*seethe.*

[kuangning]

Y'know, the last time I checked, certain branches of our armed forces still routinely prepared personnel for operations where we might need them to go into foreign territory, find a specific target, eliminate that target, and leave.

Now, I'm not Commander-in-Chief of our forces, but it appears to me that, well, using a few of those people might, just maybe, be preferable to, y'know, firing big frigging explodey things at a bunch of civilians in a country we're not at war with (odd as it may sound, there still are some of those) just because we think one person might be there.

Because then, if it turns out we were wrong, we haven't killed a bunch of civilians and McCain doesn't have to spend credibility he doesn't have much of anymore trying to convince our friends that it was justified.

Of course, then we don't get the pleasure of watching Musharraf blame the victim like a true battered wife, either.

So what do I know?

Comments

[anoisblue.livejournal.com]

I immediately thought the same thing about the special forces.

[kuangning]

I've been waiting for them to send in special forces to target the ringleaders since 2001 when I woke up and watched in disbelief as we bombed Afghanistan instead. I have come to the conclusion that Bush just gets a thrill out of blowing people up. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself -- but I wish he'd gone into demolitions and left public office alone. He seems to not have a clue about just when he needs a jackhammer and when a Phillips-head screwdriver would do. Even if he wanted Saddam dead and didn't care whom he hurt to do it, it's not like we've never sent in operatives to help an inconvenient or undesirable foreign leader retire permanently before. Did they not brief him when he took the job?

[anoisblue.livejournal.com]

No, I don't believe they did. Of course, they wanted more than Saddam.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

Sending in individual people to take out human targets is expensive and messy. Sometimes very expensive and messy as the special operators could be killed or captured. Then too, they could talk, be questioned by the news media or congress. Using humans directly means you have a person you can ask questions of. Using an anonymous missile from an unmanned drone makes it much harder to find a human to hold responsible.

Using “technical” means rather than “human” intelligence seems an American tradition. We have the wealth to afford things like satellites and we tend to like methods of intelligence gathering that offer “proof,” such as photographs or sensor measurements. We have a basic distrust of human beings, so we discount them. Other intelligence agencies not so blessed with big budgets do the opposite, the rely on human intelligence wherever possible, with some pretty startling results.

Expect lots more “mistakes.”

[kuangning]

Oh, I do, sadly enough. But ... blowing up part of a country we call an ally in the search for one individual still seems wrong. Like spotting what you think is a termite in a friend's kitchen and dismantling his cupboards to get at it.

Besides which, why are we training the people if we're not going to use them when it's necessary? Technology's wonderful but heavy-handed. When the situation calls for delicacy and public relations at the very least are at stake, you use real people and take the risks attached, or so I would think.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

But ... blowing up part of a country we call an ally in the search for one individual still seems wrong.

I agree, definitely wrong.

[iq2hi4uok.livejournal.com]

Seems like this is kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. See, we're not officially *allowed* to send troops in.

Officially, the Pakistani government does not allow the 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of Taliban or al-Qaida fighters, although a large number of combatants are thought to have sought refuge in the rugged and remote border region.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/terror/main595582.shtml

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally, would face withering criticism from political opponents, particularly Islamic hard-liners who control two key border provinces, if U.S. forces were deployed inside Pakistan.

Musharraf told CBS News Correspondent Tom Fenton last week that he didn't know for sure where bin Laden was, but speculated that the al Qaeda leader was probably in the frontier territories along the Pakistani and Afghan border.

But, he said there was "no possibility" of a large contingent of American troops entering Pakistan to search for bin Laden, adding that it was "a very sensitive subject."

Even the presence of Pakistani troops in those semi-autonomous regions is politically sensitive, and sympathies for the Taliban run high among the deeply conservative tribal people who live there.

I suspect we *are* sending "special forces" into these places - BUT - we aren't going to hear about it, because officially, they're *not* allowed to be there.

[kuangning]

Oh, I know we're not allowed to send in troops openly. But as long as we were going to transgress against the spirit of that restriction and go after him anyway, a small team of people is much more discreet than a big boom. Everyone knew it was ours within an hour of the explosion. Is that better or worse than even a failed operation using humans?

[iq2hi4uok.livejournal.com]

I don't think I was logged in when I posted that last comment. I'm sure you figured out it was me. ;)