I heard the reps who supported Kucinich's resolution offer an interesting counter-proposal.

[Robb]

It appeared the idea, voiced by several Democrats this morning, was after we remove US troops from Afghanistan, we start seriously funding a worldwide intelligence effort, sending "targeted special operations" into whatever country turns up terrorists.

...I'm curious if DU supports this notion. I'm of two minds, unsurprisingly. But I was taken aback to hear this from the progressive wing.

Thoughts?

[The Magistrate]

1. There Are No Pacifists In Governments, Sir

Among people actually in office, the discussion will always be over how the thing is to be fought, not whether or not it should be....

[Robb]

2. Fair observation.

I wonder if such a strategy is indeed preferable to the mission as it stands.

[The Magistrate]

4. It Is An Interesting Question, Sir

The proposed course would involve fewer U.S. casualties, and probably cost less money, than maintaining sizeable expeditionary forces in the Middle East. In regard to domestic politics, cost in lives and money are the leading factors. It would certainly make for some odd headlines over time, as it would essentially involve U.S. aircraft or commando teams attacking targets in a variety of countries at unpredictable intervals. This would give plenty of opportunity for fiasco, ranging from some ghastly pile of mangled innocents on video to stacked photographs of clandestine operatives a la Dubai in character.

In some ways, of course, we are already pursuing that course. U.S. forces have engaged targets in Somalia and Yemen, for instance, and have done so for some time. It is quite possible other operations have not made it to the public prints....

[Robb]

6. Codifying such things would almost sound like a set-up from the get-go.

As a member of Congress, especially given the likelihood of, as you say, "fiasco," I would do everything politically possible to ensure my name was not signed at the bottom of that initiative. :D

[The Magistrate]

8. A Good Point, Sir

There really are things best done under the table and round the corner from the streetlight....

[Beetwasher]

24. Misdirection

You have the public operational face and then the "real" one(s).

[Edweird]

3. That's exactly what should have happened in Afghanistan.

Wham bam, thank you ma'am, and we're outta there. No need for what is currently going on. I would have fully supported that.

[SnoopDog]

5. The truth about 911 is that is was a 'criminal action'...

As horrific as 911 was, it was a crime. A 'country' did not 'attack' us - terrorists (supposedly) did.

Police, et al, are the ones to investigate and apprehend the criminals.

That is not to say however that 'special ops' could not 'waste' some bad guys.

No, Afghanistan and Iraq were 'wars' to steal resources and to divert $billions to war profiteers.

The Iraq oil, now, has been sold off. Check.

The Afghan pipeline - in process..

[The Magistrate]

7. Not That Cut And Dried, Sir

The relation between al Queda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan was close enough that from either end one could be viewed justly as the agent and partner of the other. A significant military effort would have been required even if the only intent was to effect police apprehension, as the police would not have been able to operate otherwise.

[SnoopDog]

9. Considering that 9 of 13 911 terrorists were Saudi....

I would say that we should then have invaded Saudi Arabia...

Therefore, I disagree with your premise and your statement.

[The Magistrate]

10. Not Ethnicity, Sir, But Basing, Is What Is Important

The organization they worked for, that trained them and planned and financed their operation, was based in Afghanistan. That tired wheeze you trotted out may work on a Yahoo board or someplace similar, but it will not serve you well just now....

"A radish may know no Greek, but I do."

[SnoopDog]

11. Pardon me?

I expect a semi-higher level of dialog with you considering you were a moderator and you call yourself 'the Magistrate'.

Your opinion about 'basing' is immaterial in my opinion. Unless you are some sort of Federal Government insider,
you really cannot be sure where they were 'based'.

Usually, it is a 'country' that other countries go to 'war' with - you don't invade a country and
occupy said country for 8 years because was where they were 'based' or 'trained'. Good thing they
were not secretly training in Canada... I assume you would say we need to attack and occupy Canada.

I have been here for many years and 99% of my posts are very democratic and patriotic.

I really did not expect this low level posting from you and cheap shots....

[The Magistrate]

12. My Custom, Sir, Is To Pitch My Expectations Low, Avoiding Frequent Disappointment

That is bad for the blood pressure....

[SnoopDog]

13. I rarely have a one-on-one DU conversation...

And in this case I am not sure what your point is (although
I have a feeling you are being insulting - I hope I am wrong).

By not addressing my points with valid arguments, you have conceded
and lost this mini-debate.

Real democrats, citizen democrats, patriotic democrats, know that the illegal wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq were strictly wars for resources and profit.

No offense, if you have something to say -please say it and not attempt
the high level zen stuff that only you may understand....

[The Magistrate]

14. You Have Raised No Valid Point, Sir, Merely Spouted An Old Agit-Prop Slogan

One that is at least eight solid years old, and was pointless and boring before it had reached three months, and the ability to raise its head off the pillow.

[SnoopDog]

18. Some are more in-tuned with reality...and have a better grasp of the truth...

It is like explaining the concept of color to a person blind since birth....

I do not expect you to understand..... good luck to ya...

[The Magistrate]

19. My Ignorance And Lack Of Understanding Is Legend, Sir....

"Never send a ferret to do a weasel's work."

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Targeted special operations, or black op assassination missions, are acts of war.

Treating international terrorism as a crime and establishing broad agreements to seek out, arrest, and try those who commit these acts would be a better way.

I don't think getting out of a war while engaging in limited military strikes (acts of war) in nations throughout the world is a solution.

[laughingliberal]

16. +1 nt

[The Magistrate]

17. Whether They Would Be Acts Of War, Sir

Would depend on the attitudes of the governments in whose territory they occurred. That could vary widely, and there is always the possibility there will be no government, or no effective government, over the areas where the strikes occur, whether owing to the power of a rebellion, or the collapse of state authority.

We are in agreement that this really is a police problem, but it is a police problem of colossal scale, and when the scale is large enough, police and soldiery blur into one another. The sharp line we draw in domestic law enforcement in the United States between the police and the soldier is not found widely outside our country. For most of history, and in most of the world, there is not a lot of distinction between these two instruments of state violence.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. If you send in a special operations team to kill or capture people, it is an act of war

The same thing could be done using FBI and other police organizations in countries throughout the world.

For instance, what is described is our drone attacks and use of special forces to make special operation hits on targets in Pakistan. Those attacks are acts of war that Pakistan has carefully ignored. Those same tactics are used to kill members of Hamas by Israel. One side effect of those attacks has been a drastic hit on the stability of Pakistan and the continued disintegration of any real attempt to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. For some reason, taking out houses with drone and sending in Special Forces Unites to terminate people doesn't make a lot of friends. Though this type of operation does have successes, the inevitable colatereal damage does far more damage to U.S. rleations.

We either use a military solution to terrorism or a law and order solution. I prefer law and order solution since the military solution has had a very poor track record of success. Though we have proven adept at killing Al Qaeda #3's and wiping out wedding parties.

[The Magistrate]

21. If The Government Involved, Sir, Acquiesces, It Is Not An Act Of War

A government might acquiesce for a variety of reasons, ranging from outright fear of offending a more powerful state to quiet satisfaction an internal enemy was being eliminated in a manner that left its own hands more or less clean. It is possible either party may mis-judge the situation, of course, and the acquiescing government find itself in trouble it might have avoided.

Whether the policy described above is a wise policy is a separate question. In my view, it is at best problematic, and will certainly produce spectacular cock-ups to match against any successes. On the other hand, there are going to be locals ordinary police power cannot reach, even with full co-operation of host governments. To take your chief example of Pakistan, for instance: it is a simple fact that the Pakistani government is incapable of arresting anyone in the tribal territories on the Afghan border, and any attempt to do so would involve a major military campaign. There are places where the writ of no government actually runs, and people on the outs with powerful governments will gravitate towards such places.

[Robb]

22. Kicking

...because I'm still curious if this is what people had in mind when they supported this here.

[The Magistrate]

25. In Many Instances, Sir, Probably Not

But the view that Islamic fundamentalists in arms pose no real threat, or that engaging them is simply cover for imperial expansion, is not too widespread among the voting public. Even were one to stipulate that view as accurate, it would make no difference to the range of choices consulted by persons actually in office, and seeking to remain there.

[Robb]

23. Crickets, apparently.