gets to the real crux of the matter: In a war where terrorists hide within the civilian population, giving these civilians the same exact moral regard as your own life makes the war unwinnable. If the risk of killing a civilian, who you value as much as yourself, carries the same risk as killing yourself, then why fight in the first place?

In other words, since values are that which we seek to achieve or maintain according to our life as the standard of evaluation, and if someone elses life also equally becomes the standard in our evaluation, as you seem to think, we should be seeking to maintain his life just as much as ours. So why fight to preserve what I value (my life)?

...This war requires your life to be of the ultimate value, not the life of a random innocent civilian of an enemy country (that is, if you want to win the war).

PCM,

I apologise if your actual intentions were different to what you seemed to be inferring in your blog. However, it may be worthwhile for you to perhaps be more specific in future when there are potentially multiple definitions of certain terms (eg. altruism), in order to prevent any misunderstandings by other parties reading your blog (which, incidentally, is very well-written, even though I obviously don't agree with several of the major points you make there).

Jai: You say that there is no moral distinction between your life, innocent civilians of your own country, and innocent civilians of an enemy government, in the context of a war.

Not quite -- note that I edited your quote in my previous post. I did not mention "my own life" as a theoretical combatant --- I was referring only to unarmed civilians on both sides.

...This war requires your life to be of the ultimate value, not the life of a random innocent civilian of an enemy country (that is, if you want to win the war).

No. If your cause is just, then the continuation of your own life is more important than that of an enemy combatant, assuming that you are fighting him in self-defence or to protect the lives of innocent parties that the enemy combatant is attacking. However, the life of an innocent civilian is not yours to take and must be protected as far as possible, because he is not fighting you.

Let me wrap this up with a pertinent historical example (I suspect you may think that "times have changed" and that this analogy isn't necessarily relevent, but we'll have to agree to disagree there). Guru Gobind Singh was engaged in protracted armed conflict with the military-political authorities of the Mughal Empire in order to protect Sikhs from a genocidal "convert or die" jihad, and simultaneously to prevent the rest of the Indian population from being forcibly converted to Islam. The soldiers which eventually comprised his army consisted of ordinary men and women, up against fanatical professional soldiers from what was then one of the most powerful military, political and economic superpowers on the planet. The Empire was also ruled at the time by someone with an identical ideology to OBL -- imagine OBL at the head of the unified Middle Eastern caliphate that he dreams of, with all the associated resources at his disposal, and you'll get the idea. Nevertheless, the Sikh armies, headed by Guru Gobind Singh, used exactly the same tactics and mindset that I have been describing on this thread, were engaged in 14 major battles and lost only 2 of them -- which is a success rate approaching 90%. Now, I wouldn't expect you (or any other non-Sikh) to be concerned with the religious angle here, but even looked at from a purely military or historical perspective, that makes the Guru a truly brilliant military strategist and "leader of men", considering the type of people who were his "raw material", the ethical warfare tactics he used (even though the enemy combatants and their leaders had no such scruples -- they had no problem with the idea of deliberatly killing civilians, including children, along with engaging in horrific torture and espousing the policy of "collective guilt/guilt by association"), and the fact that not only did enemy historians concede to his higher moral credibility, large numbers of Muslims actually joined forces with him to fight against what they perceived as a morally-corrupt jihad, and there were even instances of senior Mughal generals switching sides in the middle of battles because of the righteousness of his cause and the impeccable ethics of his actions both on the battlefield and off it (including the Khalsa's treatment of wounded/dying enemy soldiers, along with innocent civilians on the "enemy" side).

Despite the bloodshed on both sides, the Guru never gave up attempting to make the fanatical Emperor understand why he was wrong and to try to achieve a peaceful resolution, and eventually Aurangzeb did "see the light" and ceased hostilities, along with simultaneously admitting that his jihadist ideology and campaign had been misguided and morally wrong all along. So, the moral of the story is that, while we cannot guarantee that OBL and his fellow jihadists will "definitely" take the same route as their Mughal predecessors, these things are achievable and there are notable precedents -- but it requires the right leaders, with the right soldiers, and using the right tactics. You could say that Guru Gobind Singh was a superb example of someone engaged in a truly just war but using morally-impeccable tactics, and simultaneously ensuring that "winning hearts and minds" was also part of their overall technique (although this was done primarily for altruistic reasons -- "the bigger picture" -- rather than as part of a coldly-calculated gameplan).

So, there are major lessons here, and victory can indeed be achieved in this way.

It may be better to continue any discussions on this topic on the "Tactics" thread, since commenters there seem to be talking about many of the issues we've touched upon.

Let's just hope that OBL and his fellow jihadists take the same route as their Mughal predecessors, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I guess we have much to agree to disagree on. Thanks for the discussion.

PCM,

I agree completely about OBL etc.

Thank you for your views too -- it's been good talking to you.