Osama Bin Laden dead, time for the end credits?

[WillyGilligan]

UBL has apparently been killed in a special forces raid. How long till we see the retaliation, and what are the odds of someone looking a lot like UBL sending a new tape in a day or two?

[FlameBlade]

That would be why they call the small bit after the credits "stinger"

[Nicephorus]

Retaliation might not be all bad, in the sense that militants come out in the open and conduct hastily prepared attacks while too angry to think straight rather than patiently conduct well prepared attacks in the future.

It's totally understandable that they didn't tell anyone in Pakistan ahead of time. But it shows how little we really trust them.

I wonder how much of a popularity boost Obama will get out of this and how long lasting it will be.

And let's not lose sight of the important thing. 46 points.
http://www.nerdprideradio.com/?page_id=40

[Crazy Elf]

I am highly skeptical of these claims. It was widely reported that bin Ladin had kidney problems of a dire nature and his press releases have been less and less frequent. I had assumed he was dead a long time ago. They're going to really need to show the body on this one.

[Nicephorus]

I am highly skeptical of these claims. It was widely reported that bin Ladin had kidney problems of a dire nature and his press releases have been less and less frequent. I had assumed he was dead a long time ago. They're going to really need to show the body on this one.

Which was dumped in the ocean to provide burial within 24 hours to not upset Muslims and yet to not provide a shrine or focus. But which also sets it up for countless conspiracy theories. I assume they took lots of pics and tissue samples.

This might help make more things fall together intelligence wise, though it won't be publicly apparent any time soon. Now we know that that really was Obama there and that those were his personal couriers. then months of watching the building and following people gives us a good idea of who was working with him, including who in Pakistani military and intelligence.

[Crazy Elf]

Which was dumped in the ocean to provide burial within 24 hours to not upset Muslims and yet to not provide a shrine or focus.

Then they didn't kill him. 'Nuf said.

Edit: They they didn't kill him? I think I'm lysdexic.

[WillyGilligan]

And let's not lose sight of the important thing. 46 points.
http://www.nerdprideradio.com/?page_id=40

You grim reaping bastard, what's your secret? I must know!

Elf, quick question: what's your minimum threshold of evidence?

[Crazy Elf]

On this particular event I don't think I have a minimum. I will remain skeptical on this point for a good long while if they don't do more than, "We DNA tested the body and now it's gone, you just have to take our word for it, because we're the US and we're so trustworthy on this sort of thing."

[3278]

Why does the good shit always happen when I don't have internet?

My initial thoughts paralleled Elf's, and I'm surprised they didn't keep the body for a little longer. I understand their thinking about it becoming a rallying point, but just keeping it long enough for independent verification of any kind would help keep down the conspiracy theories. I think enough evidence will be eventually brought to bear that the truth - whatever it may be - will out, but in the meantime, what little I've heard certainly seems like a bit of poor decision-making.

That said, anyone who has made up their mind one way or the other at this point is irrational. On the radio, they were all "of course" that bin Laden was genuinely dead, and then callers are all "of course" that this is just a cover-up. Any situation in which evidence is scarce but conclusions are many is one populated with fools.

More later when my internet isn't only on my phone.

[Raygun]

Am I supposed to be feeling some great sense of relief or satisfaction because our water ninjas finally whacked some silly dickbag? If so, why am I not? Everyone else seems to be very enthusiastic about this, but I just don't see how it really makes a lot of difference. Of course, I have been known to be rather cynical and/or pessimistic at times, so if anyone who isn't quite so could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

[3278]

No, I've been wanting to talk about the same thing. Our local radio station is actually playing self-congratulatory nationalistic spots saying, "We got bin Laden, so here's a message to all you terrorists out there!" And I'm like, what's our message, that if you're the number one enemy of the most powerful nation in the world, you can expect to live on the run for another decade? The fuck?

Everyone is dick-stroking over this, and all I can think is that it took us ten fucking years. Now, I know we've had chances before, and chosen not to take them, that doesn't excuse ten fucking years! We shouldn't be proud, we should be ashamed.

And what does this buy us? A new number one bad guy? Maybe a splintering into factions? How much safer is the nation today than it was a week ago? Now, I'm almost media-blind - no internet, no television, some overheard radio at work - so I'm missing serious press coverage, but these are the issues I want to hear addressed, and I'm not hearing them.

[Jeff Hauze]

Ten years!

[Nicephorus]

Don' t underestimate the psychological factor. Many rebellions and civil war factions have been greatly weakened by the loss of a leader, beyond any impaired decision making capacity. This could account for a 10% to 20% drop in Muslim terrorist attacks against western targets over the next decade.

They might have also made an intelligence score with the data found, though the value is weakened by the opposition knowing that they've been compromised. But even the fear of being found could cause them to take riskier actions while trying to relocate.

[FlameBlade]

Best bit is that Obama gave the announcement on May 1...

What else did happen on May 1...

8 years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Missi ... hed_Speech

enjoy!

[Bonefish]

Am I supposed to be feeling some great sense of relief or satisfaction because our water ninjas finally whacked some silly dickbag? If so, why am I not? Everyone else seems to be very enthusiastic about this, but I just don't see how it really makes a lot of difference. Of course, I have been known to be rather cynical and/or pessimistic at times, so if anyone who isn't quite so could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

And what does this buy us? A new number one bad guy? Maybe a splintering into factions? How much safer is the nation today than it was a week ago? Now, I'm almost media-blind - no internet, no television, some overheard radio at work - so I'm missing serious press coverage, but these are the issues I want to hear addressed, and I'm not hearing them.

You're not the only one. On my facebook, I celebrated by posting the video for "ding dong, the witch is dead". It's not just a flippant remark though, it's really not that big of a deal: Osama being dead changes VERY few things. Why?
1) The man was filthy fucking rich, and knew he was going to die sometime soonish(if not the Americans getting him, then atleast from medical problems). What do all rich men typically do when they expect to die soon? They name an heir in their will. Osama's had that done for YEARS now. So it's not like his finances won't be taken care of, and it's not like Al Qeada suddenly loses it's money.
2) Al-Qeada has been splintered for, like, a long time. Basically since we fucked up Tora Bora, the whole "umbrella" thing fell apart. Keeping pressure on it certainly helps, but it's not like there being multiple different groups pursuing different agendas is anything new. Hell, the whole network was set up in the first place to operate like that!
3) We still can't leave Afghanistan for a while, or all our work will just be undone. And we've lost an important "moral" reason for being there. Now our presence will be harder to explain, but not any less important.

So yeah. Ding Dong, The Witch is dead. So fucking what, we're still in the same leaky boat!

[3278]

Don' t underestimate the psychological factor. Many rebellions and civil war factions have been greatly weakened by the loss of a leader, beyond any impaired decision making capacity. This could account for a 10% to 20% drop in Muslim terrorist attacks against western targets over the next decade.

The alternative is that the death of the martyr inflames his followers, but in this case, I think it's more likely that this will further weaken al-Qaeda, because our actions over the last decade, while not successful in capturing bin Laden, have weakened his organization. If there are reprisals, they'll likely be brief [in historical timescales], rather than ongoing. That's my prediction, anyway, based on the exactly nothing I know about the situation.

They might have also made an intelligence score with the data found, though the value is weakened by the opposition knowing that they've been compromised. But even the fear of being found could cause them to take riskier actions while trying to relocate.

This, I think, will be the most significant effect of the whole affair. Even just having confirmation of things we already suspected will be valuable, much less all the possible new things we might discover. Although the value of the information will, in many ways, be determined by the value of bin Laden himself - how active he still was - and thus if it's truly valuable, there's also a good chance that his death will have a major effect on Al-Qaeda.

[edit: And Politico agrees.]

[Raygun]

Everyone is dick-stroking over this, and all I can think is that it took us ten fucking years. Now, I know we've had chances before, and chosen not to take them, that doesn't excuse ten fucking years! We shouldn't be proud, we should be ashamed.

It's not so much the how long it took that bothers me. I mean, if you think about it, it's like trying to find a needle in a hundred haystacks that also happens to have the resources to look exactly like a piece of hay and bury itself if it thinks you're getting close. I'm sure that was a very difficult decade or more worth of work for a lot of people.

What bugged me more about it was the people running around in the streets like it was the new Fourth of July, and this enthusiasm that some people seem to be feeling about it. Really? Is it something to cheer and praise America about that we as a nation used the vast resources at our disposal to hunt down and kill one man and eventually succeeded? It just doesn't seem like something we should be getting all that excited about, particularly considering how his organization was designed to operate.

What's more interesting to me about the whole thing at this point is that there appears to be a nation in possession of nuclear weapons that seems to have been complicit in hiding the guy from a supposed ally. Either that or it's a nation with nuclear weapons with its head completely up its ass. Either way, there are questions to be answered with regard to Pakistan.

[Nicephorus]

What's more interesting to me about the whole thing at this point is that there appears to be a nation in possession of nuclear weapons that seems to have been complicit in hiding the guy from us, a supposed ally. Either that or it's a nation with nuclear weapons with its head completely up its ass. Neither of those ideas are ones I'm terribly keen on.

I don't follow the details but I've gotten the impression that Pakistan is a complicated, messed up place. They've had high level assassinations, coups, and election irregularities. For the last 20 years, they've always seemed about 3 steps from a fundamentalist regime that might actually toss nukes at India. India would largely destroy them but the (literal) fallout wouldn't be good.

There are several political factions, one of which is the ISI, Pakistani intelligence. They supported the Taliban, in part to keep out Indian friendly elements. A coherent Afghanistan might not be great for Pakistan as there are elements who want to see a greater Pashtunistan, including the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The military has the goal of cooperating enough with the U.S. to keep the money flowing.. But they see India as the big threat and most units are on that border. They don't see much value in actually fighting up in the mountains.

I get the impression that those from the northwest territories are perceived the way hillbillies were in the U.S. a century ago by most Pakistani in populated civilized areas, always feuding and fighting, best to leave them to themselves. The area is still under reservation laws put in place by the British and similar to those for native Americans. Most Pakistanis don't see much value in having the army in beating up a bunch of yokels in an economically unimportant area. This has changed some with a tactical error on the part of some Taliban - they want an Islamic government and have attacked cities where normal Pakistanis lived. Polls have shown that this majorly deflated public opinion of the Taliban.

I don't think that Pakistan is honest enough or stable enough to make a good ally. If it wasn't for their location, we'd never have talked to them. I hope we can use new data to make some crippling strikes and then start winding down and tell Pakistan to fuck off in a polite way. I'm not sure how much we can accomplish in Afghanistan no matter how lon gwe stay there. The only legitimate government cheated the last election which doesn't help their prestige but we're kinda stuck with them due to lack of alternatives. Afghanistan has never been entirely a nation beyond very basics like mail distribution due to ethnic differences. I don't think we can change that. I think we need to negotiate an end that allows us to give minimal support in return for the right to destroy any militant training camps.

[3278]

Yeah, the question of Pakistan is definitely being visited at the highest levels after this. I'd like to say they're the worst bedfellows we've made, but they're not even the worst in the region.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that we should have dealt with bin Laden's remains in accord with Muslim tradition, documented them in whatever way possible, and then returned them. To whom, I am uncertain, but knowing what we know of his organization, I'm willing to bet we could find someone. I understand the feeling that his remains could be a rallying cry, but the lack of proof of his death will be, as well. I would like to have seen us take the moral high ground with our worst enemy [if indeed that's what he was]. That act of grace would have wrought more good will than any amount of rallying around remains could counteract, and plus you can make the argument that it's the right thing to do.

It's kind of weird how bloodthirsty some of it's been. Lots of "kick-ass!" and "shot him in the face!" but also just a general sense of, "Sweet, this guy's dead!" that's a little awkward when you're not swept up in it. When I was in high school, we'd have these pep rallies, where the whole school would go into the gym, sit in the bleachers, and cheer while the sports teams paraded past and maybe shot some layups or something. For those who were into it - like tiny nationalists prepping for the tiny olympics - this was pulse-pumping stuff, but if you didn't get it, for whatever reason, it was just kind of surreal and somehow inappropriately intense. I'm kind of an emotionally reserved guy, anyway, so ultra-passionate outbursts leave me taken aback at the best of times, but the intensity of the bloodlust - displayed publicly, in the media, on the radio, in front of children - startles me.

It's natural to feel pleasure at the death of someone who ordered the deaths of so many,* but the bald and naked shamelessness of the celebration kind of freaks me out. People are saying, "Yeah, we got the bastard!" in front of their kids, and it's okay, because it's bin Laden. Except what no one's saying [that I'm hearing] is, "Today we have some justice," or, "It would be good if he could be tried for his crimes in a court of law." It's the wolf we're showing, and not the man, and I'm not all that pleased with it. It's natural, it's unsurprising, but I hoped for more.

*Even if we didn't know any of those people, and just happened to live in the same country as them. Probably wouldn't have liked a lot of those people if you'd met them, and you probably ridicule a lot of living people just like them today, but by god, before they died, they lived in the same country you did!

[Crazy Elf]

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

[Bonefish]

Back to Pakistan, here's what I've gathered from a few Pakistani, Indian and Bengladeshi friends of mine(I love UNCC!):
1) The Civilian government. Widely seen as corrupt AND incompetent, most Pakistanis have no faith in their government. This sets up for the next point:

2) The Military. Pakistan's military is quite highly regarded amongst it's people. It's fairly professional, well equipped, and seen as much less corrupt than the civilians. My buddies tell me that while they want a democratically elected government, they'll settle for a military junta that's functional. The Military, for example, was the first to step in when Pakistan had all those terrible floods about a year and a half ago, while the civilian government sort of fumbled about. Doesn't make the average Pakistani feel like his elected leadership can be trusted.

3) The ISI. They're like Our CIA, but back in the cold-war: they're often seen as heroes. The ISI, it should be mentioned, managed to(on a shoe-string budget at that!) oppose one of the world's super powers for years, leading indirectly to the collapse of the USSR, and pakistan never got invaded. And Pakistan was VERY terrified of a Russian invasion back then. The ISI also, well, they've been in bed with a lot of the militants because hey, keeping Afghanistan all messed up and crazy helps to secure their western border against Iran(not a friendly country for Pakistan!) and allows them to keep their attention on India, who they are not fond of.

The civvies officials don't trust the Military OR ISI, the Military doesn't trust the ISI, and sees the civvies as idiots, and the ISI appears to be "doin' it's own thing". So there's all kinds of crazy shit for the Pakistanis to deal with.

I don't think cutting the Pakistanis loose is necessarily a good thing for us, or the region. Pakistan and India have almost gone to war numerous times in the last 20 years, as my Pakistani and Indian friends can attest to, and that's a scary, scary thought. Without the US bolstering Pakistan, India may decide that the can "take'em", and try to settle the whole Kashmir debate for once. Not cool man, not cool.

Pakistan, also, is one of the closest things we've got to a moderate, Islamic country. Most Pakistanis are a lot like most Americans: they want to get off work, go party, get laid, smoke weed and have a good time. Many of them are supporting fairly progressive ideas within their country, and like the idea of being a modern, somewhat "western" country that has islamic roots. There's not as much impetus for a theocracy, as Nicie pointed out, and even amongst the Pashtuns, the idea of Pashtunistan is seen as a bit crazy by the more urbanized Pashtuns, and as really awesome by the hillbilly tribals.

No, Pakistan isn't the coolest friend ever, but I think there's a decent case that helping them out and trying to nudge them in the right direction, gently, will pay off in the long term for us. And, well, it helps keep India contained. And we might wanna think about that in the next 50 years. Because India, Pakistan, Bangledesh and China are about 25-30% of the world population, and all of those countries are becoming increasingly powerful and sophisticated. And India, Pakistan and China are ALL a bit pissed at each other, mainly over Kashmir.

[Bonefish]

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

On the other hand, it's a pretty risky gambit. I mean, if we say he's dead, and he's you know, NOT, then what happens when he pops up in a week or two? I mean, that's just such a fucking risky move that it boggles the mind to imagine Obama doing it, unless the man just wants to commit political suicide.

I mean, this isn't quite like the WMDs in Iraq* or Saddam/Osama connection bits that sold us on Iraq, but hell, those at least had plausible deniability after the fact. It's a lot like telling a girl I have a really big dick: the truth is GOING to come out at some point. I just don't see what this Lie does for us.

Show me the benefit, Elf.


*Which, well, ok, technically, it was a lie: There seem to have been no actual real WMDs in Iraq. At the time. Because after Gulf War 1, all the Middle Eastern States exported their programs to the Sudan, where they were used to help Khartoum bomb the Darfur. Was Iraq engaged in developing WMDs? Sure. Did they have them on them at the time? No.

[Crazy Elf]

On the other hand, it's a pretty risky gambit. I mean, if we say he's dead, and he's you know, NOT...

Let's say he is dead but the U.S. didn't kill him.

See the benefit now?

[Raygun]

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

"But if you can compromise the sovereignty of a nation in the process, then blow up a piece of technology that the public has never seen before while you're there, it'll be super awesome!"

He's dead as fried chicken and the US did it. (HIS KIDNEYS WERE FINE!)

[Crazy Elf]

The U.S. were certainly doing something there, no doubt. They'd need to actually prove the bin Ladin claim, though, which they haven't done.

[Raygun]

Fair enough. Well, if you're ever convinced, be sure to let us know.

[paladin2019]

"Today we have some justice," or, "It would be good if he could be tried for his crimes in a court of law."

Changing gears here. This is what gets me. This country is absolutely schizophrenic about its handling of transnational terrorism.

There are two categories, military and criminal. An individual or organization is exclusively one or the other, or we at least have to act under the fiction that it is. Why?

A criminal has rights and is due a defense before a court before we as a society get to do anything. This requires scrupulous accounting of evidence and its sources, judicial review at many stages of the investigation, etc. (We've all seen Law and Order)

A military enemy means "the gloves come off." No warrants required, no niggling questions of shoot or don't shoot. Why can we be so cavalier about documenting evidence and whatnot? Because the goal is defeating an enemy rather than bringing him to trial. Of course, said enemy is explicitly NOT GUILTY of commiting any crime just by shooting at "our boys." The law of war (as codified by treaty in the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Acords of 1949 and others) makes this an important point; enemy soldiers, while subject to indefinite detention when captured, CANNOT be tried by civilian courts. And under this philosophy, it doesn't matter if UBL was naked, in a hot tub, hopped up on H and snorting coke off a hooker's ass (ie, unarmed and otherwise not ready to fight), he's still an enemy and subject to kinetic energy poisoning.

This unlawful combatant designation is an attempt to have it both ways and has really muddied the waters in the public's understanding of the law of war.

[Bonefish]

Besides the fact that a lot of the information is circumstantial, attained by questionable and somewhat unconstitionable means, etc. I for one never wanted to see a Criminal Case against Bin Ladin, because we never could pin 9/11 directly on him. So... yeah. I figure we did the right thing. Well, "we" in the editorial sense. Obviously, I don't think I had anything to do with the operation.

You know something else that's sticking in my craw? Then umber of people who keep suggesting that the detainees in gitmo handed over "critical" information regarding Osama's location. Yeah guys, these guys who haven't been anywhere for 7 years, who have had negligible contact with the outside world, yeah, I'm sure they knew where Osama was...

Jeezus, what the fuck is wrong with my country?

[Nicephorus]

The ISI also, well, they've been in bed with a lot of the militants because hey, keeping Afghanistan all messed up and crazy helps to secure their western border against Iran(not a friendly country for Pakistan!) and allows them to keep their attention on India, who they are not fond of.

I don't disagree with anything else you said, but this is a core problem for U.S. policy in the region. Not everyone sees a strong, stable Afghanistan as a good thing.

Pakistan is a large, heavily populated country with ethnic variation. Like other countries like that, it's hard to say much that applies to everyone. But it seems to a minority of them that are gung ho about cleaning up the tribal areas in a way suitable to the U.S.

[Nicephorus]

This unlawful combatant designation is an attempt to have it both ways and has really muddied the waters in the public's understanding of the law of war.

This is why I thought that the handling of Gitmo was poorly done. I agree that the dividing line can be blurry but each of them have been declared either suspects or POWs and applied the rules from there.

[3278]

On the other hand, it's a pretty risky gambit. I mean, if we say he's dead, and he's you know, NOT...

Let's say he is dead but the U.S. didn't kill him.

See the benefit now?

No, actually, I don't. More significantly, I don't see how the benefit of faking his death could possibly outweigh the costs of faking his death. Given the number of people involved in the raid - 80 directly involved, certainly many, many more with knowledge of what actually happened - keeping a secret for an extended period would be impossible, anyway, but I don't see how we could maintain the illusion, anyway: if he isn't already dead, all he has to do is release a current video with time proof, and he makes us look fools. If he is dead, all his supporters have to do is produce a portion of his remains for identification, and they make us look fools. It'd be an impossible illusion to maintain, anyway, and certainly wouldn't be worth any benefits I can perceive.

Mind you, I appreciate your reliance on evidence before belief: I certainly wouldn't state unequivocally that the US killed him recently - although I believe that's what probably happened - in the absence of proof. What's interesting to me is that despite not particularly caring about evidence and standards of proof under ordinary circumstances, you're very insistent about them now, when the US government is involved. Do you think it's possible that you have a bias against the US government that might be changing your typical response to standards of evidence?

[3278]

There are two categories, military and criminal. An individual or organization is exclusively one or the other, or we at least have to act under the fiction that it is. Why?

Because humans like pigeonholes, and if we can just have two of them, so much the better. We like black and white, and we don't like grey, despite the fact that the world is rendered in shades of it. Terrorists are all grey - because warfare this asymmetric is pretty new - and we don't have a pigeonhole for them, so we try to shove their pegs into whatever holes we have available. If terrorism of this sort becomes common, we'll have to develop a third category - like enemy combatant - so that we can pull a little from column A, and a little of column B. It's kind of what we have to do.

[Bonefish]

... because warfare this asymmetric is pretty new...

No, it's really not. Asymmetric warfare is pretty fucking old, and has been practiced for millineia. The real reason we have a problem with it? We're "civilized". Five hundred years ago, you tried this Asymmetric, hit and run bullshit? The opposition would just slaughter your family, salt your fields, take your herds and control the population centers. But we can't do that shit, because we have rules that regulate how we're supposed to act in war, and all the things that work really damn well for quelling asymmetric warfare are all pretty much illegal these days.

People make a big deal out of this "fourth generation" war, but it's really bullshit. The Thracians and Aetolians, for example, practiced the same style of warfare against their greek neighbors: hit and run the greeks when they march out to fight, retreat to fortified positions and stay mobile. And it worked. But the Thracians had the capability of keeping their manpower reserves and capital(mostly herds) out of the Greeks hands.

Back in WW2, the Dutch tried to resist the Germans by using snipers and ambushing isolated patrols. The Wehrmacht had a simple counter: for every german soldier killed by a sniper, they executed 10 Dutch citizens. The Resistance stopped it's overt actions and went into sabotage and intelligence gathering.

The only time that Assymetric warfare works is when you have a safe hinterland to retreat into(Steppe Nomads, Thracians, Bedouin are good examples) that your opponent can't follow you into for whatever reason, or when your opponent is either unwilling or unable to use harsh reprisals against you. Back in the Boer wars, the Boer Commandos gave the British army hell for years. And then the british had the simple expedient of rounding up the wives and children of the boers and sticking them in concentration camps. The Men gave up shortly.

Now, this doesn't mean that we have to go back to "barbaric" practices to win a war against guerrillas, it just means that if we don't, we're going to have a tough go at. However, I happen to think that history is going to look fairly fondly on the American "occupations" of various countries, as we haven't done the wholesale pillaging and raping that many other empires have done. German is once again the most powerful nation in Europe, Japan is doing great, South Korea is doing pretty slick, Vietnam has come out fairly well, Italy is doing pretty good for itself, etc. Our track record, in the grand scheme of things, isn't that fucking bad.


That said, I still think we should avoid just going around kicking ass and taking names, for a number of reasons.

[Bonefish]

... because warfare this asymmetric is pretty new...

No, it's really not. Asymmetric warfare is pretty fucking old, and has been practiced for millineia. The real reason we have a problem with it? We're "civilized". Five hundred years ago, you tried this Asymmetric, hit and run bullshit? The opposition would just slaughter your family, salt your fields, take your herds and control the population centers. But we can't do that shit, because we have rules that regulate how we're supposed to act in war, and all the things that work really damn well for quelling asymmetric warfare are all pretty much illegal these days.

People make a big deal out of this "fourth generation" war, but it's really bullshit. The Thracians and Aetolians, for example, practiced the same style of warfare against their greek neighbors: hit and run the greeks when they march out to fight, retreat to fortified positions and stay mobile. And it worked. But the Thracians had the capability of keeping their manpower reserves and capital(mostly herds) out of the Greeks hands.

Back in WW2, the Dutch tried to resist the Germans by using snipers and ambushing isolated patrols. The Wehrmacht had a simple counter: for every german soldier killed by a sniper, they executed 10 Dutch citizens. The Resistance stopped it's overt actions and went into sabotage and intelligence gathering.

The only time that Assymetric warfare works is when you have a safe hinterland to retreat into(Steppe Nomads, Thracians, Bedouin are good examples) that your opponent can't follow you into for whatever reason, or when your opponent is either unwilling or unable to use harsh reprisals against you. Back in the Boer wars, the Boer Commandos gave the British army hell for years. And then the british had the simple expedient of rounding up the wives and children of the boers and sticking them in concentration camps. The Men gave up shortly.

Now, this doesn't mean that we have to go back to "barbaric" practices to win a war against guerrillas, it just means that if we don't, we're going to have a tough go at. However, I happen to think that history is going to look fairly fondly on the American "occupations" of various countries, as we haven't done the wholesale pillaging and raping that many other empires have done. German is once again the most powerful nation in Europe, Japan is doing great, South Korea is doing pretty slick, Vietnam has come out fairly well, Italy is doing pretty good for itself, etc. Our track record, in the grand scheme of things, isn't that fucking bad.


That said, I still think we should avoid just going around kicking ass and taking names, for a number of reasons.

[3278]

... because warfare this asymmetric is pretty new...

No, it's really not. Asymmetric warfare is pretty fucking old, and has been practiced for millineia.

Absolutely. Asymmetric warfare has existed as long as warfare. But never, ever, in the entire history of mankind, has there been armed conflict between two groups whose level of technology is so disparate. We have drones and atomic devices and stealth fighters, and they have basic chemistry. [You can say they have guns, but it's worth considering that the ability to procure something is very different than the ability to produce it; I would argue it's atomics to chemistry, and not electronics to mechanics, for instance, but both divisions are rational.]

The real reason we have a problem with it? We're "civilized". Five hundred years ago, you tried this Asymmetric, hit and run bullshit? The opposition would just slaughter your family, salt your fields, take your herds and control the population centers.

That is definitely one of the major reasons the US hasn't been able to put an end to the resistance. This kind of slash-and-burn solution would do little but inflame the enemy and infuriate the world; hell, just invading a sovereign nation raised the ire of the globe! And people used to do that shit for breakfast.

People make a big deal out of this "fourth generation" war, but it's really bullshit. The Thracians and Aetolians, for example, practiced the same style of warfare against their greek neighbors: hit and run the greeks when they march out to fight, retreat to fortified positions and stay mobile.

Yeah, but "hit and run tactics" and even "guerrilla warfare" are very different from modern terrorism [or at least "different;" "very" could be an unnecessary modifier]. That said, I definitely agree that far too much can be made of the differences between today's terrorism and yesterday's unconventional warfare! I believe this is a natural evolution of asymmetry, rather than a revolutionary new type of warfare, sprung whole from the forehead of the jihadists.

That said, I still think we should avoid just going around kicking ass and taking names, for a number of reasons.

Yeah, while I like the simplicity of yesteryear, the stability of today - I just finished European History from 1500 to 1990 - seems eminently preferable. It also means it's less likely people will be barbaric toward us, which is a pretty good deal.

[paladin2019]

There are two categories, military and criminal. An individual or organization is exclusively one or the other, or we at least have to act under the fiction that it is. Why?

Because humans like pigeonholes, and if we can just have two of them, so much the better.

No, that's not it. Those are the categories. Period. As in a matter of settled law. As in, make your response fit this paradigm orcompletely re-write Geneva, et al. Military targets can be killed at will. Crimninal targets need trials and the attendant jurisprudence.

like enemy combatant - so that we can pull a little from column A, and a little of column B. It's kind of what we have to do.

Uh, enemy combatant means military. That's the problem wit "unlawful combatant;" it is an attempt to do just this when that clearly violates both the letter and intent of the law of war.

[Crazy Elf]

If he is dead, all his supporters have to do is produce a portion of his remains for identification, and they make us look fools.

Unless he was, you know, buried at sea, cremated, blown to smithereens at an earlier point, located by U.S. forces at an earlier point after being dead. There are various situations in which this could have been dealt with.

Mind you, I appreciate your reliance on evidence before belief: I certainly wouldn't state unequivocally that the US killed him recently - although I believe that's what probably happened - in the absence of proof. What's interesting to me is that despite not particularly caring about evidence and standards of proof under ordinary circumstances, you're very insistent about them now, when the US government is involved. Do you think it's possible that you have a bias against the US government that might be changing your typical response to standards of evidence?

With each video that bin Ladin released more recruits flooded over to his organisation. Each video was bin Ladin thumbing his nose at the U.S. who despite all of its resources couldn't find the man. Suddenly the steady flow of these videos stopped for years on end. Why? Because bin Ladin's organisation was splintering? If that were so the videos would still have bolstered recruitment for his faction.

It's not like the videos would have been hard to release, either. If he was living in Pakistan he'd have had easy access to Al Jazeera. He hasn't been sighted reliably on any video since October 29, 2004. Everything from that point on was either purely audio, or still images cut with other footage of him. The likelihood that he was dead some time after or around this point is quite high, and I'm not the one one that thinks this. I can keep linking to stuff like this all day.

If they'd said they killed Zawahiri I probably wouldn't have doubted it, and in all likelihood this would have been a much bigger deal. I'm doubting this not because it's the U.S. government saying it, but because I was pretty damned sure he was already dead, as were many others.

[Nicephorus]

My knowledge of the law is scant. But doesn't someone who fails to identify themself as a combatant through a uniform and sign and openly shown weapons lose their qualification as soldier and eligibility to be a pow? Most terrorists would fall under that so would have the worst of both worlds - combatants in the field but liable for criminal acts.

[3278]

There are two categories, military and criminal. An individual or organization is exclusively one or the other, or we at least have to act under the fiction that it is. Why?

Because humans like pigeonholes, and if we can just have two of them, so much the better.

No, that's not it. Those are the categories. Period. As in a matter of settled law. As in, make your response fit this paradigm orcompletely re-write Geneva, et al. Military targets can be killed at will. Crimninal targets need trials and the attendant jurisprudence.

Oh, wait. I'm utterly misunderstanding your point. What you're saying is that someone is either criminal or military, that we shouldn't find grey, that we should fit everyone into one of these two categories. That's a different kettle.

If you make a Venn diagram of all combatants, using the current legal structure, it wouldn't be a nice neat thing, would it? It wouldn't be a circle with a line somewhere through it dividing criminal from military. There'd be some overlap, right, and some area not covered by either description? So are you saying we need to rewrite the laws to tidy things up, or do you believe that, with the laws are written, that things are already tidy?

...like enemy combatant - so that we can pull a little from column A, and a little of column B. It's kind of what we have to do.

Uh, enemy combatant means military. That's the problem wit "unlawful combatant;"...

Yeah, sorry: "unlawful combatant" is what I actually meant, and not "enemy combatant."

[3278]

If he is dead, all his supporters have to do is produce a portion of his remains for identification, and they make us look fools.

Unless he was, you know, buried at sea, cremated, blown to smithereens at an earlier point, located by U.S. forces at an earlier point after being dead. There are various situations in which this could have been dealt with.

Okay, so if we already knew he was dead, why hadn't we told anyone? What did we have to gain by hiding it? And how did we hide it, when hundreds of people are involved? What did we then have to gain with this operation? And given two options - the case as presented by the US military, or your theoretical possibility, which one is more likely?

Mind you, I appreciate your reliance on evidence before belief: I certainly wouldn't state unequivocally that the US killed him recently - although I believe that's what probably happened - in the absence of proof. What's interesting to me is that despite not particularly caring about evidence and standards of proof under ordinary circumstances, you're very insistent about them now, when the US government is involved. Do you think it's possible that you have a bias against the US government that might be changing your typical response to standards of evidence?

With each video that bin Ladin released more recruits flooded over to his organisation. Each video was bin Ladin thumbing his nose at the U.S. who despite all of its resources couldn't find the man. Suddenly the steady flow of these videos stopped for years on end. Why? Because bin Ladin's organisation was splintering? If that were so the videos would still have bolstered recruitment for his faction.

So your point is that the videos were a very good recruitment tool, and that because he hadn't released any videos for a while, he must have been dead, and that any other explanation is less likely than a massive US military conspiracy featuring details like the President of the United States baldly lying to the nation on television, an enormous number of the President's political enemies concealing his duplicity, and hundreds of military personnel sticking to a very elaborate falsehood. All of that is more likely than any other explanation for bin Laden not releasing a video recently? That's your point?

I'm doubting this not because it's the U.S. government saying it, but because I was pretty damned sure he was already dead, as were many others.

My only suggestion, then, is that perhaps you might keep a more open mind, to not let past decisions limit consideration of the present. I am so not saying you're wrong. Maybe bin Laden was already dead, and there's some reasonable explanation for the hoax, but when I weigh probabilities on this thing, your way seems kind of whack. As I say, I applaud your standard of evidence, but would gently remind you that in the absence of evidence, we need to use reason to fill in the blanks, rather than simply maintaining the view we already hold.

[Crazy Elf]

Okay, so if we already knew he was dead, why hadn't we told anyone?

Well if there is DNA evidence now and it's genuine it may indicate that the U.S. found the body, recently.

So your point is that the videos were a very good recruitment tool, and that because he hadn't released any videos for a while, he must have been dead, and that any other explanation is less likely than a massive US military conspiracy featuring details like the President of the United States baldly lying to the nation on television, an enormous number of the President's political enemies concealing his duplicity, and hundreds of military personnel sticking to a very elaborate falsehood. All of that is more likely than any other explanation for bin Laden not releasing a video recently? That's your point?

Rhetoric.

My only suggestion, then, is that perhaps you might keep a more open mind, to not let past decisions limit consideration of the present. I am so not saying you're wrong. Maybe bin Laden was already dead, and there's some reasonable explanation for the hoax, but when I weigh probabilities on this thing, your way seems kind of whack. As I say, I applaud your standard of evidence, but would gently remind you that in the absence of evidence, we need to use reason to fill in the blanks, rather than simply maintaining the view we already hold.

Rhetoric.

[Raygun]

New meme, courtesy of Elf. Whenever anyone says anything you don't want to hear, cut them off with "Rhetoric!" in an Australian accent.

IMPORTANT BUSINESS FOLLOWS:

I have a feeling they're not going to recreate this internet argument in the movie that Michael Bay is almost certainly testing out new visual explosive technologies for as we speak. Schwarznegger as McRaven. Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner as the two SEALs who breach the room. Affleck as bin Laden. Look for it. Summer, 2013.

[paladin2019]

My knowledge of the law is scant. But doesn't someone who fails to identify themself as a combatant through a uniform and sign and openly shown weapons lose their qualification as soldier and eligibility to be a pow? Most terrorists would fall under that so would have the worst of both worlds - combatants in the field but liable for criminal acts.

What you're talking about is a war crime. Said individual is still subject to capture as a POW, but a military tribunal will try them. A civilian court still can't, according to the law of war. Again, another problem with this unlawful combatant designation; bringing civilian courts into the sytem in violation of treaty and international law. The law of war is also very directive is stating that a combatant should be assumed to be legitimate and entitled to POW status without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oh, wait. I'm utterly misunderstanding your point. What you're saying is that someone is either criminal or military, that we shouldn't find grey, that we should fit everyone into one of these two categories. That's a different kettle.

Yeah. If I was unclear, I'm sorry. As a matter of philosophy, I prefer properly applying current law rather than/before making up new ones.

If you make a Venn diagram of all combatants, using the current legal structure, it wouldn't be a nice neat thing, would it? It wouldn't be a circle with a line somewhere through it dividing criminal from military. There'd be some overlap, right, and some area not covered by either description? So are you saying we need to rewrite the laws to tidy things up, or do you believe that, with the laws are written, that things are already tidy?

The latter. The law of war does provide for the prosecution of combatants for criminal acts, just explicitly not within the civilian legal system. The biggest issue is standards or proof.

While US law allows admission of anything discovered by US military forces in the regular performance of operations, that has to be judiciously used so abuse doesn't result in judicial nullification. It's shaky on 4th Amendment grounds already.

For example, suppose a soldier assigned to a SIGINT unit suspects his wife of adultery in a state where that is grounds for divorce. While operating SIGINT equipment in training, he or someone in the unit "just happens to" intercept cell phone traffic between said wife and her extra-marital partner. Hey, that was discovered during normal operations, right? Well, hey, if that's okay, why not have "training ops" in range of other suspected criminal activities? "Oh, yeah, your honor, as a standard counterintellligence training technique, we pick a "random" vehicle and surveil it, work up a complete profile of the occupants, all that. We just "happened to" discover this guy was dealing and alerted the police like good citizens." There's no posssibility for abuse there, nosiree.

But if we're talking about military targets, the basic assumption is that judicial prosecutions are not an intended outcome and so things like 4th Amendment protections (warrants, et al) are not necessary. Combatants captured rather than killed are simply subject to indefinite detention (no later than the end of the conflict) with no presumption of committing a criminal act. So intelligence collection techniques do not need to follow the same protocols as evidence collection, even though intelligence and evidence are basically the same information.

I guess in my ramblng response here, I'm trying to say we need a deliberate decision as to how we classify transnational terrorists. Said decision must be based on the current law of war or else we need to call on the international community to amend it. For a number of reasons, I favor classifying them as military.

[Bonefish]

Absolutely. Asymmetric warfare has existed as long as warfare. But never, ever, in the entire history of mankind, has there been armed conflict between two groups whose level of technology is so disparate. We have drones and atomic devices and stealth fighters, and they have basic chemistry.

This is more a matter of resources, than technological disparity. I mean, a remote triggered explosive and a predator are actually pretty close in the idea. If, say, the guys we're talking about had the money, I'm sure we could've seen a lot more sophisticated devices used. Hell, I'm sure that atleast one robotics engineer student in the whole of the US who has a background from the region, I'm SURE that atleast one of them had sympathies with Al-Qeuda. But, if the only thing you can score are some artillery shells, wire and cell phones, you fucking make do with what you have. I'd like to point out, for example, that the guys who flew the planes into buildings? A number of them had pretty good training in civil engineering, and were smart guys.

It's all about procurement and resources baby. The Dacians(kindred to the Thracians) who fought the romans had access to the same technologies as the romans, but were unable to deploy them in anywhere near the same level: your average dacian was unarmored, and poorly armed, while your average Legionaire was well armored and well armed. The Dacians had an inability to support mobility of thousands, or tens of thousands of people for extended periods, while the Romans could do it in spades. It wasn't so much a technological disparity as a resource disparity.

Like, say, we're talking about CIV4, right? Both sides of a conflict have access to most of the same technologies(ok, maybe not stealth and atomics...), but once side has oil, aluminium, iron, coal and a lot of well developed cities. The other side? Has, er, Gold and a shit economic picture due to poorly developed cities(and all their cottages have been pillaged, along with their roads and farms, and mines, etcs). So one side is rolling with Tanks, Gunships, Mechanized Infantry, Stealth Airplanes and shit, while the other side, well, they've got Infantry.

There is a technological disparity, sure, but I think you're making it seem like it's larger than it is: with sufficient resources, I think Osama could have deployed some really nasty, high tech shit for us. But when you can't procure basic goods, you gotta go low-tech.

[You can say they have guns, but it's worth considering that the ability to procure something is very different than the ability to produce it; I would argue it's atomics to chemistry, and not electronics to mechanics, for instance, but both divisions are rational.]

Check into the arms trade from Afghanistan. There are, or atleast were, Afghan gunsmiths working with very primitive tools, turning out mausers, AKs, and all sorts of weapons. We're talking guys working in what is effectively a shed, building these things. I know that's not your big point here, but I think we need to keep in mind that infrastructure and economy matter a huge amount when we're talking about production and/or procurement of weapon systems.

That is definitely one of the major reasons the US hasn't been able to put an end to the resistance. This kind of slash-and-burn solution would do little but inflame the enemy and infuriate the world; hell, just invading a sovereign nation raised the ire of the globe! And people used to do that shit for breakfast.

It depends, I think Yeah, if WE did it, we'd see people up in arms about it. But when, say, the Sudan does it against their rebels? No one gives a fuck. It's all about the spotlight: if the spotlight is on you, then you're gonna get in trouble for every fart and f-bomb you utter, while in the darker parts of the club, people are snorting dope and fucking in public, and no one says anything.

Yeah, but "hit and run tactics" and even "guerrilla warfare" are very different from modern terrorism [or at least "different;" "very" could be an unnecessary modifier]. That said, I definitely agree that far too much can be made of the differences between today's terrorism and yesterday's unconventional warfare! I believe this is a natural evolution of asymmetry, rather than a revolutionary new type of warfare, sprung whole from the forehead of the jihadists.

Well, I guess it depends on terrorism and how we define it. I've always considered terrorism to simply be the use of terror to force policy changes. Well, there's lots of Terrorism on both sides.

pquote]Yeah, while I like the simplicity of yesteryear, the stability of today - I just finished European History from 1500 to 1990 - seems eminently preferable. It also means it's less likely people will be barbaric toward us, which is a pretty good deal.[/quote]

I don't think I would say that it was any simpler or any more complex today. It's just that some of the rules have changed, and the changes of the rules definitely make the game play different. The game has always, and always will be the same, but the rules change every now and then, and sometimes you get groups who don't play by the same rules, but they're playing the same game.

[Nicephorus]

My knowledge of the law is scant. But doesn't someone who fails to identify themself as a combatant through a uniform and sign and openly shown weapons lose their qualification as soldier and eligibility to be a pow? Most terrorists would fall under that so would have the worst of both worlds - combatants in the field but liable for criminal acts.

What you're talking about is a war crime. Said individual is still subject to capture as a POW, but a military tribunal will try them. A civilian court still can't, according to the law of war. Again, another problem with this unlawful combatant designation; bringing civilian courts into the sytem in violation of treaty and international law. The law of war is also very directive is stating that a combatant should be assumed to be legitimate and entitled to POW status without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

War crims is for people who qualify as pows yet failed to follow the laws of warfare. I was going the other direction, those who do not qualify as pows, under article 4 of the Geneva Convention. Those not in or with a regular army would have to fall under 2 or 6 below to be a pow.


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The lack of a distinctive sign and the lack of open weapons would disqualify terrorists. If I understand correctly, a captured terrorist is therefore a civilian and can be tried for their crimes instead of simply being interred until the end of hostilities. However, terrorists fighting back attempts to capture them would essentially be combatants. But civilian law isn't that different here as a cop has the right to shoot someone who is shooting at them or at others.

[paladin2019]

First, UBL is obviously in a different situation. It's UBL. He IS recognizable as the leader.

For terrorists in general, the lack of a distinctive uniforms and weapons could disqualify the POW status, but it doesn't mean a nation can't recognize it anyway (and subsequently try them for war crimes for not doing so.) The fact the US holds persons in a military internment facility rather than a civilian prison implies that is US policy. Trying said individual in a civilian court then violates the law of war.

[Bonefish]

So uh, does it count for anything that al-Qeuada believes Osama is ded?

[Crazy Elf]

So uh, does it count for anything that al-Qeuada believes Osama is ded?

Well Al-Qaeda have a lot more to gain from saying that he's dead and the Americans killed him than saying otherwise. Recruitment goes through the roof as a result. Seeing that I'm quite sure Al-Qaeda have been releasing what many have believed to be fake statements from Osama for years now they don't really have a choice but to make a statement of this sort.

[Bonefish]

So uh, does it count for anything that al-Qeuada believes Osama is ded?

Well Al-Qaeda have a lot more to gain from saying that he's dead and the Americans killed him than saying otherwise. Recruitment goes through the roof as a result. Seeing that I'm quite sure Al-Qaeda have been releasing what many have believed to be fake statements from Osama for years now they don't really have a choice but to make a statement of this sort.

Wow, is there no way you can't spin things to mesh into your world view? They have a lot to lose too, like prestige and respect. "hey, our boss got himself killed, but don't worry, we're still #1!".

[Bonefish]

So uh, does it count for anything that al-Qeuada believes Osama is ded?

Well Al-Qaeda have a lot more to gain from saying that he's dead and the Americans killed him than saying otherwise. Recruitment goes through the roof as a result. Seeing that I'm quite sure Al-Qaeda have been releasing what many have believed to be fake statements from Osama for years now they don't really have a choice but to make a statement of this sort.

Wow, is there no way you can't spin things to mesh into your world view? They have a lot to lose too, like prestige and respect. "hey, our boss got himself killed, but don't worry, we're still #1!".