Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.

[Don Roley]

I would posit that you are reading this incorrect.

I am fairly certain that I made no statements in this thread concerning the invasion of Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001.

Well, you have not said one way if you thought it was good or bad. But you did make this statement.

Was the United States Government a "defacto partner" with Timothy McVeigh? or any of the White Supremisist groups, or apocolytic militias?

The fact that these people operate within the boundaries of the United States does not make the nation guilty of their offenses; nor does it implicated that the United States believes in these peoples opinions. While I will grant you a closer connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban; tied by religious beliefs, they are not the same entity. Just the same as the United States Military is not Timothy McVeigh.

Of course, the Taliban were more to Osama and Al Queda than Timothy McVeigh was. They gave support and shelter to them and ran interference for them when we wanted them. They were partners as everyone knows and yet you seem to try to present it as if they had nothing more to do with Osama Bin Laden than McVeigh did with our government.

And you have not said that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified or needed, even in your last post. So you can see how in the light of your arguments and your avoiding a clear statement about the matter, some of us have come away with the impression that you think the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Is that the case? Perhaps we can shed some of the possible misunderstanding if you give a clear outline of what you think and why.

 

[michaeledward]

So you can see how in the light of your arguments and your avoiding a clear statement about the matter, some of us have come away with the impression that you think the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Is that the case? Perhaps we can shed some of the possible misunderstanding if you give a clear outline of what you think and why.

You are correct, I have made no comments on that topic. (at least I hope I have not made any comments on the Afghanistan invasion of October, November & December 2001.

I do not see how one can logically draw a conclusion that is outside the scope of the discussion - - but, if you feel strongly about drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence, please do so. But, recognize that it is your impression ... you draw it, you hold it, you own it.

Do I believe "the invasion of Aghanistan was wrong"? - No.

 

[Don Roley]

Do I believe "the invasion of Aghanistan was wrong"? - No.

Ok, so maybe you can explain why you think it is wrong for American soldiers to kill Taliban whenever and whereever they can.

You said earlier,

But, it would seem the end result of all these rantings ... is that we are assassinating people without even being able to determine if we are shooting at the right people

By "right" you seem to mean that the Taliban might not be valid enemies now.

But they ahve not ceased their war against us. They have not given up. When you asked if we were still shooting German soldiers in 1950 you did not mention that all German soldiers were told to put down their arms and surrender. When hostilities end, either by victory or a peace agreement, then we should stop killing the other guy.

But the Taliban have not ceased their war against us. They will not stop trying to kill us. They have not ordered their soldiers to lay down their arms or even tried to negotiate with us to come to terms. There is no change in their tone or position from when they were in power in Afghanistan.

So I really do not see any problem with killing anyone that is part of their orginization as long as they have not given up trying to kill us. Strange that I think that people engaged in trying to kill us should be killed instead. But many have commented on why you think it is a bad thing to kill any Taliban we can before they get a chance to do the same to us. Maybe you can explain and clear up the matter.

 

[michaeledward]

Ok, so maybe you can explain why you think it is wrong for American soldiers to kill Taliban whenever and whereever they can.

The Taliban that were running the state of Afghanistan were removed from power. The Taliban are no longer running the the country of Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer responsible for giving shelter to Osama bin Laden and his organization. We have supported (installed?) a new government in the nation of Afghanistan. That government was democratically elected.

These generally are considered marking posts on the end of a war. As the 'war' has ended, the Taliban is no longer a legitimate target of war. The criminal elements in the country are the resposibility of the new government.

Continuing to use military force in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan is, as I see, based on one of two motivations ... 1) a criminal violation of sovereign territory or 2) the function of muscle in a totalitarian regime.

 

[jetboatdeath]

So we should pull out of Germany, Japan? No because it does not fit in to todays liberal hype. We have ocupied EVERY nation we have fought in. Why is this a suprise?

And Global warming sure is cold.........

 

[michaeledward]

So we should pull out of Germany, Japan? No because it does not fit in to todays liberal hype. We have ocupied EVERY nation we have fought in. Why is this a suprise?

And Global warming sure is cold.........

Kind of strange how you answer your own question.

But, if you were asking me, and there is little evidence that you were, of course we should remove all military forces from Germany. We should remove all military forces from Japan.

We should also disolve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as the purpose was to defend Western Europe from a Soviet Block invasion. That threat seems to have vanished.

Additionally, we should remove all 'forward' bases.

They project only empire. And not a very attractive empire, at that.

 

[jetboatdeath]

You have no idea what you are speaking of (oh I am sure you think you do and can supply many links to prove it)
And I am sure that West Point would bask (and by bask I mean laugh) at your brilliant plan. How ever if you think that Russia is no longer a threat well you killed your own argument.
Man what fun it must be to live in your own little world.

 

[michaeledward]

You have no idea what you are speaking of (oh I am sure you think you do and can supply many links to prove it)
And I am sure that West Point would bask (and by bask I mean laugh) at your brilliant plan. How ever if you think that Russia is no longer a threat well you killed your own argument.
Man what fun it must be to live in your own little world.

By the way, Welcome. If you wish to have a discussion, you'll find I am not shy. If you just wish to be condescending to my opinion, just let me know now, so I can act appropriately.

I will point out that

a) I am speaking of my own opinion and I promise you that I do know what my opinion is.

b) I present no plan, brilliant or fool hardy, for review by West Point. I presented an opinion.

c) There is a difference between 'Russia' and the 'Soviet Block'. What little threat Russia might pose, it no longer is directed at Western Europe. And to get to Western Europe with whatever threat it might muster, Russia would have to move its military through Eastern Europe.

I will also add, threats and beliefs do not kill arguments. Arguments are won and lost in ideas. So, if you wish, why don't you pick one of your arguements, and start a new thread. And then we can see what ideas can be brought to bear on suppositions.

 

[Don Roley]

The Taliban that were running the state of Afghanistan were removed from power. The Taliban are no longer running the the country of Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer responsible for giving shelter to Osama bin Laden and his organization. We have supported (installed?) a new government in the nation of Afghanistan. That government was democratically elected.

These generally are considered marking posts on the end of a war. As the 'war' has ended, the Taliban is no longer a legitimate target of war. The criminal elements in the country are the resposibility of the new government.

Continuing to use military force in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan is, as I see, based on one of two motivations ... 1) a criminal violation of sovereign territory or 2) the function of muscle in a totalitarian regime.

That is all very unusual. The Taliban that ran Afghanistan is still run by the same leadership, so you calling a different one is not correct.

The war is not ended. The folks that want to kill us are still trying to. It seems that the logical thing is to search them out and deal with them as long as that is the case. The legitimate government of Afghanistand wants us to engage the Taliban in their country, so your talk of breaking their sovereign territory is without the slightest bit of merit. Even your comment on the new government as a "totalitarian regime" strikes me as the words of someone out of step with the rest of the world.

As I said, I do not follow the logic you are relying on. It does not seem consistant. Is helping a government that requests help breaking thier sovereignity? If so, how can we be in any oversea base? And since the Taliban is still gunning for us, any member of theirs is a legitimate target. We will capture and kill them whenever we get the chance. They are still close to Osama Bin Laden as well, so that is another factor as well.

 

[michaeledward]

That is all very unusual. The Taliban that ran Afghanistan is still run by the same leadership, so you calling a different one is not correct.

The war is not ended. The folks that want to kill us are still trying to. It seems that the logical thing is to search them out and deal with them as long as that is the case. The legitimate government of Afghanistand wants us to engage the Taliban in their country, so your talk of breaking their sovereign territory is without the slightest bit of merit. Even your comment on the new government as a "totalitarian regime" strikes me as the words of someone out of step with the rest of the world.

As I said, I do not follow the logic you are relying on. It does not seem consistant. Is helping a government that requests help breaking thier sovereignity? If so, how can we be in any oversea base? And since the Taliban is still gunning for us, any member of theirs is a legitimate target. We will capture and kill them whenever we get the chance. They are still close to Osama Bin Laden as well, so that is another factor as well.

One does not go to war with "folks". Wars are fought between Nation States.

Assuming there are "folks" that wish the American people ill will, and have the capacity to act upon it, it does not follow that the correct tool with which to persue those 'folks' is the United States Military.

If a sovereign government requests our military assistance to put down the minority or dissident group in their country, do we always oblige? Do we oblige with military strikes? How close must the connections be between the leadership of the United States and the foreign nation for the United States to act at their request? to act with military force?

At what point does the responsibility of the people and territory of Afghanistan transfer from the United States Military to the native populace? If that transfer never takes place, and all of President Karzai's policing falls to the United States or NATO, is it a sovereign nation, at all? Or is he just a puppet?

~ ~ The parting on the left, is now a parting on the right ~ ~
~ ~ and their beards have all grown longer, overnight. ~ ~

 

[Don Roley]

One does not go to war with "folks". Wars are fought between Nation States.

Tell that to the Taliban. They have declared war on us even though they are not a nation state. Of for that matter, Osama himself.

I consider anyone trying to kill Americans to be at war with us. And as long as they are operating under the assumption that they can kill us even though they are not a nation state, I see no problem with using the best (i.e. the military) we have to do the same to them. So I really do not see the problems you have with us killing members of orginizations devoted to our destruction. I just rather would prefer we kill them before they get a chance to kill innocent Americans.

I mean, take a look at this interview with the guy who is the head of the Taliban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm

And look at some of these quotes.

But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America.

This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will fall to the ground.

Looking at that, can you honestly say that you do not think that we should be using everything we have to deprive them of the chance to bring about those goals?

 

[michaeledward]

Tell that to the Taliban. They have declared war on us even though they are not a nation state. Of for that matter, Osama himself.

Osama bin Laden is an insignifcant homeless man living in a cave. The Taliban are a movement without a country. By reacting to either, in any way, we validate them and their positions.

I consider anyone trying to kill Americans to be at war with us. And as long as they are operating under the assumption that they can kill us even though they are not a nation state, I see no problem with using the best (i.e. the military) we have to do the same to them. So I really do not see the problems you have with us killing members of orginizations devoted to our destruction. I just rather would prefer we kill them before they get a chance to kill innocent Americans.

Why then, do we not use the United States Military against the gangs of New York and Los Angeles? Don't they try to kill Americans regularly?

I mean, take a look at this interview with the guy who is the head of the Taliban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm

And look at some of these quotes.

I wonder why we don't have any quotes more current than November 2001? And, I love how we ignore the statement about the task being "beyond the will ... of human beings." Doesn't that mean it is impossible for him and his organization to complete?

He is an insignificant man, using fear of 'The Other' to solidify his political standing with his 'Base'. It is a tactic used by weak leaders everywhere.

Have you heard that the Anti-Defimation League reports the KKK membership is growing all across America; based on the rhetoric concerning 'Illegal Immigrants"?

Looking at that, can you honestly say that you do not think that we should be using everything we have to deprive them of the chance to bring about those goals?

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.

I can honestly say using 'everything we have' is a fools errand. We should analyze the problem and use an effective tool for the scope of the problem.

 

[michaeledward]

JeffJ ... it is not an argument about semantics.

It is an argument about recongnizing the nature of the threat, and responding in a credible, appropriate and realistic nature to the threat.

Really, we are dropping bombs from F-16's on homeless people. Sure, they are homeless people with guns, but, they are homeless, and countryless.

If you wish to disagree, and argue another point of view, please join us here.

 

[Don Roley]

Osama bin Laden is an insignifcant homeless man living in a cave. The Taliban are a movement without a country. By reacting to either, in any way, we validate them and their positions.

So, despite the thousands they have killed, and are continiuing to try to kill, you would have us do nothing to them? You would not have us try to stop them before they do so again? You threw in a lot of red herrings about KKK and gangs, but your basic message seems to be that we should not do anything about them and especially not use military force.

Let me see if I get the logic you use.

-You say that we can't have wars with anything other than nation states. Osama and the Taliban are not- so we can't have a war with them.

-you believe we should only use the military in wars.

-you believe that the military can't operate in another country against an enemy even if the local government wants us to.

So, looking at all of the above- you seem to be saying that we can't go after Osama Bin Laden unless he is in America itself and can't send out military after him.

If there is an error in the above, please illustrate it. But just based on what you have written in this thread, I think your views are quite outside what the vast majority believe. Osama and the head of the Taliban have declared war on the US and have not changed that position. I, for one, think we should fight them in the best way possible before they have a chance to kill anyone else. You feel differently it seems.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

JeffJ ... it is not an argument about semantics.

It is an argument about recongnizing the nature of the threat, and responding in a credible, appropriate and realistic nature to the threat.

Really, we are dropping bombs from F-16's on homeless people. Sure, they are homeless people with guns, but, they are homeless, and countryless.

If you wish to disagree, and argue another point of view, please join us here.

Well Mr. Edwards, I really don't feel the need to participate in the debate here as anything I would like to say has already been said. It just seems to me you used a comon debating tatctic in focusing on the use of the word folks when it was obvious that Mr. Roley was referring to the Taliban at that time which is a political/religious organization that has declared war on the United States.

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

Well Mr. Edwards, I really don't feel the need to participate in the debate here as anything I would like to say has already been said. It just seems to me you used a comon debating tatctic in focusing on the use of the word folks when it was obvious that Mr. Roley was referring to the Taliban at that time which is a political/religious organization that has declared war on the United States.

Jeff

Thank you for bringing your points here.

I know very little about common debating tactics. So, I'll take your word for it that repeating Mr. Roley's word fits into that category. Mr Roley was talking about 'folks', so I take him at his word, and, as a matter of fact, I agree with him.

If he was referring to the Taliban, I would (and did) point out that that particular leadership organization lost a war in 2001. What remnents of the organization may remain are insignificant. The United States won that war. I don't think we did a very good job finishing it. But we won. The structures that were in place that sheltered al Qaeda were eliminated. Whatever is left of that organization can accurately be described as 'folks', or 'criminals', or 'insurgents', or 'homeless losers'.

To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal.

JDAM's just don't seem to be the best choice of weaponry when wishing to assassinate the 'folks'.

There are Neo-Nazis in the world today, but they too, are considered insignificant. We do not continue warring with them because they hold to the ideas and principles of the Third Riech, even though we fought a war against those ideas not so very long ago.

Lastly, I would be very careful, however, when mentioning the word 'war' and 'religious organization' in the same sentence. It would seem to me that any confligration of those terms would be seriously detrimental to any foreign relationship or policy. It would seem unwise to suggest in even the most cursory manner that we are at war with Islam.

 

[michaeledward]

Osama bin Laden is an insignifcant homeless man living in a cave. The Taliban are a movement without a country. By reacting to either, in any way, we validate them and their positions.

So, despite the thousands they have killed, and are continiuing to try to kill, you would have us do nothing to them? You would not have us try to stop them before they do so again? You threw in a lot of red herrings about KKK and gangs, but your basic message seems to be that we should not do anything about them and especially not use military force.

Let me see if I get the logic you use.

-You say that we can't have wars with anything other than nation states. Osama and the Taliban are not- so we can't have a war with them.

-you believe we should only use the military in wars.

-you believe that the military can't operate in another country against an enemy even if the local government wants us to.

So, looking at all of the above- you seem to be saying that we can't go after Osama Bin Laden unless he is in America itself and can't send out military after him.

If there is an error in the above, please illustrate it. But just based on what you have written in this thread, I think your views are quite outside what the vast majority believe. Osama and the head of the Taliban have declared war on the US and have not changed that position. I, for one, think we should fight them in the best way possible before they have a chance to kill anyone else. You feel differently it seems.

I am wondering if it is a 'red herring' to take one sentence of a post, and quote it, without quoting the full measure of the response. ~~ don't know ~~


Don Roley ... Let's start here:

So, despite the thousands they have killed, and are continiuing to try to kill, you would have us do nothing to them?​

Please define the anticedent of the pronoun 'they'. I thought we were talking about the Taliban. Please tell me who 'they' / the Taliban killed. Who are they continuing to tray and kill?

You would not have us try to stop them before they do so again?​

Again, it is not clear who you think 'they' are, but, I believe that before we discuss our actions - stopping them before they do so again - we need to assess the credibility of the threat. The Taliban have not ability to strike at the United States. Zip Nada Zero.

I would have us monitor the possibilities of credible threats. There is no credible threat.

The so-called red herrings ... KKK activity and gang activity ... referenced were brought up to demonstrate the result of behavior that paints 'The Other' as an enemy. The fear engendered by say 'THEY' all the time, spawns hate filled groups like the KKK and the gangs on the streets of L.A.


It really should not be a terribly difficult analogy to understand. On the SAT's it might read like this :

Illegal Immigrants are to the Ku Klux Klan as​

"They" are to _________________.​

Illegal immigrants have become a recruiting tool for the KKK.

"They" (still not sure who you mean) are to .... what? Republicans? Conservatives?

-You say that we can't have wars with anything other than nation states. Osama and the Taliban are not- so we can't have a war with them.​

-you believe we should only use the military in wars.​

-you believe that the military can't operate in another country against an enemy even if the local government wants us to.​

Wars are fought between Nation States, or City States or groups of these. This is not so because "I say" so. It is so because that is the definition of war. I understand you may not like that. But countries don't wage war on individuals. Countries wage war on other countries. We are not currently having a conversation about invading President Ahmedinejad. There is a conversation going on about invading Iran.

So, on both of the two bullet points, you are correct. The Taliban, at one point were the representation of the Nation State of Afghanistan. We went to war against them. We won. They lost. They are no longer representative of a Nation State. We can no longer fight a war with them.

As for use of United States military power in other countries ... I believe there should be a very high threshold that must be met before we start using our military in such a manner. The risks of using military power at the behest of a friendly government are exceedingly high. This demands that the rewards of undertaking those risks must be similarly lofty. If we were to undertake an action, I believe the objectives must be clear and definative, with an end in sight before we even begin. In both Afghanistand and Iraq, I think we have not successfully addressed that risk/reward matrix. Which may explain the President's 30% approval rating.

EDIT --- If you can listen through to the end of this story, I believe you can hear the dilemma in using military force in other countries ... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7244125 -END EDIT


So, on your third bullet point, I would not make that claim as 100% accurate ... but it certainly is closer to the mark than away from it.

So, looking at all of the above- you seem to be saying that we can't go after Osama Bin Laden unless he is in America itself and can't send out military after him.​

I don't understand where you see a claim that we can't "go after Osama bin Laden"? I don't think I said that. I think that I have said, repeatedly, that the United States Military is an incorrect tool to go after one man. You know, like dropping 500 pounds of high explosives on a car carrying Mullah Gafoor.

I'm wondering if you feel the only way we can 'go after' anyone is with the military ~ that seems to be what you are suggesting. Should we eliminate the Central Intelligence Agency, then?

If there is an error in the above, please illustrate it. But just based on what you have written in this thread, I think your views are quite outside what the vast majority believe. Osama and the head of the Taliban have declared war on the US and have not changed that position. I, for one, think we should fight them in the best way possible before they have a chance to kill anyone else. You feel differently it seems.​

What the 'vast majority' believe is absolutely irrelevant. I am not seeking election - which would only require a majority of one - or 5 if they are members of the Supreme Court.

What Osama bin Laden, or Mullah Omar declare is ridiculous, and should be treated as such. Every day, in every major city in American, someone 'declares' the world is going to end tomorrow. I'm not certain that the two thugs you reference deserve any more credence that we extend to the placard carrying doomsayers.

Lest you misunderstand, I don't think that these knuckleheads should be able to travel freely around the world. And if one or the other died by an assassins bullet, I wouldn't feel sorry. If they were captured and put in jail for the rest of their natural lives, it wouldn't bother me.

But the United States Military is spending two billion dollars a week to capture or kill these losers. They are the proximate cause for our current military adventures. And I am in no way certain they are worth what we're paying.



My apologies for the length of this post. In order to properly address the questions, I felt I needed to responde to direct quotes. Props to anyone who made it this far.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Thank you for bringing your points here.

I know very little about common debating tactics. So, I'll take your word for it that repeating Mr. Roley's word fits into that category. Mr Roley was talking about 'folks', so I take him at his word, and, as a matter of fact, I agree with him.

If he was referring to the Taliban, I would (and did) point out that that particular leadership organization lost a war in 2001. What remnents of the organization may remain are insignificant. The United States won that war. I don't think we did a very good job finishing it. But we won. The structures that were in place that sheltered al Qaeda were eliminated. Whatever is left of that organization can accurately be described as 'folks', or 'criminals', or 'insurgents', or 'homeless losers'.

To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal.

JDAM's just don't seem to be the best choice of weaponry when wishing to assassinate the 'folks'.

There are Neo-Nazis in the world today, but they too, are considered insignificant. We do not continue warring with them because they hold to the ideas and principles of the Third Riech, even though we fought a war against those ideas not so very long ago.

Lastly, I would be very careful, however, when mentioning the word 'war' and 'religious organization' in the same sentence. It would seem to me that any confligration of those terms would be seriously detrimental to any foreign relationship or policy. It would seem unwise to suggest in even the most cursory manner that we are at war with Islam.

Thank you for you reply. I do agree to say we are at war with all of Islam wouln't be a good idea or correct. But to ignore the motivations that come from the Talibans perverted ideas about Islam would be a mistake.

The difference between the Taliban and the Neo Nazis is the the morons in the Neo Nazi movement aren't quite as stupid as the Taliban leadership in trying to confront U.S. forces on the battlefield, as they are doing.

As far as the Taliban being insignificant, to a point I agree. They themselves are not a serious threat to our national security. However, they do screen the AQ, have protected and assisted them in the past and are currently terrorizing many innocent Afgahnis, who after the invasion, we are at the very least partly responsible for their security.

On a different note, whether or not the right weapon was used is a call made by men on the ground. We, as non-combatants without all the tactical information, really can't judge the reasoning behind that choice. Maybe it would have been a better idea to try to capture him, but we don't have all the facts at our disposal, and the commander who ordered it probably didn't have them either, and probably never will have all the information about the situation.

One more point before I finish. The UN has come out saying that firearms should only be in the hands of nations and certain political groups. When that body made that statement, they didn't name any particular political entities. If large political entities are allowed to arm themselves as a nation state, then it follows we can wage war against them.

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

As far as the Taliban being insignificant, to a point I agree. They themselves are not a serious threat to our national security. However, they do screen the AQ, have protected and assisted them in the past and are currently terrorizing many innocent Afgahnis, who after the invasion, we are at the very least partly responsible for their security.

On a different note, whether or not the right weapon was used is a call made by men on the ground. We, as non-combatants without all the tactical information, really can't judge the reasoning behind that choice. Maybe it would have been a better idea to try to capture him, but we don't have all the facts at our disposal, and the commander who ordered it probably didn't have them either, and probably never will have all the information about the situation.

Just a few thoughts here, I think.

The Taliban are no longer providing protection for al Qaeda. For having provided protection and support for them in the past, the United States has routed them as a political force.

There was a time when the United States military had a great deal of responsibility for the people of Afghanistan ~ and Iraq, incidentally ~. There are legal and moral obligations an invading army assumes with its invasion. However, we have returned 'sovereignty' (such as it is) to Afghanistan. At that point, all responsibility moves to the local government. I believe the United States can offer support, economically, and politically. But once that transfer of authority has changed hands, military options really should be scaled back to, almost, invisible.


To the military commanders on the ground ~ of course they made the best decision available to them at the time. It is my premise that those military commanders should not be there to make the decision.

This decision was to perform an assassination. I have to imagine there is a distinction between combat operations and assassination, even if the end results are the same. Maybe I'm wrong about that - I guess I just hope that our soldiers are not being trained to be assassins.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Just a few thoughts here, I think.

The Taliban are no longer providing protection for al Qaeda. For having provided protection and support for them in the past, the United States has routed them as a political force.

There was a time when the United States military had a great deal of responsibility for the people of Afghanistan ~ and Iraq, incidentally ~. There are legal and moral obligations an invading army assumes with its invasion. However, we have returned 'sovereignty' (such as it is) to Afghanistan. At that point, all responsibility moves to the local government. I believe the United States can offer support, economically, and politically. But once that transfer of authority has changed hands, military options really should be scaled back to, almost, invisible.


To the military commanders on the ground ~ of course they made the best decision available to them at the time. It is my premise that those military commanders should not be there to make the decision.

This decision was to perform an assassination. I have to imagine there is a distinction between combat operations and assassination, even if the end results are the same. Maybe I'm wrong about that - I guess I just hope that our soldiers are not being trained to be assassins.

In a lesser way they still are providing protection for AQ, even if that is not there intention. They are providing a screening force. It's hard to conduct searches for AQ members when there is an armed force in the way.

As far as the difference between a combat operation and an assassination, it basically comes down to this. Is the person a combatant? Is the person supplying direct or indirect support to the forces that are confronting you? Even if the person is a politico, if he is involved with that groups forces, such as funding, supply, or in a direct role with it, he is a combat target. Taking out leadership is a tried and true way of lessening the effectiveness of opposing forces.

Whether or not our security role there is done is hard to say. Personally, I think we should keep it up for a couple of reasons. For one, it puts our personel in the areas the Afgahni army probably wouldn't have the ablility to cover, thus keeping the influence of the Taliban possibly AQ out of those regions. Secondly, I feel that our responsibility goes a bit further than you seem too. Let us break the ability of the Taliban to field a threatening force before we leave.

Jeff