The Information Super-Frog

Good points.

Another thing to remember is that these are estimates of civilian casualties in Afganistan, not total casualties. "Pro-Taliban" troops & personel, the folks the military is trying to kill on purpose, have presumably (if Our Military has been doing its Job) been killed in much greater numbers than the civilians.

And as odious as the Taliban regime was, the bulk of the "non-civilian" Afgans were poor ignorant s.o.b.s who had nothing to do with the 11 Sept terrorist attacks.

From:

pentomino.livejournal.com

Once al-Qaeda has been rooted out of Tora Bora, the bombings will have no further purpose, and therefore will stop.

We in the United States have no such assurance that sleeper agents won't pull some sort of new massive attack right out of the blue, nor do the Israeli people have any reason to believe that Palestinians will ever stop suicide-bombing them.

From:

War isn't waged to achieve casualty parity.

If you can achieve your objectives by inflicting 1/10th of the casualties you suffered on your enemies, then that's what you do. If you can only achieve your objectives by inflicting 100 times the casualties you suffered on your enemy, then that's what you do.

From:

From a purely tactical point of view, fair enough.

Except for that those thousands of civilians supposedly weren't in the category of "enemies".

From:

"Once al-Qaeda has been rooted out of Tora Bora, the bombings will have no further purpose, and therefore will stop."

Not according to the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powel, Donald Rumsfield, and John Ashcroft. Their plans for the war is
that it will never end, or "not in our lifetime" anyway. This is "the new normalcy". (I'll supply quotes & sources on request. I've collected a bunch of 'em.)

If they decide they're through with Afganistan, the current front runners for next venue are Iraq and Somalia, with Yemen and the Phillipines also in the running. But the administration has said they have a list of over 60 countries, so I'm sure they'll find somewhere as long as the folks at home put up with it.

"We in the United States have no such assurance that sleeper agents won't pull some sort of new massive attack right out of the blue"

Granted. And innocent civilians in Afganistan and other countries have no assurance that they and their families won't be killed by American bombs irrelevent of anything they ever did or didn't do.

Understand, I have nothing at all against going after the s.o.b.s behind the 11 Sept attacks. I just think that if we're trying to send the message that it's unacceptable to kill innocent civilians for political gain, our tactics leave a lot to be desired.

From:

I'm pretty certain our own troops aren't considered enemies either, yet a couple of them got hit too. Last I heard, we'd killed three times as many of our own troops as the enemy had. These things happen in war. It really doesn't have that much to do with the outcome of the war, or whether or not it's worth waging in the first place.

From:

Is that the message we're trying to send? I thought it was more of a "don't fuck with us, we'll kick your ass" kind of message.

From:

vardissakheli.livejournal.com

Tell that to the Dresdnern.

From:

Sure. If you think it's not the case, tell me what kind of casualty parity was being reached there.

From:

holywar.livejournal.com

"Not according to the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powel, Donald Rumsfield, and John Ashcroft. Their plans for the war is that it will never end, or "not in our lifetime" anyway. This is "the new normalcy"."

I don't doubt that has been said by any or all of them, but I would appreciate references. I've seen the "not in our lifetime" bit referenced a few different places, but I haven't actually seen a direct quote yet.

" ...I'm sure they'll find somewhere as long as the folks at home put up with it."

The question is how long we'll put up with it. I think we'll start to see an outcry if we attack any place else, at least without some putting forth some serious diplomatic effort first. But then again I may be overly optimistic about my fellow Americans.

From:

" I would appreciate references"

Sure thing. I've posted a number of 'em in various places, like the

antiwar and

nonviolent communities, and I think some on Devi's journal a while back, but I guess not on my own journal.

How Long Is The War Expected To Last?

Colin Powell BBC interview, 23 Sept:
"I think that it [the war] will certainly be years and I think its a campaign that will probably continue for as long as I can imagine."
http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=SS01037052&feed=N

"We may be involved in a war that will take generations" -- General Merrill McPeak, PBS Newshour, Mon 24 Sept

The vice president bluntly said: "It is different than the Gulf War was, in the sense that it may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."
-- Dick Cheney, 20 Oct '01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27452-2001Oct20.html

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "this kind of military action may last indefinitely"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,582386,00.html

Hmmm, I don't seem to have Rumsfield making a similar statement in that folder (just him mentioning "over 60 countries" and refusing to rule out use of nukes).

Here's one I concider particularly interesting though a bit subtle, from President Bush:

"Look, I understand the political consequences of making tough decisions. You mark my words, people are going to get tired of the war on terrorism. And by the way, it may take more than two years. There's a variety of theaters. So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be a war. And so I've asked -- you said one or two years. I envision something taking longer than that."
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1017-106.html

"So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be a war." It's not the time frame per say that I find so interesting as the admission that the goal is defense of established governments (rather than, say, citizens).

I look on quotes like these as instances of the administration being a bit more honest than was intended before a more palatable spin can be announced.

From:

Hm. Well, if our message is simply "If you kick me and kill thousands of innocent bystanders in the process, I'll kick you and kill thousands of innocent bystanders in the process" I guess we're on track in delivering it.

The "don't fuck with us, we'll kick your ass" message may be a bit clouded if it's been preceeded by decades of a "we'll fuck with you all we want any time we want and there ain't squat you can do about it" message.

From:

holywar.livejournal.com

"How Long Is The War Expected To Last?"

You know, one thing that I've been wondering about that I haven't heard explicity spelled out is what is meant by "War on Terrorism". Right now, obviously, it's war in the traditional sense of the word. But once we finish up what we're doing in Afghanistan, is it going to stay in its same form, or will the "War on Terrorism" become like the "War on Drugs"? Of course, we all know how well the War on Drugs is going...

"Rumsfield...refusing to rule out use of nukes"

Now that one I've GOT to see. There was an article on one of the news sites a few weeks ago where a Senator was suggesting tactical nukes for the caves in Afghanistan (I can try and find it again if you haven't seen it), but I hadn't seen Rumsfeld's statement. It was probably along the same lines, but I'd still like to see it.

Thanks for the references. Should be some interesting reading.

From:

Yes, we are on track to deliver that message. It's not a pretty message, but it happens to be better than, "You can kick me and I won't kick you back."

And excuse me, but who have we been fucking with recently? Russia. Iraq. Somalia. Serbia. All of those on behalf of Muslim peoples. Hell, if we get blamed for anything it's not fucking with people quickly enough! This is why I'm a strict non-interventionist. It's a thankless fucking job. We intervened to defend two countries against invaders, intervened to stop a famine that was the result of internal strife, and intervened to halt a genocide, and how does all this intervention get summed up?

"We'll fuck with you all we want any time we want and there ain't squat you can do about it."

If that's the way it's going to be, I say we take our fucking ball and go the fuck home! The next time you're starving or getting invaded or dumped into mass graves don't come crying to us. We learned our lesson.

Except we didn't. Because I'm not in charge.

From:

""Rumsfield...refusing to rule out use of nukes"
Now that one I've GOT to see."

Sure. And a couple others too:

Nukes?

Thomas Woodrow of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said it was "Time to use the nuclear option." (Washington Times, 14 Sept)

Two days later Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield refused to rule out
use of nukes in an interview with Sam Donldson of ABC :
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09162001_t0916sd.html

18 Oct: Rep. Buyer Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/wrtv/20011018/lo/929540_1.html

From:

six2.livejournal.com

Irrelevant perhaps to those already with open eyes and ears, but maybe brings a little perspective that I can bring back to non-infojunkies types.

From:

I think we've both been deliberately oversimplifying for the sake of an easy metaphor here.
And you just changed the context there-- though I suspect you know that the "We'll fuck with you all we want any time we want" bit was a reference to interventions of types like military invasions, droping bombs & missles, overthrowing governments &/or installing new ones, supporting dictatorships, etc.

Well, we're both philisophically non-interventionist.
Personally I believe neither the "it makes us safer domestically" nor the "it's for the foreigners own good" arguements in favor of the USA in the role of cop/bully of the World.

From:

euphie.livejournal.com

I hate to admit it, since i am a conservative and I do love my country...but I am starting to worry about the things being said here. I supported the decision to go over there, and I supported everything Bush has done so far, but now it seems as though he's taking it very far...much farther than the American people wanted or were ready for. It almost seems as though he used the fact that we were angry and upset to his advantage. Now we're in a war that we technically can't afford in the long haul, that has far more horrendous possibility than Vietnam, and it's almost too late to stop. My son is 4. If everything they are saying is true, there's a good chance my son will end up in this war, if it lasts that long.

Eh I'm rambling but I guess I wanted to say that I appreciate the posts you have. I learn a lot from the sources you put up. Thanks.

From:

Don't forget the other 300 or so people killed on September 11. Just because we know their exact number doesn't mean they don't count among the murdered, eh? And I guess we're not counting the 17 sailors on the Cole, or the 200+ people killed in Kenya and Tanzania, or the 19 killed in Saudi Arabia in the AF housing complex, all of which are convincingly listed on Al Qaeda's curriculum vitae.

As for the commondreams source, why no mention of the rather unrigorous method of counting the allegedly dead in Afghanistan, as described in an a.r.k thread?

From:

If they decide they're through with Afganistan, the current front runners for next venue are Iraq and Somalia, with Yemen and the Phillipines also in the running. But the administration has said they have a list of over 60 countries, so I'm sure they'll find somewhere as long as the folks at home put up with it.

Talk is cheap. The whole idea is to put these countries on the List, and say "You're not doing enough to wipe out islamic extremism/international terrorism in your country, and it's affecting us, now, to the point that if you don't act, we will." The threat will be plenty in most cases, and just that'll go a long way towards solving the problem.

Pulling out of Israel and Saudi and Nicaragua will not solve the problem. Pulling into the border won't solve the problem.

Besides, those guys can say all they want about the forseeable future, but the future as they control it will end on one of the upcoming inauguration dates.

From:

"Talk is cheap. The whole idea is to put these countries on the List, and say "You're not doing enough to wipe out islamic extremism/international terrorism in your country, and it's affecting us, now, to the point that if you don't act, we will." The threat will be plenty in most cases, and just that'll go a long way towards solving the problem."

Hmm. Possibly. Threats in hopes that action won't be necessary may well be part of it. I just think that another part of it is that certain people in the administration & military leadership want war, long term or even perpetual if possible. There are no doubt others in the administration who do not want this. But the warmongers got their hopes up that the terrorists attacks of 11 Sept would give them an excuse to get what they wanted. I fear we may get the perpetual war they want if the public lets them get away with it.

"Pulling out of Israel and Saudi and Nicaragua will not solve the problem. Pulling into the border won't solve the problem."

What problem are you refering to?
I'm really not sure what exactly you're refering to with those three different countries. I'll wait for an explanation before replying.

From:

"Don't forget the other 300 or so people killed on September 11."

I presume you're talking about the dead in the Pentagon? Fine, add them to the list too.

Many people who had nothing to do with creating the situation have tragically been killed in the USA and Afganistan.

"And I guess we're not counting the 17 sailors on the Cole, or the 200+ people killed in Kenya and Tanzania, or the 19 killed in Saudi Arabia in the AF housing complex, all of which are convincingly listed on Al Qaeda's curriculum vitae."

Shall we add those killed by the missle attacks on Afganistan and Sudan during the Clinton administration? How far back do you want to go?

If you're trying work out some math where the Middle-Eastern terrorists killed more innocent civilians in the USA than the USA government killed in the Middle East, I honestly don't think you'll have much luck.

As I've said before (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=10477076&thread=12820758#t12820758), don't mistake this for any allegation that the USA's motives are as evil as the terrorists. No sir. I just find reprehensible any use of tactics that accepts mass killing of innocent bystanders. And when people try to argue that it's evil when someone else does it but okay when we do, it often looks to me like awkward contorted attempts at rationalization.

"As for the commondreams source, why no mention of the rather unrigorous method of counting the allegedly dead in Afghanistan, as described in an a.r.k thread?"

If you have better figures or what you concider a good source conflicting with the above figures, feel free to present them.

From:

But the warmongers got their hopes up that the terrorists attacks of 11 Sept would give them an excuse to get what they wanted. I fear we may get the perpetual war they want if the public lets them get away with it.

You're not the only one with that fear; I refer not to myself but the ones who have been and will be holding the warmongers in check. The fact that you mention the Phillipines is what makes me think it's all a threat. I find it tremendously difficult to think Americans would support bombing on the Phillipines, and even more difficult to think that the Phillipines wouldn't go WAY out of their way to avoid it.

[Israel and Saudi and Nicaragua]
What problem are you refering to?
I'm really not sure what exactly you're refering to with those three different countries.

The reason that was vague is twofold. First, it was 1AM, on a relatively sleepless Sunday. Second, it's difficult to attempt to create a solution to problems that would satisfy the humanitarian progressives (as I generalize your position: saving and improving human lives is the most important thing), non-interventionists, and nationalist sorts such as myself.

Personally I don't think Nicaragua was the travesty Chomsky makes it out to be, thanks in part to US intervention. Thanks to his own reputation--branding, practically-- I can't not think of Chomsky every time I encounter a (what I call) humanitarian progressive such as yourself. So Nicaragua is in the back of my mind. I see it as an example where US intervention enabled a lot of people to do themselves some good. No, the ends don't justify the means. There's no justice in even the most necessary conflicts. But I'm over it.

Israel and Saudi are the two countries in which the US has involved itself, much to the chagrin or rage of each: a great portion of Muslims, of leftists, and of non-interventionists. It has been suggested, both by the left and by Osama Bin Laden (seriously, I'm just saying they have parallel ideas, not suggesting they are parallel in any other way), that if the US were to pull out of Israel and Saudi that terrorism would stop.

I find that completely unbelievable. Not only would terrorism continue as long as Israel exists, but there'd be wars. And I don't see how anyone who believes in preserving human lives (not pointing specifically at you, Froggy, but I've got two fingers pointed at Chomsky) can support a position that would inevitably lead to war: Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Kuwait and SA. And Bahrain, what the hell.

From:

If you're trying work out some math where the Middle-Eastern terrorists killed more innocent civilians in the USA than the USA government killed in the Middle East, I honestly don't think you'll have much luck.

I'm honestly not. Just trying to get people to remember that the WTC is merely the worst, not the only, attack on US soil by terrorists, either speaking of 9/11 or more broadly. I find it bewildering that I keep seeing the comparison you just made, of WTC deaths, not 9/11 deaths, to the alleged number of civilians killed in Afghanistan, and people KEEP FORGETTING the other people that snuffed it. It's really irritating, that 300 dead people get left out because it doesn't fit into a nice comparison of headlines. Call it a pet peeve.

I'm not saying you forgot, but I am saying you neglected to count them. There are many, as far as I can tell, who did forget, and I want to spit on them every time they do so in a self-serving manner.

As I've said before, don't mistake this for any allegation that the USA's motives are as evil as the terrorists. No sir. I just find reprehensible any use of tactics that accepts mass killing of innocent bystanders.

I can't tell you, Froggy, how relieved I am to read that. I mean that. I've heard and read a lot of chatter that equates the motives of the US and the terrorists, and it's sickening.

As for tactics, I considering a property of national defense that we the nation will assign greater value to the lives of our people and soldiers than those of other nations. National defense must, I think, have this irrational bias in order to get its job done. And I'm satisfied that the job will be done, and that we'll make up for the damage.

If you have better figures or what you concider a good source conflicting with the above figures, feel free to present them.

I find it dishonest to hold back any rational reservations one has about one's source. No, I don't have a better source, which is amazing, considering almost anything could be a better source. The eagerness to just come up with a number does not outweigh the need for some rigorous conservatism when it comes to accepting the word of others. IMO.

From:

Aaargh.

You might not want to get me started on what the USA gov't got up to in Central America over the past 30 years. I have a hard time thinking of programs that so purely caused unnecessary harm and dammaged their own announced intended goals.

In Nicaragua we had a very rare chance for peacefull democratic change to undo much of the dammage done by decades of support for the Somosa family dictatorship. Instead we went for a policy that left the country in smoldering ruins after years of unnecessary war. I can only assume it was done for some domestic reasons or political posturing, if there was any reason at all.

From: