I mean to say “and between terrorists who use civilians for cover.”

You’re still comparing apples and oranges. There is a significant difference between people who voluntarily (knowingly) put themselves in harm’s way to protect the resistence, and between bystanders who use civilians for cover, almost daring forces to attack them hoping for collateral damage to push their own propoganda (which AQ and Saddamn has done). The civilians are stuck between a rock and a hard place really.

The collateral damage inflicted by the US forces is not systemic. I’m just throwing numbers here, but for every 10 bombs, one takes innocent bystanders with them. WWII bombing raids on civilian populations can be considered systemic in nature, AQ and insurgents forcing civilians to give them shelter IS systemic. So even if the US took care and avoided hurting folks 9 out of 10 times, the one time it does, people jump on it for bad tactics. No process is 100% efficient, and warfare with so many variables never will be. Can one keep trying though? Always. But I’ll circle back to my original point that none here, including myself, know the details of the operation.

Targetting civilians = wrong. we agree.

I am talking about occupations – Pal, iraq, etc., they are not fighting in poland or germany. Resistance leaders hiding in Paris know that the SS has very limited options. I am not defending any actions the supposed targets had committed, I am only talking of the line of logic here, and have no sympathy for people planning operations targetting civilians like AQ. I am talking of resistance against occupation. Resistance always operates by blending in the population. Its the same in occupied europe, algeria, or chandra shekhar azad style indian operations.

Guy, you need to read history. Resistance was more a sabotage than putting their own people in harm’s way. Another major role was to provide logistics to Allied forces in WW 2.

Yes, sabotage – destroying the infrastructure of the occupation, and engaging its forces where possible. Putting your own people in harms way happens more in popular intifada type operations – marches, blockades etc. Might be foolish in a realpolitik sense, but the hard left and populist factions think its a necessary component of revolution.

Guy, you need to read history. Resistance was more a sabotage than putting their own people in harm’s way. Another major role was to provide logistics to Allied forces in WW 2.

You will be surprised that often Germans had contact with resistance leaders. In Paris toward the end of WW 2, the resistance leaders met Major General Choltitz and requested him not to turn Paris into Stalingrad. He was later hailed as “savior of Paris”.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_von_Choltitz

Americans come from Europeans; they are kin…ergo they identify more with europeans and their type Deal with it. Brown skinned muslims will simply never get the degree of sympathy that white christians (or for that matter white muslims like the bosnians) will get. Its called human nature and we are visual creatures…we care what people look like. Its a fact.

Your analogy is not valid. European resistence were fighting German soldiers, not going over to Germany and blowing up Hanz in his bakery. I did not make any claims to say Guerrilla warfare is illegitimate. Terrorists hiding in Pakistan know the United States has very limited options. Palestinian resistence has legit claims, since we’re talking about tactics here, targeting civilians riding a bus or blowing up a bomb in a market is reprehensible. I haven’t made any counter claims about Israeli tactics either. Some have worked, some haven’t. Razing houses with bulldozers is targeting families, which I don’t support either. In a macroscopic viewpoint, my conclusions remain the same. Mature nations do not use their own as shields (hiding in a house or among civlians when you know a bomb will be dropped on your ass – allow the death of your own just to flame the fire).

The United States spends a boat load of money on more accurate weapons and delivery systems. But enemies have to be defeated, and if so called allies won’t take a step in the right direction, hands are forced. The operation could have been botched, it could have went off exactly as planned, who knows.

Was the european resistance fighting German occupation hiding in cities and villages amon the civilian population or coming out distinctly to shield the citizens. No, I dont agree with the Qaeda manifesto, but I think the bias against the Palestinian resistance shown here has little to do with right or wrong.

I think Haliburton has them on staff.

Although a little simplistic, there was a great cartoon that showed how fundamentally different each group (western style nations vs terrorists/insurgents) operated.

Two men, one Israeli and one Palestinian were shown pointing guns at each other. The Israeli soldier was shielding Israeli citizens from the Palestinian gunman by putting himself between the gunfire and civilians, and shooting back. The Palestinian gunman shooting at the Isrealis was using fellow Arabs as a shield, firing over their shoulders, putting THEM between the Isreali gunfire and himself.

There is a fundemental difference in how the two groups operate. The primary purpose of each nation is to take care of it’s citizens first when it comes down to it. Putting your own civilians in the line of fire is simply not thought of in western states.

Also, all this tactical monday morning quarterbacking is futile. None of us are within the decision/information loop, hence we are at a lack of facts to make any valid conclusions on how to do the job.

The only facts that are out in the open are:

• There were terrorists who were targeted and killed, therefore the goal of the people striking (Americans) was achieved.
• Civilians died when striking the primary objective (terrorists).
• The Pakistani government has been unable to exert control and establish law and order. The United States, after 4 years of sitting next door and watching has finally started to take action within Pakistan.

By the way, Special Ops takes a bit of planning to execute, especially when you’re not the primary big boss in the territory (Pakistan and tribesmen are), and speed is the element one must focus on. Terrorists were being followed for a certain amount of time with intelligence trickling in. I don’t know, was the strike conducted by a Predator following the terrorists? Were the men being followed, but gave only a small window to really attack them? Too many details are hidden.

Should the US reduce civilian death associated with attacks on terrorists. Definitely. Does the US, with its operational tempo spend time trying to do so, yes. The Military understands that accuracy and lethality, and a healthy amount of PSYOPS plays into a winning strategy, but this is still a game of explosives and death. If there was a way for 6 sigma blackbelts to tune this machine, it would have been done already.

So you do agree that the level/degree of collateral damage is a factor which can by itself hold a veto on the actual decision to launch an attack in this unending war on terror. This is important because for a lot of people on the right, any means are acceptable.

So the disagreement now is only as to whether in this particular case, the level of collateral damage rose to a level which would warrant restraint.

I think if you look at the factors involved, on balance, restraint would have been the right course of action.