Airmen who surveil the Islamic State never get to look away
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
A fascinating insight into the mindset behind a terrorist organization. The complete devaluation of innocent human lives in order to achieve the group's objectives.
It sucks and is morally wrong, but it isn't terrorism unless you want to argue that the main purpose of these strikes it to terrorize the civilian population. That may be the case but it seems they really just want to kill certain people and collateral damage is accepted.
Terrorism is a term used in its broadest sense to describe the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.
But I'd say it's not just indiscriminate violence, targeting e.g. members of political or judiciary organizations is often used too.
Please don't call names like this.
"The complete devaluation of innocent human lives in order to achieve the group's objectives."
Any war will inevitably, and predictably, lead to some number of civilian deaths. Should we disband all militaries? If so, how would we deal with groups like ISIS?
There's still an important difference between the two categories which you have chosen to ignore.
Harold Pinter nailed it down in a chilling play, "Precisely"[1], 35 years ago: The body count is the result of negotiations between 2 parties who sit comfortably with a scotch in their hand.
Was it worth Dresden to end Bergen-Belsen?
So the question still merits asking - and answering.
The attach on Hamburg earlier in the war (July 1943) probably had more impact but even then the Allied air raids on Germany actually achieved disproportionally little given the huge resource allocated to them.
However, bombing did force the Germans to prioritise air defence of their heartlands over tactical air operations against allied ground forces, so that German ground forces and their logistics chains operated under punishingly hostile skies from D-Day onwards.
[1] https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/53742/the-bombing-war/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction
[3] https://www.amazon.co.uk/German-War-Nation-Under-1939-45-x/d...
[EDIT - reworded for clarity and additional detail]
As especially the USA's industrial output was much larger than Germany's, bombers might still have been a good investment, even if it didn't actually reduce Germany's industrial capacity, because it did reduce its capacity to wage ground war.
EDIT: Also, even if Germany's industrial output did grow during WWII, it still tied up an enormous amount of resources: "The Allied bombing campaign also tied up valuable manpower, with Albert Speer (Germany's Minister of Armaments) estimating that in the summer of 1944 between 200,000 and 300,000 men were permanently employed in repairing oil installations and placing oil production underground. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Wartim...
Most notably, in the 2nd half of 1944 they effectively lost the oil imports from Romania; at the same time, they were fighting on three fronts - with the Allies coming up through Italy and crossing the Channel, the Soviets from the east. They had to do an awful lot more with an awful lot less.
Granted, it could be argued that obliterating an important railroad junction like Dresden made logistics (even) harder for the Germans - but again, at that late point in the war it probably didn't matter much.
> The answer is no, absolutely fucking not
To be clear, I don't make this point in order to argue some special lack of moral rectitude on your part, but rather for its value as an example of the fact that, in warfare, there exist no options that offer perfect moral uprightness - that the choices available there are not between virtue and iniquity, but rather between greater iniquity and lesser. There's nothing lovely about this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless, and I fail to see how refusing to acknowledge it improves the ability, of one who does so, to correctly understand the world we so imperfectly share.
Is that the moment we discuss how many dead are acceptable to end a war, finally agree on some number and toast to it?
Sorry, not joining you here.
With regards to your statement, you need to realize the Air Force is trying to minimize the casualties while the real terrorist are doing their best to exploit those civilians as a shield. There are numerous examples of this in every day activities among these groups in the Middle East, from the putting weapons on the roofs of schools and hospitals to putting armed men into regular households for shelter.
I am not sure what the best plan is, I would prefer to just leave but the world doesn't want to be at peace or at least a large section is still trying to determine who or what will be in charge
That latter can still be a war crime if it is not "proportionate to the military advantage gained", but that seems to be exactly the judgment these rules are trying to make.
A military organization, such as that described in this article, seeks to minimize civilian casualties to the utmost possible extent. One of the realities of warfare is that civilian casualties can't always be entirely avoided, and a war still be prosecuted with meaningful hope of success. But the failure to avoid civilian casualties, however necessary, is regarded as a failure nonetheless, and weighs heavily on those involved - perhaps you overlooked the mention of an increased need for anti-suicide counseling after strikes in which civilian casualties occur. One does not often find "the complete devaluation of innocent human lives" coincident with contemplation of suicide as a potentially proportionate response to having taken them.
A terrorist organization, such as its current adversary, has no such scruples, and indeed will often seek to inflict as much atrocity on innocents as it can manage. The incentives, and the balance of advantage and disadvantage, for irregular fighters, are such that the involvement of civilians - not just as targets, but also as human shields and as a sort of moving camouflage in which to conceal oneself - is an utter necessity, because there's only one way for a stand-up fight between a regular military and a guerrilla band to end. The typical fashion in which such bands misuse innocents by default would weigh heavily on their members as well, which is why one finds such a heavy investment in ideology among these groups, whether it be religious as in the current case or secular as in the case of last century's "Communist revolutionaries". You have to have some story to tell yourself that makes your flagrant abuse of civilians seem righteous - in other words, to devalue innocent human lives enough that you can live with the things you do to them.
To casually equate such wanton violation of every civilized standard of conduct, with the extreme if admittedly at times imperfect care that military forces exercise to avoid behaving even remotely similarly, strikes me as something that must be motivated either by arrant ignorance of the facts underlying the case, or by some sort of ideologically motivated disinterest in them. Neither seems to me terribly useful in developing an accurate apprehension of reality.
This has only become the case officially after WWII.
And frankly I think the only reason this even matters is the media.
Civilian lives meant absolutely nothing and were considered fair target during war.
Millions died in WWII from intentional fire bombing campaigns on urban areas by the allied forces.
Same in the Korean war.
Same during the Vietnam war.
Civilians were purposely targeted to "demoralize the enemy" and force them to surrender.
The official difference between war and terrorism is that war must be officially declared by a government and have specific objectives and once the objective is reached then the killing should stop.
What's your source for this definition?
So the media is doing it's job, then? I don't see the problem.
I don't know.
You need to distinguish between the "soldiers" such as those in the article and the ones you describe as needing counseling and suffering from the effects, and the people up top calling the shots and deciding policy.
While a soldier may decide on a per-case basis what is acceptable collateral damage, that decision doesn't exist in a void, it's rooted in the policies and guidelines of the organization set by people that, one could argue, are not placing the same premium on human life.
This attitude--differentiating based on civilian-ness--is useful. Spreading it allows wars to do less damage, because if fewer civilians die then repairing the economy is easier afterwards. This leads to a host of good consequences, most importantly that it reduces the chance of renewed war later on.
Soldiers' lives aren't as important, in that sense. Sorry, but they're not. And soldiers are going to die no matter what; the cultural innovation here isn't treating soldiers' lives as worth little, it's treating civilians as highly valuable. Some of which has later spread to the soldiers as well...
I disagree. War must be deadly and costly for both sides. Human intercation is heavily based on deterrents. One can see that in interactions in small and big groups. Taking away the deadliness and cost of war will make it happen more often.
Besides the obvious example, there is peace in europe for so long only because the war before has been so costly and deadly.
A power in the world that can wage military conflicts without significant loss in their rows is a disaster for the world.
That's a bold statement and not supported by any evidence. Look at the Yugoslav wars. One of the most brutalized regions in WWII, and nobody gave a shit when it was about starting a new war some decades later.
Of course it is. If you choose to fight in a war, you forfeit your life. That's how wars work. You only win a battle by decimating your enemy. How is this bigotry?
Also, you believe your cause to be righteous, and so does your enemy. You both believe your cause to be so righteous, and your enemy to be so menacing to your cause, that you both have decided to go to arms over it.
On the other hand a civilian is a civilian. He didn't choose war, so he doesn't deserve to have his life taken away by a conflict he has no interest in.
You are wrong. You may decide to fight but not want to be killed nor kill anybody, but just want the war to stop. Most battles ended without decimating any side, and they can even end without much confrontation at all.
It's more like: as soon as you decide to fight, you willingly seek situations in which you might get killed by those who fight back. It's your choice. As a civilian, you try to avoid those situations.
So yes, there is a difference, and it has nothing to do with religion, but with choice.
- Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and former ambassador to Mauritania
For what it's worth, I'm not american (canadian), but your post reads like pure unadulterated american propaganda to me. Stuff like putting "communist revolutionaries" in quotes, repeating the unsourced myth that american patriot soldiers suffer with suicidal ideation because they feel remorse, etc.
It's like we're from two different worlds.
Here, Mr. Peck's partial citation is carefully circumscribed in a fashion that seems impossible to read as other than tendentious. The first term set out in 18 USC 2331's definition of the term "international terrorism" [1] is thus:
> As used in this chapter--
> the term “international terrorism” means activities that--
> involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
While I'm happy to concede that the US government has taken a somewhat cavalier line with regard to its own policies on the declaration of war, our legal and judicial systems have yet at this time to find that such conduct is unlawful. Until that changes, there seems no clear argument to be made that that conduct qualifies as "international terrorism" under the definition our law provides.
To claim that the problem of suicide among US soldiers and veterans is mere "unsourced myth" is to say the least remarkable. You may care to examine a recent report [2] on the matter, produced by our Department of Veterans' Affairs - an organization whose misfeasance is legendary among veterans themselves and among other Americans knowledgeable on the matter, so if anything, even the vastly disproportionate rates there described are still likely to be low. Or you may not care to examine it, preferring instead to continue in the comfortable fancy that I'm just making this all up to serve my turn. I don't really care either way which you choose, but the facts are here before you, if you have any interest in them.
As for the rest - I do suppose I can understand how it might seem that way, for all that the difference is purely one of perception and analysis. I don't see any compelling reason at this time to privilege your perception and analysis over mine - and it does seem as though yours is somewhat less universally shared than you may imagine; at any rate, some of the world's most effective snipers are countrymen of yours. Perhaps they come from a world less like yours than like mine.
[1] http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pro...
[2] https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/2016suicidedatareport.p...
And as for the suicide point, I'm not challenging the idea that US forces are depressed or suicidal. I'm challenging the idea that they're depressed and suicidal because they're such compassionate warriors that they feel their victims' pain and suffer for the deaths that they cause or some such nonsense. I think these are much more related to the drudgery and boredom of this new form of warfare.
I'd address the definition point or the Canadian sniper point, but I'm busy. I will check back later and see if I can complete this.
I've had the opportunity to get to know a few veterans. To the extent they've opened up to me on such a sensitive subject, I have never developed the impression that it was drudgery and boredom that tended to inspire soldiers and veterans to consider suicide. This strikes me as quite a remarkable statement on your part, and I would very much like to know more about how you have reached this conclusion. Perhaps you will convince me.
In a political victory for the guerrillas? This kind of absolutism was killed by the Vietnam War. And the Vietnamese success against the French the previous decade kicked off the whole end-of-colonialism thing.
> A military organization, such as that described in this article, seeks to minimize civilian casualties to the utmost possible extent.
This is a PR line, not truth. There are plenty of militaries that don't particularly care about civilians, especially civilians that don't look like them.
> A terrorist organization, such as its current adversary, has no such scruples, and indeed will often seek to inflict as much atrocity on innocents as it can manage. The
Which is again a myth. The IRA would frequently phone ahead to say where and when its bombs would go off. Yes, the IRA killed people, but it didn't seek to inflict as much atrocity on innocents as it could manage. Europe has been awash with terrorists, and they don't all go after innocents - some of them very specifically go after authority figures involved in what they perceive as their oppressors.
> if admittedly at times imperfect care
Words fail me. Doubly so given that the reason we have ISIS as a military presence is because of the 'admittedly imperfect care' of the invasion conducted by the exact same military we're talking about here.
The IRA is a special case. Early on in their conflict, they employed typical guerrilla schrecklichkeit tactics - it was only later, when their leadership realized that killing English civilians was hardening opposition against them rather than advancing their goals, that they switched to targeting the English economy rather than its people. They found much more success that way, too - but they couldn't have done it at all absent the coincidence of geography that put them close enough to English economic centers for the tactic to be viable.
I shouldn't like to be mistaken for saying that all the moral opprobrium in conflicts like those we discuss should accrue to one side or the other. As I said in another comment here, warfare means having to choose, not between right and wrong, but what looks to be least among the wrongs which are all that that form of human interaction makes available. Even when proceeding from the best of intentions, people can't be relied upon to always make the choice which is clearly correct in retrospect - and, of course, people don't always proceed from the best of intentions. I'm not interested in defending the actions that brought us to the present state of affairs, because I regard them in the main as indefensible. But regardless of how we got here, we are here, and I fail to grasp how slandering our own military forces with the name "terrorist" in any way advances the purpose of finding a path forward that involves the minimum extent of atrocity, on all sides, that we can possibly manage to produce.
My grandfather spent the rest of his life after the Korean war (as an an anzac, artillery, ironically I guess) in a mental hospital, "shellshock" as they called it then. My grandmother and my mother were terrified of him. He got let out a couple of times and always got put back in.
I don't really know what it means to intervene in things, I suppose we would have to talk in some way about the moral value of South Korea existing even if that is unpalatable.
My point I guess is that you are talking about our yes, corrupted set of moral objectives, without maybe considering what happens if we do nothing.
Most of the time where I thought maybe intervention was a decent idea, it wasn't. The way I think of it now is you can't throw sticks of dynamite in a flower bed and expect roses. All the things war is damages civil society.
Maybe it would have been better if they'd just worked it out themselves. That said, do you know any Koreans?
Is the experience more "authentic" if you are in the warzone?
Are we in a world where we need artisanal, hand-fought wars?
I know exactly what you mean though :( But the problem is war itself.
Humans are humans, but we need to resist war on every level we contribute to it, no matter how remote. This might mean not contributing to organisations we otherwise support.
Yes, it is.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/lesser-known-trolley-pro...
The world is not utilitarianism.
[edit] on reflection you might have been agreeing with me but I still think the trolley problem answer is trite.
That is to say, it's the usual--improve the economy, secularize the world, prevent people from feeling desperate enough that forming such groups feels like a good idea. Some of it is about ideals, so spread Western ones; push the world closer to being a cultural monoculture.
It's worth doing, but in the meantime, you have to fight them when they pop up. There'll be lash-back to any attempt at doing this, too.
What do you do about a country that treats women like chattel? If you push heavily then people on all sides get upset, but if you don't then you're overlooking suffering. It doesn't get any less real just because it's far away.
What do you do about a country where greed, lust, power permeates their entire leadership, leading to gross economic, social and emotional inequality within the country, willingness to express unchecked interference in others, an unsubstantiated belief in their own cultural superiority, and along with all other manifestations of the absolute lack of modesty in all layers of society, through all behaviours?
You try to get out of the way, as far as possible, mentally, emotionally, socially, physically and hope they shoot themselves on the foot enough by the time they arrive they can't muck you up.
You may have gotten far away, but it doesn't get any less real. Keep going, for they are chasing you, hunting you down.
I see what you mean, but careful with that :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
not to mention Iraq
When you start mixing "middle east" and interference of any kind in a sentence, no matter how benign, it's an extremely sensitive topic. The west has blood on its hands there. You could even argue that IS is a result of western influence in the middle east.
I know you said "ideals", which is technically different. But at this point, it warrants at least a footnote.
You're totally right. Thanks.
I'm not convinced that "Western" ideals are always what should be spreading. More importantly, phrasing this way implicitly gives the West the moral high ground which is unfortunately not always deserved.
As an eastern man with an eastern wife, that sounds incredibly evil. How about you do what you do and we do what we do.
- Don't treat women like chattel.
- In general, consider all people to be equally valuable.
- Trust the people you meet. Be able to trust them. Don't abuse the trust. (This means not needing regulations and inspections of everything.)
- Follow the rules, follow the spirit as well as letter of contracts, and don't attempt to twist every role into benefiting yourself or your tribe. ("Don't be corrupt.")
- If, following the rules of society, you fail -- don't step outside the rules in order to win.
If these ideals sound incredibly generic and universal, then congratulations, you've already been infected. For the majority of human history, and in large parts of the world, they are in no way common. There are even parts of Europe which break some or all of these.
Notice that I didn't say "Push western culture", though I wouldn't be sad if that were to naturally spread. It's only the specific cultural innovations that allow us to get along with each other that I care about.
--
Anyone who breaks the latter half of that set, I'll be upset and annoyed at them, and will be disinclined to trade. I certainly won't want them in my country.
Anyone who breaks the top half... well, if they're removing the agency of half their population then I'd feel fine about removing theirs. That's grounds for heavy-handed efforts.
--
Actually, "western culture" may be a misnomer. There was such a thing; it involved maypole dances, mjød, burning witches and constant warfare. It wasn't necessarily nice, and it isn't what we're doing now.
What's been happening could be more suitably termed "universal culture", as it is -- for better or worse -- closer to being highly optimized culture, rather than historically-based. (Optimized for what? Not necessarily our good; cola is incredibly tasty, but I avoid it in all cases.)
Someone else already explained this better than me: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/
- Follow the rules, follow the spirit as well as letter of contracts, and don't attempt to twist every role into benefiting yourself or your tribe. ("Don't be corrupt.")
The fun thing is that the same people that are enthusiastic for military adventurism are the ones that are also grinding those values to dust.
I guess if Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, in the context of a war that was rushed into for wrong reasons, your statements about resorting to heavy handed effort to fix things wouldn't be fucking tragic.
Nah. I mean heavy-handed "cultural imperialism". There are a lot of options there which aren't normally a good idea.
If you go to war because "America Fuck Yeah", it doesn't matter so much if there are a bunch of disgusting fuck ups. If you go to war to protect higher ideals, well, fucking do it right.
The US is looking at backlash and wondering why: it's because you lost the moral fscking high ground. That's always how the war was won and missiles from the sky dont achieve that mission.
Or by not giving a sh$t and just arming them which is the usual crappy way this game is played.
Exactly. Considering the current and projected supply of oil in the world, I'd like someone to explain why we are still over meddling in their affairs at all. Or has this now become a "humanitarian" mission?
Declare victory and withdraw I say.
Well, outside of total war à la scorched-earth, which to your point, this is not, though I suspect some wish it were the case (though the profiteers like the keep arming them game since that provides profits into perpetuity).
I highly recommend Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis for more detail on the intricate web of events that led us here. I'm not saying that I support IS or even make light of IS/AQ/the Taliban etc. etc. but it is worth understanding what leads to these groups and why people support them
Supposing you sit down with them for a month, and convince them of your world view and your solution to an injustice, and they agree, and then you go back to your respective lives. Their culture is going to exert pressures that make them want to rip up their agreement because it makes no sense in their everyday social and political environment. They don't maintain the frame of mind that enabled the agreement. How do you propose to deal with that?
Alt you can just see them as scum and want to kill them too - but that isn't going to solve this issue or make the world safer.
Personally, I (and most people) support systems of societal ethics (such as governments) because they work for me most of the time. Not necessarily always.
In this case, the ethics of one group allows it to destroy the civilisation of the other group, whose ethics are not aligned well enough to the original, more powerful group.
> American foreign policy is horrendous 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse, I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.
Information is pointers.
Some points to lives.
Some, deaths.
Also, I hope somebody is taking all that video and text analysis and feeding it into a mammoth neural network. We need to automate drone operations ASAP.
the solution is never the violence as it will only bring more violence. I wonder why some humans persistently fail to understand that.. oh wait.. it's money.
There are people quick to condemn drones, still other condemn troops on the ground, finally others who condemn providing weapons.. yet, not yet has one of those proposed an actual, concrete solution to ending the Islamic State. This isn't a group that responds to "talks" or "negotiation" or "diplomacy." They are fanatics. They are rabid dogs. While many ISIS fighters weren't born rabid, they quickly get infected. They make the Taliban seem positively liberal. And, life under the Taliban was pretty close to hell -- especially if you were a woman.
Have a look at this story from a former ISIS fighter as to what that group does: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-isis-member-explains-why-...
It feels that these anti-drone, anti-fighting, pacifist, appeasement types would have us sign a Munich Agreement, condemning the people of the "Sudetenland" to Nazi rule while proclaiming that betrayal as "peace for our time."
Using smarter, technology assisted targeting would make it easier to stop the pure evil of ISIS -- who, if given the opportunity, would suffocate Europe under a veil of oppression that would make even Hitler blush.
I get it "drones," "Dick Cheney," "Bush, Bush, Bush, "NSA," "CIA," "US Imperialism" -- I know these are dog whistles to rile up progressives to make them instinctively oppose anything the US does in the region.
It could be argued that defeating ISIS is one of the most progressive causes on the planet today. Defeating an enemy that throws suspected gays from rooftops, enslaves minority women, requires unrelenting devotion to a government-imposed religious system, wants all Jews dead, straps bombs to puppies, destroys historical sites, burns books -- I think I just described almost the entire cannon of anti-progressivism possible. And yet, there is a subset of progressives that actually suggest violence isn't the answer?
I guess if ISIS were global warming skeptics, maybe then we should try harder to kill them?
On the other hand, if the US were to invest billions in building up the economies of the region, perhaps providing billions to small businesses and entrepreneurs -- then the US would be accused of economic imperialism. If the US just stays out of the region completely, that's no different that the US staying neutral in World War II, while China was conquered by the Japanese, Europe and North Africa became a sea of Nazi red and millions of people, by virtue of dubious genetic "inferiority," are shipped off to the camps.
Have we learned nothing from history? Evil, left unchecked, doesn't respond to calm reasoning, it responds to overwhelming force.
If ISIS were in your front yard raping your sister and your mother, setting your toddler brother on fire with gasoline while eating your pet dog for dinner -- would you attempt to negotiate? Would non-violence really be the answer? What if groups of heavily armed Republicans rolled into the Castro in Toyota Hiluxes and started open firing on LGBT people?
It's easy, and quite frankly arrogant for any of us to sit in front of our shiny computers, some of us on Aeron chairs making several thousand times more money than the average person in ISIS territory will ever see in their lifetime -- and talk about non-violence. It's that salon-pseudo-liberalism that let the Nazis waltz right into Paris and sent the Jews from the Gare de l'Est straight into the ovens.
Even Bernie Sanders supports violence when the threat is of enough significance. In 1998, he voted for the US policy of regime change in Iraq. He called Saddam a "brutal and illegitimate dictator" who should be removed from office." Sanders again in 2012 voted to arm Syrian rebels against Al-Assad. Hillary Clinton's policy proposal against ISIS featured this:
"Defeat ISIS in the Middle East by smashing its stronghold, hitting its fighters, leaders, and infrastructure from the air, and intensifying support for local forces who can pursue them on the ground."
Even GHANDI supported using violence in the defense of the innocent. "I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."
This idea of absolute non-violence is naïve.
Let us throw Daesh or whatever away and focus on a war against terror that is easier to measure. The taliban. Do you feel that the campaign to remove them from power was successful?
I'm relatively happy to rationalise killing lots of people, I just get uncomfortable around the idea of measuring success by "but it would be worse if we didn't, probably, after all - Nazis".
According the metrics used by the BBC, yes, hugely successful.
ISIS didn't emerge ex nihilo. There's nothing in Aleppo's water supply that turns people into mindless killers. They formed as a direct consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Syrian regime. If we've learned anything from our history of "intervention" in the middle east, it should be that it's incredibly easy to make matters worse through poorly-planned military intervention. The evidence of our failures in this respect is abundant, going back beyond the 1953 Iran coup to The Great Game and the first Anglo-Afghan war.
Drone strikes and bombing sorties might make you feel better, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they're actually improving the situation. It's equally likely that the bombing campaign in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere is just giving another generation a plausible reason to despise the western world.
>If ISIS were in your front yard raping your sister and your mother, setting your toddler brother on fire with gasoline while eating your pet dog for dinner -- would you attempt to negotiate?
I'd take up arms to defend myself, and pray that nobody drops a bomb on my house and calls my death "collateral damage".
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-drones-work-the-case-...
"Drones have turned al Qaeda’s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders."
A lot of this is reminiscent of the drug war. Taking out a kingpin looks like a victory, but it only creates short-term instability and a surge in violence. The root causes remain unchanged.
How many people do you need to arrest to eradicate the drug trade? How many people do you need to kill to eradicate extremist ideologies?
https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/exploiting-disorder-al-qa... https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-02-...
I just wish there was a bit more emphasis on prevention. Build up their economies, erase their cultures (nicely...), and in a century or two maybe there'll be less cause for war.
I'm actually totally for killing ISIS members in any way possible. I just think we oughta own up to what we're doing. We're killing people because they are evil. They are evil because of how we have actively handled governments et al in that area.