Split From Corbyn did win/The War On Terrorism

[baron]

Not the point, as was explained further here.

I did link to an article strongly suggestive of Pakistan's tacit approval of action by the US against Bin Laden but of course that was completely ignored.

 

[Nick Terry]

In some respects it's worse. Pakistan is supposedly an ally. Can other US Allies expect their special forces to execute enter the country and execute people when it suits them?

Nearly every other US ally would have the political will and military capability to mount such a raid themselves. If OBL had been hiding in Southampton or Sydney and been discovered, then the respective SAS forces would have gladly used his forehead for target practice.

 

[Nick Terry]

I did link to an article strongly suggestive of Pakistan's tacit approval of action by the US against Bin Laden but of course that was completely ignored.

Pakistani internal politics being what they are, it was certainly more convenient (for significant factions of the Pakistani political establishment) to outsource OBL's demise and blame it on the already unpopular Yankees, than to risk stirring up further anti-government agitation by doing it themselves.

 

[baron]

Pakistani internal politics being what they are, it was certainly more convenient (for significant factions of the Pakistani political establishment) to outsource OBL's demise and blame it on the already unpopular Yankees, than to risk stirring up further anti-government agitation by doing it themselves.

Indeed, it almost defeats reason to think that this raid took Pakistan by surprise.

 

[Antony]

This is becoming a test of stamina rather than reason.

AFAICS, all here agree that the shooting of OBL was an act of extra-judicial execution. We can argue forever about whether extra-judicial execution can be justified, and I see little purpose in continuing the futile debate - which in any case is off-topic in this thread.

It should be clear that Jeremy Corbyn said what he did because he objects to extra-judicial execution, and because he believed that a trial of Osama bin Laden was needed. It was yet another opportunity missed - and that, rather than the deaths of OBL and the other 4 people killed at the same time is the real tragedy.

Would OBL have had a fair trial in the US? Of course not, but even a trial with a pre-determined outcome was preferable to a crude targeted killing. It would have demonstrated a different way of doing things and given public exposure to the events leading up to the 9/11 atrocity.

That is why it is so objectionable that Corbyn's comments have been misrepresented the way they have been.

 

[Giz]

This is becoming a test of stamina rather than reason.

AFAICS, all here agree that the shooting of OBL was an act of extra-judicial execution. We can argue forever about whether extra-judicial execution can be justified, and I see little purpose in continuing the futile debate - which in any case is off-topic in this thread.

It should be clear that Jeremy Corbyn said what he did because he objects to extra-judicial execution, and because he believed that a trial of Osama bin Laden was needed. It was yet another opportunity missed - and that, rather than the deaths of OBL and the other 4 people killed at the same time is the real tragedy.

Would OBL have had a fair trial in the US? Of course not, but even a trial with a pre-determined outcome was preferable to a crude targeted killing. It would have demonstrated a different way of doing things and given public exposure to the events leading up to the 9/11 atrocity.

That is why it is so objectionable that Corbyn's comments have been misrepresented the way they have been.

Was the assassination of heydrich a tragedy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid

 

[The Atheist]

Was the assassination of heydrich a tragedy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid

Shockingly bad attempt at analogy.

Much as Hedrich deserved to die a horrible death, he wasn't killed on the orders of a legitimate government. If he'd been killed by Brits or Americans, you might have a point, but do note that the Nazi war criminals were tried and sentenced to execution, despite millions of deaths at their hands.

 

[Giz]

Shockingly bad attempt at analogy.

Much as Hedrich deserved to die a horrible death, he wasn't killed on the orders of a legitimate government. If he'd been killed by Brits or Americans, you might have a point, but do note that the Nazi war criminals were tried and sentenced to execution, despite millions of deaths at their hands.

Britain sponsored the attempt. And I think it's rather a good analogy really.

 

[The Atheist]

Britain sponsored the attempt. And I think it's rather a good analogy really.

Sponsor and order are two different things.

(I'm not surprised you like it - people generally like their own analogies, which is why they use them.)

 

[baron]

Would OBL have had a fair trial in the US? Of course not, but even a trial with a pre-determined outcome was preferable to a crude targeted killing.

Why is that, then?

 

[ddt]

Was the assassination of heydrich a tragedy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid

Britain sponsored the attempt. And I think it's rather a good analogy really.

Britain didn't only sponsor the attempt, it trained the Czech operatives.

I don't think it's a good analogy. The Czech operatives could never have gotten Heydrich out of the country, not with the help of the whole RAF. Secondly, it was officially a war at the time.

Upthread I made the analogy with Eichmann, and I think that's more apt. The Mossad abducted him alive out of Argentina, and he got a fair trial in Israel. At that moment, there was no war going on, Eichmann was a sought war-criminal in hiding. There's never been a war going on with OBL, he's just a terrorist, and his just desserts would be a trial, just like Eichmann, outlining his guilt for horrible acts. I'm not clear how the Navy Seals who nailed OBL and got out with the same helicopters they came with, could not have taken a live OBL (subdued, chained, whatever) on board instead of a dead one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Secondly, it was officially a war at the time.

We are officially at war with Al Qaeda. Bin Laden himself declared war on us, and we returned the favor. Obama likes to use euphemisms for this instead of calling it war, but war is still what it is, both practically and legally.

I'm not clear how the Navy Seals who nailed OBL and got out with the same helicopters they came with, could not have taken a live OBL (subdued, chained, whatever) on board instead of a dead one.

Perhaps they could have, but that would have been a riskier operation, and we don't need to put our military at higher risk in order to not kill the enemy.

 

[Tolls]

Britain didn't only sponsor the attempt, it trained the Czech operatives.

... and the RAF delivered them.

 

[baron]

Perhaps they could have, but that would have been a riskier operation, and we don't need to put our military at higher risk in order to not kill the enemy.

Well, you'd be surprised how many people think the lives of our servicemen are worth less than that of a terrorist. You hear the same sentiments about drone strikes, much talk of honour as if such a thing is achieved only through the death of Western troops.

 

[Praktik]

Well, you'd be surprised how many people think the lives of our servicemen are worth less than that of a terrorist. You hear the same sentiments about drone strikes, much talk of honour as if such a thing is achieved only through the death of Western troops.

This is based on the fact that no lives are put at risk when drones are flying - so while this could have an honourable rationale, protecting service men and women, from a "battle" perspective it is also cowardly at the same time, which is where I think the discussion of "honour" with respect to drone strikes come from.

This may be an unfair translating of what constitutes a "fair fight" at the interpersonal level to the world stage - but it shouldn't be that hard to understand where these criticisms come from. The more articulate/intelligent critiques of these kinds of ultra-low-risk tactics connect these to the larger issues of War in a democracy - if war can be fought without a cost to human life and to service personnel, would this incline a democracy to be engaged in more wars around the world? The cost of war being cheapened could be a path to moral catastrophe... or so the argument goes (they will highlight here the way the Cost of War was much more a feature of WWII and Vietnam and how this acts as a break on decisions to launch wars)

But back to the drones, it is less about "needing western deaths" to derive honour and more about putting yourself at risk when attacking the enemy. If you take on no risk than it is understood to be a "less honourable", and I think these critics would deem attacks on the enemy "more honourable" even if no one died, as long as some risk was incurred through the course of these attacks (would be silly to imagine anyone "needing western deaths" to derive honour, this is probably more a reflection of one's dislike for people making these arguments than a reflection of their true sentiments)

Its kind of a complex issue - but this is where the criticism comes from anyhow, the ways technological superiority can remove risk entirely from the equation for only one side involved in the battle. And what this ignores is that each side will - of course - seek to reduce their risk by as much as possible, and were the tables turned, the enemy would likely avail itself of similar capacity to reduce risk with drones. However adversaries to the US in the ME have reduced their risk appreciably with more low-tech approaches - if you consider how remotely detonated roadside bombs may be similar ways a low-tech adversary could use tactics that remove or reduce their risk by as much as possible when attempting to extract a cost on the enemy.

These kinds of tactics could be deemed to be "cowardly" - just as drones could be - since the harm being inflicted on the enemy occurs with zero risk to the perpetrators of these attacks.

 

[ddt]

We are officially at war with Al Qaeda. Bin Laden himself declared war on us, and we returned the favor. Obama likes to use euphemisms for this instead of calling it war, but war is still what it is, both practically and legally.

You could say that colloquially, but certainly not legally. War is a conflict between sovereign states. You could argue we're at war with ISIS: they're a self-proclaimed state, which controls actual territory and has many other trappings of a state. But we're not at war with Al Qaeda, they're simply a terrorist organisation and calling it "war" is giving them too much credit.

Perhaps they could have, but that would have been a riskier operation, and we don't need to put our military at higher risk in order to not kill the enemy.

Can you put a number on that? And it's not an enemy, but a wanted terrorist and criminal.

 

[Praktik]

Some might consider the AUMF to "legally" mean the US is officially "at war" with Al Qaeda:

"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States"

 

[The Don]

Killing the leader of a terrorist organisation is acceptable and legal because we are "at war" with that terrorist organisation.

Members of that terrorist organisation are classified as "enemy combatants" and as a consequence don't have the same rights as members of armed forces (no matter how irregular) of countries at war.

I guess it comes down to "because we can" and maybe we should stop handwringing over the whole thing.

 

[3point14]

Killing the leader of a terrorist organisation is acceptable and legal because we are "at war" with that terrorist organisation.

Members of that terrorist organisation are classified as "enemy combatants" and as a consequence don't have the same rights as members of armed forces (no matter how irregular) of countries at war.

I guess it comes down to "because we can" and maybe we should stop handwringing over the whole thing.

Is this the same 'at war' we are with drugs and poverty or a different kind of 'at war'?

 

[Nick Terry]

You could say that colloquially, but certainly not legally. War is a conflict between sovereign states. You could argue we're at war with ISIS: they're a self-proclaimed state, which controls actual territory and has many other trappings of a state. But we're not at war with Al Qaeda, they're simply a terrorist organisation and calling it "war" is giving them too much credit.


Can you put a number on that? And it's not an enemy, but a wanted terrorist and criminal.

War does not have to be a conflict between sovereign states; civil wars and rebellions are clearly recognised as wars, even though one side lacks sovereignty - indeed, such conflicts are precisely about the assertion of sovereignty and independence, or struggling for control of a sovereign state.

There have been many armed conflicts where terrorists have been treated as criminals, convicted in courts and jailed - this does not fit the laws of war, however. Then when the conflict ends, convicted murderers are released just as prisoners of war who have killed are repatriated - the IRA after the Good Friday agreement is a very good example.