Kenya (catch all)

[jmm99]

In terms of US politicians, the 10 most prominent reasons for not being frank with the public on this issue are:

1. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
2. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
3. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
4. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
5. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
6. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
7. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
8. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
9. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
10. We have to protect American Muslims

More seriously, American politicians perceive that Americans have a zero risk tolerence for attacks here; Americans do not want to be reminded that there are man-eating human beings roaming this world; and that even minor attacks generate wide-spread panic states in Americans well beyond the actual effect of the attacks. The politicians may be accurate in their perception of the voters who elect and re-elect them.

My views on killing "bad guys" are well-known and set out in this thread, The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL, and elsewhere at SWC.

From the OP:

Comments on the practical military aspects of all this are welcome. Of course, if you think all of this Laws of War stuff is Bravo Sierra, you're welcome to say that.

The more I think about this event [killing OBL] - and the lesser cases of PIDs entering buildings "somewhere", I think of my dad saying not to send a patrol when you can send some 105s. My question is, if you have positive ID and know you will get the target by some kind of "fire mission", why not just eradicate the target if you want the target dead ?

To me, "bad guys" are still human. The savage traits (laid out in Dawn Perlmutter's Frontpage piece) have been well accepted in some otherwise very human societies of the 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th ... centuries. In short, we (human beings) have some very savage traits. They were survival effective (or at least not survival detrimental) in the "modern human" of 10,000 bce, or 250,000 bce, if you want to carry modern HSS that far back. So, it would be surprising if those savage traits did not appear in the 21st century among a "band of brothers" - a closed grouping in terms of ideology, whose most extreme features reinforce themselves into a very "we-they" psychology.

To paraphrase (as to the extreme ends of the "bands of brothers" spectrum): They were the best of men; they were the worst of men.

On to my views on some specific "gems" of mine - buried in much longer pieces - which I still believe.

On Beheadings

5-21-2009

Both the beheadings and hostage use (if evidenced - not always that easy) are war crimes. They are also typical of the AQ-Taliban way of war - they have their own LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). You can verify that via many sources on and off line. For a quick overview, see at SWJ, The Erosion of Noncombatant Immunity within Al Qaeda [2008].
...
The media and many Americans are simply incapable of seeing AQ-Taliban for what they are - as determined by what they do. Those folks should assemble a group of beheadings videos - usually done according to the law and process adopted by AQ-Taliban - and watch them while dwelling on what they are watching.

10-12-2010

How should one class the beheading videos (having watched a few) in terms of reciprocity and the reasons for them ? I expect that is very much in the eyes of the beholder. In my own eyes, comparing them to what the Gurk did (based on our limited facts) suggests that he was guilty of a breach of etiquette.

and 10-25-2010

First, the facts, as stated from article:

His unit had been told that they were seeking a ‘high value target,’ a Taliban commander, and that they must prove they had killed the right man. The Gurkhas had intended to remove the Taliban leader’s body from the battlefield for identification purposes. But they came under heavy fire as their tried to do so. Military sources said that in the heat of battle, the Gurkha took out his curved kukri knife and beheaded the dead insurgent. He is understood to have removed the man’s head from the area, leaving the rest of his body on the battlefield.

Second, looking at these first facts from a Laws of War standpoint, the more appropriate COA (removal of the entire body from the field) was foreclosed by enemy fires. The Gurk, utilizing judgment in terms of the military necessity to ID the HVT, took an alternative COA to achieve that goal and complete his mission. [JMM !!]

On Not Being Terrorized

3-28-2009

Terror is an Effect

Terror, like its cousin Shock & Awe (and other "EBOs"), is subjective, based on the psychological reaction of the targeted population (an effect) to the violent event (the means). As such, it is essentially useless in classifying the means or the actor, either for legal or military purposes. One must concede that consideration of terror is important to the targeted population because, if a substantial segment of that population is terrorized, it will lose its resolve to resist and will be inclined to submit to the will of the attacker. Thus, the best tool to fight "terrorism" (or any other "EBO") is a targeted population that refuses to be terrorized, shocked or awed by the violent means used by the attacker.

9-12-2011

As to mindset, a starting point (and the ultimate defense against terrorism as a tactic) would be the civilian population's refusal to be terrorized. Soldiers accept risks in the field; civilians should also accept risks in this kind of conflict (the risks not being anywhere close to existential with respect to the civilian population as a group).

The Sermonette

9-16-2009

This is my personal take, which I've had since 9/11.

1. We must expect attempts at violence in the US by AQ, either directly, via supported groups or by persons who are simply thinking in parallel with AQ.

2. So far, the violent incidents have been few (e.g., the DC snipers & the Arkansas shootings by "parallel thinkers"); and a number of plots have been foiled.

3. We cannot expect this successful record to continue without a serious incident happening. It will occur. Homeland security will not be perfect.

4. How people react will depend on the person. If you were terrorized by 9/11, you probably will be terrorized by the event which will surely happen. If you were intensely angered by 9/11 without feeling terrorized, the same emotion will probably flow from that event.

5. I (and every US citizen, for that matter - some will disagree with this), since 9/11, have sent hundreds of thousands of guys and gals into situations where they don't have our at home luxuries and are subject to far greater risks than we have at home. So, it is time for the homeland to grow up about risks of violence.

6. I don't suggest we adopt the mentality of a herd of prey stalked by predators. But, I do suggest that, besides the logical COA to arrest or kill when we can, we realize that AQ (as it presently stands) is not an existential threat to the US. It is simply a threat.

End sermonette.

Regards

Mike