LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 27, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     robert scheer     barack obama     gay marriage     ndaa     chris hedges
Most Read

Say 'Hi-Ho!' as They Strip-Search You

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

I Can't Hear Myself Think

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Children Slaughtered in Government Attack on Syrian Town

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

Our Murderers in the Sky

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Dec 10, 2009
U.S. Air Force / Master Sgt. Scott Reed

By Scott Ritter

War is hell, as the saying goes. Murder, on the other hand, is a crime. In this age of the “long war” pitting the United States against the forces of global terror, it is critical that the American people be able to distinguish between the two. The legitimate application of military power to a problem that manifests itself, directly or indirectly, as a threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States, while horrible in terms of its consequences, is not only defensible but mandatory.

The true test of a society and its leaders is the extent to which every effort is made to both properly define a problem as one worthy of military intervention and then exhaust every option other than the use of force. It is true that President Barack Obama inherited the war in Afghanistan from his predecessor and therefore cannot be held accountable for that which transpired beyond his ability to influence. But the president’s recent decision to “surge” 30,000 additional U.S. military troops into Afghanistan transfers ownership of the Afghan conflict to him and him alone. It is in this light that his decision must be ultimately judged. 

In many ways, Obama’s presentation before the Long Gray Line at West Point, in which he explained his decision to conduct the Afghanistan surge, represented an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people. The most egregious contradiction in his speech was the notion that the people of Afghanistan, who, throughout their history, have resisted central authority whether emanating from Kabul or imposed by outside invaders, would somehow be compelled to embrace this new American plan.

At its heart, the strategy requires a fiercely independent people to swear fealty to a man, Hamid Karzai, whose tenure as Afghanistan’s president has been marred by inefficiencies and corruption (even Obama was forced to acknowledge the fraudulent nature of the recent election which secured Karzai’s second term in office). Trying to reverse centuries of adherence to local authority and tribal loyalty with the promise of effective central government would represent a monumental challenge for the most efficient and honest of Afghan leaders. That we are attempting to do so behind the person of Karzai represents the height of folly.

For any military-based solution to have a chance of succeeding, we would need to deploy into Afghanistan an army of social scientists capable of navigating the complex reality of intertribal and interethnic relationships. They would require not only astute diplomatic skills that would enable them to bring together Hazara Shiite and Pashtun Sunni, or Uzbek and Tadjik, or any other combination of the myriad of peoples who make up the populace of Afghanistan, but also an understanding of multiple native languages and dialects. But the reality is we are instead dispatching 20-year-old boys from Poughkeepsie whose skill set, perfected during several months of predeployment training, is more conducive to firing three rounds center mass into a human body.

Advertisement

The nation-building or “civilian strategy” envisioned by President Obama, impossibly ambitious even under the most ideal conditions, simply cannot be achieved with the resources at hand, whether in 18 months or 18 years. That he has chosen to place at risk the lives of even more American troops, and by extension the citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the pursuit of such unattainable ambition is inexcusable.

The American military is unmatched in its ability to wage war. If the problem of Afghanistan was able to be defined in military terms alone, then perhaps Obama’s surge would provide the basis of a solution. But the Afghan problem has never been a military problem. The United States has, from the very beginning of its Afghanistan misadventure, sought to define the mission within the overall context of a “war on terror.” But the real mission revolves more around bringing to justice the perpetrators of mass murder and building international consensus to help prevent another such crime than it does any variation of closing with and destroying an enemy through firepower, maneuver and shock effect, which is the traditional core of any military operation.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, created problems best dealt with through diplomacy, law enforcement and intelligence. That the United States chose to define it instead as an act of war means that we have never assembled the tool set necessary to solve the Afghan problem, which explains a recent admission by U.S. military officers that, after eight years of war, America was at “square one” in Afghanistan.

Obama’s characterization of the threat faced by the United States and its allies in the expanded Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) theater of operations is as misleading as it is inaccurate. There is no singular, homogeneous enemy to be confronted by a surging U.S. military. The notion that the Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida fighters operating in both countries are part of an overarching Islamic fundamentalist movement seeking to export violence to the shores of America is fundamentally wrong. While the president may in fact have seen intelligence information (of undetermined veracity) that shows that some individuals or groups operating in the Af-Pak area of operations have in fact plotted such attacks, to characterize these players and their actions as representing a majority (or even significant minority) opinion among the thousands of fighters opposing the United States and its allies is just plain wrong. Yet, having accepted the definition of the Af-Pak problem in military terms, Obama had no choice but to accede to the solutions put forward by such charismatic military leaders as Gen. David Petraeus (the commander of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM) and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, December 11, 2009 at 5:59 am Link to this comment

“We never should have allowed the cover up of Truth that was presented by the 9/11 commission.  It takes any reasonable person that is not a sociopath to understand that much of the murderous show presented on 9/11 was not a result of the actions taken by men who were residing in caves in Afghanistan.  The proponderance of evidence demonstrates that they may have played a significant part in the show, but the majority of that murderous show was an inside job.”

The Sleeper is awake.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/truth-and-friends/

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, December 11, 2009 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

But how will they “clear and hold” the TAPI pipeline corridor with robot planes, Mr. Ritter?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, December 11, 2009 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

“The events of Sept. 11, 2001, created problems best dealt with through diplomacy, law enforcement and intelligence.”

Tell us all about it, Mr. Ritter:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

Report this

By pamrider, December 11, 2009 at 5:43 am Link to this comment

The fellow who co-founded the faith-based opposition to nuclear testing at the Nevada (nuclear weapons) Test Site, Fr. Louie Vitale, spoke to the Nellis Air Force Base commander (in spirit of St. Francis) before beginning civil disobedience campaign against drone controller base, Creech Air Force Base. The general said that it was great: soliders could drop their children off at school in the morning, conduct video game-type bombing runs all day (also watching deadly results) and then return home for dinner. Note, these people typically watch the destruction they recreate. A new PTSD form is being created. Some Afghan-Parkistan vets will celebrate Christmas as homeless in San Diego.

Report this

By pamrider, December 11, 2009 at 5:34 am Link to this comment

It is my understanding that weapons that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants violate international law. Well, first: decency.

Report this

By Sleeper, December 11, 2009 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

If there ever was a reasonable explaination presented that actually looked for those responsible for the murders that occured on 9/11/01 then I could see using these drones to an even greater extent.  The nation building scheme that takes 100,000 or more of our young men and women and places them in an unfriendly land with targets painted on them is only explained by a deceptive policy that is in itself murderous.

We never should have allowed the cover up of Truth that was presented by the 9/11 commission.  It takes any reasonable person that is not a sociopath to understand that much of the murderous show presented on 9/11 was not a result of the actions taken by men who were residing in caves in Afghanistan.  The proponderance of evidence demonstrates that they may have played a significant part in the show, but the majority of that murderous show was an inside job.

The facts argued by men and women who are not paid mouthpieces for entities who desire continual war show that the official explainations would present a number of descrepancies that could not have happened as we were told. The only explaination of such incompetant findings is a designed intent of that commission to in itself bury the evidence without an adaquate reveiw.

These Wars should have never been more then a criminal pursuit that could still having us using drones along with special forces to capture or kill AlQeada.  It most likely could have found a large number of insiders from this country that knowingly participated in acts of murder on our citizens and acts that ultimately resulted in Treason which cultivated the procecution of at least one War of Agression and development of policies that assisted in the commital of other War Crimes.

The only entities for which these wars have been benificial are those who produce the tools utilized by these Wars. Our Constitution has been shreaded by dishonorable men and women who on one hand swear to protect and defend it from all enemies both foreign and domestic.  These domestic enemies have done more damage to this nation then the deaths of 9/11/01. They have treated the American taxpayers and consumers with arrogance and impunity.

Report this

By NELSONDRC, December 11, 2009 at 4:53 am Link to this comment

Thank you Scott Ritter for your many informative articles.
In my mind War is the other half of Diplomacy.
In my mind the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan is a political and policy decision - right or wrong.
But if the USA is going to deploy and employ the military machine then the use of drones meets with my approval.
Granted the use of the military is a gigantic broadsword and a blunt instrument, often devoid of subtly.
On another tangent, my thinking is that there needs to a distinction between acts that fall within the criminal code and acts of war.
War is awful but I do not support the use of due process when using the military option.
This thought is revolting but a necessary consideration when choosing to employ a military option.
War is hell.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 11, 2009 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

Not only in Copenhagen is the “human factor” missing.
It is also missing in the Hussein Obama administration.  Perhaps also among the folk who fail to comprehend that neither Sadaam Hussein nor any Moslem country posed nor poses a threat to the USofA. The question is posed by the Federal Reserve illuminati brethren, some of them oil vultures. 

Truth Alliance, 09.12.2009 cited.
—Obama casts the illusion of a 2011 withdrawal from Afghanistan.. A Pentagon report revealed an Obama total of 242,657 private contractors (mercenaries)in action as of June 30, 2009.

OBSERVATION: no montey is “left over” from the monies needed for weapons and supplies for our illegal soldiers and mercenaries - and of course bribes - in the Ir-Af-Pak regions. This while the Hussein Obama administration continues to wipe out the IR-AF-PAK local leadership. 

Not because they threaten US security, but rather because OIL VULTURES, most whom reside in the US at least six months/fiscal year, demand to own the oil fields and pipelines that logically belong to these countries. 

As far as hunger in the US is concerned, the millions of “Wetbacks” are already on the official “Dole-Rolls,” receive money and food. Thus, only honest, indigenous Americans need go hungry.

Report this

By Ivan Hentschel, December 11, 2009 at 3:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you shoot an unarmed man in the back, in a dark alley, without warning, with a bag over your head to conceal your identity, does it qualify as “collateral damage”? Many quarters would call this cowardice.

Report this

By johannes, December 11, 2009 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

The humans who geth killed by this god forsaken machine, are real Humans, they live their way of we like it or not, they are way behind in school education, but still have an great advantage on us, they are Humans, and not stupid clones.

Report this

By ardee, December 11, 2009 at 2:16 am Link to this comment

CaptRon, December 11 at 5:41 am

I do not doubt your sincerity, only your logic.

If you believe that the people of Afghanistan are solidly behind the Taliban, or even AlQaeda, I point you to the criticisms of Taliban govt.rule pre 9/11 from the people of that nation. I think that, if we hadn’t invaded that nation, the Taliban’s hold would have weakened or disintegrated by now.

But that is ,of course, only conjecture on my part. The reality is clear though. Our actions are driving the people closer to radicals and thus seems a silly way to achieve victory. We install a corrupt and unpopular govt., we assassinate those in proximity to suspected terrorists in greater numbers than the actual target itself. Yet we expect a popular support for these actions.

Military might is no way to achieve the goal we seek, which is, by the by, a rather fuzzy and quite possibly unrealistic one. Time and again we see historical evidence that extremists within a nation are viewed as nationalists, as freedom fighters. We see that efforts to dislodge them fail, but only after years of death and millions or even billions of dollars expended.

The truth remains that AlQaeda, those who are blamed for the planning and financing of 9/11, are not even within Afghanistan any longer, that the ones we fight, Taliban forces, offered up bin Laden prior to an invasion, and have no goal of harming the West outside the borders of their own territory.

The way to achieve peace in any nation is not through an act of war, especially when the Taliban itself has no international aims, claimed fervently that it knew nothing about the plans of those it sheltered because of religious obligations to do so, and is itself a thorn on the side of many Afghans.

Report this

By CaptRon, December 11, 2009 at 12:41 am Link to this comment

re: ChaoticGood

I don’t advocate war, I detest war just for clarification. If I knew that surely there would be no further terroristic attacks to our country or people, please end all this nonsense immediately. There is no honor in killing people. Yet, there are always the bully type, who prey on weaker or naive people. In this case, they are using there God to justify terror. Not acceptable-never. Does it happen in my country? Surely. I am not advocating honor of battle. If these types can’t create death to many of my brothers and sisters, they lose following. Drones and the like, take my brothers and sisters out of harms way, especially in numbers. The Japanese used kamikaze pilots by promising honor for their loved ones after their contribution. The bombs used in my country were airplanes loaded with innocent people flown into places killing innocent people from everywhere. Bicycles are not necessarily strapped with explosives, people are, with promise of heralded afterlife as if God said “do it”. Hitler had the ideas, the German people, and many others paid the price. What I say for sure is: in the choice of sending troops or drone types into a possible death situation, I will take the best choice for keeping them alive. All combatants of any side are being used for a purpose, just or not. I select to give our troops the best chance to accomplish without injury or death, and in the process force the battle to the negotiation tables. Can only hope.

Report this

By ChaoticGood, December 10, 2009 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

Dear CaptRon,
I have a question for you.  Suppose you hated an invader in your country and you had no drones, cannons, airplanes, missles or tanks to fight them with. 
You do have bombs and lots of people who want to deliver them any way they can.  Tie that to a religion that rewards you if you die for the God. 

Do you believe that you would fight the invader using any means at your disposal or not?

Second question.

Is dropping a bomb from 30,000 feet on a village more honorable than strapping a bomb on a bicycle and riding into the village and exploding it?

Report this

By CaptRon, December 10, 2009 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

Anytime—anytime—-would I take a drone that could create havoc without threat of American loss of life or injury. Not macho? Deal with it, any of those who hide in caves and villages terrorizing innocents in the name of Jihad. They use human people strapped with explosives with promise of reward in heaven so to speak. Not only do I support drones, I would support mechanical tank like units, much like those used in bomb detection, as cave runners or wherever they can be used in place of human troops subjected to death or capture and used as propaganda only to be put to death. I am old enough to remember back to the U2 incident which was only spy missions. It put the U.S. back on it’s heals. A drone or mechanical device can be “terminated” if detected without loss of life, yet if successful can be an earlier end to conflict and terrorism. Don’t like them? Then come to the table and negotiate like Obama has asked for from the start, open rhetoric. Provide those who have made the decisions to kill thousands of innocents,which is truly cowardly, to enlighten their reputations and build a following rather than create a solution. I say they don’t want solution or peace. They want virgins, whether they are living or dead. I say F them. Fight the mechanical demons, see if that gets you any virgins.

Report this

By abdo, December 10, 2009 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

Don’t forget, suicide bombers are “cowards,” but unmanned drone planes are “heroic.” I second and add cruise missals from 2000 miles and 20 thousand pound bombs from stilt plains height in the sky are anything but heroic. Remember bill Mahr lost his job as late night show on abc? because he expressed similar opinion.

Report this

By ChaoticGood, December 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

We are now “automating” the abattoir.  The beginnings of the impersonal “terminator” war.  Great “shock and awe”.  Who cares if some machines fall from the sky.  Look at all the dead bodies piled up.  Don’t worry, they will be buried by sunset of the third day.  Let’em breed we can build more machines.
This is the stuff of nightmares…it leads America to madness and the loss of everything that makes us special.
What’s next?...targeted influenza that only infects people who have “Islamic” genes…

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, December 10, 2009 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment

With the recent revelations that the US/Pak secret deals over the years says much and the a joint JSOC/Xe/CIA/regular military using drones to kill without restriction in Pakistan(special relationship) while in Afghanistan it is under severe restriction as to who they can kill.

How much worse can it get? How much worse will the “Man of Peace” give us in the way of war is the way to peace? The peace of death for those being given the drone treatment.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, December 10, 2009 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

“Terrorists are those individuals who do not believe that governments have a monopoly on using violence to attain political ends.”
ARUNDHATI ROY

Report this

By samosamo, December 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

““The events of Sept. 11, 2001, created problems best dealt with through
diplomacy, law enforcement and intelligence. That the United States chose to
define it instead as an act of war means that we have never assembled the tool
set necessary to solve the Afghan problem, which explains a recent admission
by U.S. military officers that, after eight years of war, America was at “square
one” in Afghanistan.”“
*********************************************************************

See, this is why the truth never flies in the u.s. because people are so afraid to
know and experience the truth about anything, even reject the truth when they
know or possibly know, so that by NOT throughly investigating the attack of 9/11,
forever and useless wars abound, ruining all the systems that allow a society or
civilization to exist, be viable and survive and only those ‘behind the curtains’
that demand and force forever wars are never really affected.

If the truth(s) of the attack of 9/11 were brought to light much could be done
and the effect would be more than likely to move people to actually do
something or at least I wish it would, but the affect of the msm on those msm
controlled zombies I fear has done a much too effective job and the only way to
really ‘rouse’ the people will be to take their suv, their tvs and all their useless
empty toys and make them hungry and cold,  then, maybe then something will
happen.  Almost as hard as awakening the ENTS to their plight.

Scott Ritter, I sure wish you would turn your attention to 9/11 as I believe you to be one that has the ability to start and maintain an investigation that will light people’s asses to the truth and action.

Report this

By leftyrite, December 10, 2009 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

How would you behave if the shoe were on the other foot?

As what’s left of Christmas approaches, maybe we should think about how
badly we felt on 9/11 when terror from the skies was visited upon American
innocents.

True, there was some kind of iodeological point to be made, about monopoly
capitalism and the like. But the plain fact was that these hijackers murdered
indiscriminately. They murdered the girl who bussed trays at Windows on the
world just as surely as they got back at the imagined derivatives trader from
Cantor Fitzgerald.

The invasion of Afghanistan, you’ll remember, was a clear and direct response
to the events that took place on September 11, 2001. Eight years later, we
ourselves are terrorizing from the skies.

Some soul from those ghostly towers is in agony right now.

Report this

By Howie Bledsoe, December 10, 2009 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dont forget, suicide bombers are “cowards,” but unmanned drone planes are “heroic.”

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.