But, assume there was one bad guy there, would you risk sending your ground troops in an effort to apprehend him/her?
I don't have enough information. It depends on the bad guy. It depends on the environment. It depends on who's troops. If I had a better relationship with the local government, maybe I could get their
police to do it for me, causing less damage.
If not, then yes, if the bad guy is worth it.
I'm sorry to have to hedge this way, but I think these questions assume a lot. A lot of the decision making depends on so many other variables.
Would you risk your intelligence assets to stakeout the place and confirm he/she is the one you are looking for? Or would you let him be and plan his next attack on you?
I don't have enough information. How valuable is the bad guy? If he's valuable enough, then yes, I risk an asset. That is what they are for. If he's Mo Shmo, then no, and I have to wonder whether he's plans are anything more than pipe dreams.
Drones discussion sir, we need not really worry about the enemy and the politics involved.
I thought we did
need to worry about the politics. For me, It's not about drones. It's about policy. Drones are just weapons. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon, mostly. I have no bug about the equipment. There is as much inherently wrong with a drone as there is with an F-16.
The question is how
they are used. I question the policies and especially the intelligence. If that was not what you were talking about, then I beg your pardon. We were not on the same page.
Thats why I insisted on the present, enemy is there, you know how he was born, you know how you can win You send in your assets at this point.
Ah, it looks like we were on very different pages.
Given a set of theoretical premises that we know these things, that changes the equation. Given all that stuff, yes, use drones. Ultimately, they will perform better than people. A PLC does not black out or red out under high G turns.
I think we may disagree on the real world premises. I'm not convinced we know who the bad guys are. I'm not sure whe know much. And I have a hard time believing our particular problems are ones we can kill our way out of. As I said before, if killing one guy is going to create 20 more enemies, then I think we are using the wrong approach.
the rest seems to be more ideological, no offense,
No offense taken. But I see them as practical and not ideological. Sadaam was a monster we created. Maybe he was inevitable in the region, but he didn't have to belong to us. Osama was also a monster we created. And I think it is doubtful he would have been inevitable without CIA training. Our role in the Israel/Palestine situation is something that really sticks in the craw of muslims world wide, so I see rectifying that as an actual practical solution.
I try to not be ideological. I'm not always successful. But I try to seek in actual solutions, not platitudes.
You risk your men and women's lives as they do the same things the drone has been doing. Your people's lives.
As I said before, I'm not convinced the people who are being assassinated actually need to be assassinated. It is less about how they are assassinated to me. Are they killed because they are a threat to Afghan operations, or is it because they are a threat to the actual US? I dunno. I suspect the former. And if killing them with their families is a bigger negative than not killing them, I don't see the point.
If in Afghanistan, the same enemy will kill in thousands, the same people whom you dont want to be collateral damage. That wouldn't be morally correct.
I object to the civilian deaths for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, I think it undermines our objectives of creating a stable, friendly government. While I do think of it in moral terms as well, frankly, they are not my tribe. At some point my national interest trumps theirs.
I think after 12 years and $600+ Billion if we have not been able to solve the problem, we're not going to solve it. We failed. Horribly.
Last, I'm not sure we owe Afghans anything other than to leave them alone.