Lol! wjessop, I have yet to experience a time when your opinion has been relevant or interesting :p. The unique factor in this case was that you were impossible to mute because you made the thread. But again, this particular line of conversation is a detriment to the thread. I think you're a prat, you probably think the same of me. So endeth the discussion.

If I didn't think you were a prat before, you're certainly swaying me in that direction with these adolescent displays of conceit.

I'm fine to end the conversation with you, when you're not being productive.

I read the first 4 or so pages of this thread. Are we still having arguments over stupid shit like the definition of "the West" or is this thread back on topic?

"Was it a mistake because it failed, or was it wrong in principle?"

Iraq War/Libyan War? Mistakes because they failed. U.S. and allies topple brutal, genocidal dictators, but subsequently the people themselves prove incapable of establishing self-governing democracy due to religious/tribal/cultural divisions.

Afghan War? Necessary and justified due to 9/11. The rebuilding has faced much of the same difficulties as Iraq/Libya.

Syria? Inconclusive. The U.S. has targeted ISIS but has not yet intervened decisively enough to really shape the conflict. This is probably about the appropriate level of force given the cautionary examples cited above.

World War II? Not a mistake because it succeeded. U.S. and allies defeat brutal genocidal regimes in Germany and Japan, which through successful post-war rebuilding become two of the world's largest economies.

Korean War? Partial mistake, partial success. A I.N. coalition led by the U.S. saved southern half of the Korean Peninsula from Communism and the South Korean people successfully built up a strong economy & democracy there,mmuch like West Germany/Japan after WWII. There is historical evidence suggesting the USSR abandoned the defense of North Korea over to China, and that China would not have intervened decisively with a million troops if MacArthur had stopped 2/3 of the way up the peninsula rather than pressing all the way to the Yalu River.

I haven't made up my mind about how to classify the Vietnam War or WWI, but the point is that one can find many examples where the use of U.S. military force shaped the world for the better.

*U.N. coalition.

U.S. intervention abroad is not fundamentally evil, but its effectiveness is highly context-specific,

Amwidkle, deciding whether US intervention was "good" based entirely on whether the results are positive are negative is not a very good measure imo.

Philosophically this is called consequentialism, which is the belief that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.

However one can come up with many examples where an act that was clearly wrong given the person's initial knowledge of a situation produces positive results (and vice versa), such as a man who has gone bankrupt spending his family's last $100 on lottery tickets, then winning the lottery. His action was statistically much more likely to fail than to succeed and risking his family's well-being was wrong of him, but he achieved a positive result due to chance.

Essentially, confirmation bias precludes us from measuring the righteousness of actions based on success/failure.

(I apologize for my overly-generalized posts in this thread. I simply lack enough specific knowledge to incorporate that, though I think the fundamental concepts are still useful to contribute.)

And @orathaic, you bring up some good points even though I disagree with you on many. However, your attempt to say that Osama bin Laden deserved a trial is absolutely untenable. In war, it turns out that it's more than a little impractical to give each of the enemy soldiers a trial at risk of your own soldiers' lives. This instance is no different. Can we agree on that much?

As I said, I believe some of your other points are very much worth discussing, and I will re-read some of this thread to see if I have anything unique to contribute. Most of my opinions are in line with goldfinger/Amwidkle.

@Octavious, followed your advise, trying to be agnostic about the possibility of a bias among an orgnization with US-UK headquarters and fundings, and this article by hrw director is the first google result

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/28/assad-solution-not-he-attacks-civilians,

before preceeding on ennumerating the issues I found on it, I should ask you if your opinion is based on that kind of articles or is there something qualitatively more substantive I'm missing?

@wjessop, sorry, I'm too failing to see the importance of the 'west' definition discussion; even if you'r right that it was a definition created by colonialism, it doesn't change the fact that definitions are just conventions.

@chaqa, well, I've not put much attention to all the arguments here, but I've posted a pair of articles, that I thought would deserve discussion, but seems no one has read them yet. Here again, in case you'r interested:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/aug/13/mystery-isis/

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/france-s-unresolved-algerian-war-sheds-light-on-the-paris-attack-a6736901.html

I chose HRW because they are quite balanced. Indeed, if you search for their reports on Syria they probably have more condemning the actions of various rebel groups (not just IS) than the regime itself.

The problem you will have is that it is simply impossible to gather perfect evidence in a war zone. If you wait for cast iron proof you will never act. A second problem is that any organization with the resources to do a decent job will have elements of bias.

HRW are one of the better compromises out there.

When Western governments and the media and organizations like HRW all agree (which is quite a rare thing), the chances are it's true.

"Iraq War/Libyan War? Mistakes because they failed. U.S. and allies topple brutal, genocidal dictators, but subsequently the people themselves prove incapable of establishing self-governing democracy due to religious/tribal/cultural divisions."

So this is principle, why don't you go after all the other dictators, why do you support the King of Saudi Arabia?

If they were so genocidal, why are there so many Kurds still alive in Iraq, and any other tribe in Libya? Was it just incompetence on their part, or was the mere fact that they opposed US policy enough to be branded genocidal.

Also why did US policy support dictators engaged in South America for like 50 years? Especially the ones who waged war on their own people?

That is just bullshit rationalisation for acitons which had nothing to do with removing Dictators, it had everything to do with removing people who publically voiced opposition to the US of A.

@ "In war, it turns out that it's more than a little impractical to give each of the enemy soldiers a trial at risk of your own soldiers' lives. This instance is no different. Can we agree on that much? "

Ok, was this war? Was he a combatant? Did Osama's leadership directly influence his followers, or was it more of a general, you should do things, and then they planned the things?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. I don't know if Osama Bn Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks, or if he only provided the 'spiritual' guidance for them.

I would argue that the US was not at war here. Not a conventional war at any rate.

So to your point, could they have captured Bin Laden and given him a fair trial? Well with the Pakistani government's agreement, sure they could have. (Just as the could get Edward Snowden a fair trail with Russia's agreement...)

What we know now, is Bin Laden was held up in a complex in Pakistan with about 6 others? (family friends?) Could the Pakistani army have laid seige to the compound? Yes easily.

Did the US trust them to? Clearly not.

It was entirely practical to capture and put him on trial. The fact that it was not done was because he would have become a martyr his trial would have been denounced as a show trial (which i would probably have become)

I'm a pacifist, I beleive violence is always wrong, except in self-defence. And murder of Bin Laden was not self-defence, it was not Justice, it was Vengeance.

@Octavius
"When Western governments and the media and organizations like HRW all agree (which is quite a rare thing), the chances are it's true."

Western allies, you mean? anyway I can think of at least another case in which all of them seem to agree smoothly: their judgement about venezuelan or ecuadorian governments. Honestly, I don't know deeply HRW organization but I've tested private media a bit more and what I think of them is that they hire proffesional journalist that usually try to do their job with seriousness. But there seem to be stratgical subjects where they magically tend to loose their objectiveness. I've tested that in the case of Venezuela (and I don't mean that Maduro is a good president, cos certainly he's not, but I'm certain that he's not either the monster they try to picture). Another case used to be Cuba, where I've tested a massive load of manipulation, half-truths and just plain lies.

In the case of Assad, I just don't know. So, don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to defend him. And also, you make some fair points anyway. Given which, just let me then to proceed to comment some points in that HRW article. Here again the link for reference:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/28/assad-solution-not-he-attacks-civilians

"In the early days of Syria’s uprising, between July and October 2011, Assad released from prison a number of jihadists who had fought in Iraq, many of whom went on to play leading roles in militant Islamist groups. These releases were part of broader amnesties, but Assad kept in prison those who backed the peaceful uprising."
does that make any sense at all?

"Once Isis became a significant force following its takeover of Raqqa in 2013, Assad’s military largely avoided confronting it. Conflict between the two has increased since the summer of 2014, but for many critical months, Assad largely left Isis alone, allowing it to consolidate its “caliphate”. Instead, Assad focused his firepower on other elements of the armed opposition."
Couldn't we find a simple explanation for that Assad's attitude? Let's just consider that, at the beginning Isis was far from being the opposition organization with the best strategical position, so no wonder Assad focused on other morre threatening organizations at the moment.

Besides repeating that Assad has been attacking civilians and other athrocities without giving further references, and well... let's assume there's some truth on that, but let's consider this piece:

"The evident rationale behind Assad’s strategy of war crimes has been to depopulate opposition-held areas, and to signal to other Syrians that they too will be attacked if the opposition prevails in their neighbourhoods. "

Isn't that the exact same rationale behind the strategy of any power that bombs their enemies? What exactly is the rationale behind US strategy of bombing medicins sans frontiers at Kunduz?

"So this is principle, why don't you go after all the other dictators, why do you support the King of Saudi Arabia?"

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happier if Saudi Arabia were a pluralistic, tolerant democracy. There are lots of places all over the world that could be governed better and more democratically. The neo-conservative plan all along was that if regime change in Iraq were successful, then Iran would have been the next target. And why not? Since 1979, Iran has worked tirelessly to thwart American ambitions in the region. But then we learned that American-backed regime change in the Middle East is a losing proposition, as seen in the failures of both the Iraq War and the Libyan War to establish lasting peace.

So, we have taken regime change off the table. Now, we are presented with the narrower question: is it logical for the U.S. to favor dictators who *are* U.S. allies over dictators who are *not* U.S. allies? Yes, I think so. At the very least, we can certainly agree it makes no sense to bomb your allies.

"If they were so genocidal, why are there so many Kurds still alive in Iraq, and any other tribe in Libya?"

Saddam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds was largely over by the mid-1990's, and the use of American & allied force through humanitarian interventions in Iraq after Desert Storm (Operations Provide Comfort I & II) was at least part of the reason why. The irony of course is that today, the genocidal ambitions of ISIS far exceed the scope of what Saddam Hussein ever imagined.

As for Libya, in February 2011 Qaddafi announced his intention to crush the rebels of Benghazi like "cockroaches" (identical dehumanizing language was used by the Hutus in Rwanda to instigate genocide against the Tutsis). I believe Qaddafi's brazen announcement of his intention to commit mass murder against his own people is what finally goaded President Obama into bombing Libya.

Jessop: if you brought up points that led to more than an opportunity to have a semantics circle jerk, people may take you more seriously.

Alright, troy.

I guess words don't mean a thing, that's why we let people keep calling a spade a spade.

@trap: Thanks for the advice, I'll make sure to take it to heart when I worry about how seriously people take me on this internet forum.

People asked me a series of questions -- and then I get lampooned for answering them. Get a grip.

"Murder of bin Laden was not self-defense"

This is the man who orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in history, and the worst ever on U.S. soil. If killing him was not self-defense in your view, then what would be?

"This is the man who orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in history, and the worst ever on U.S. soil. If killing him was not self-defense in your view, then what would be?"

as someone from outside this discussion, that's an easy one. if bin laden was flying an armed plane towards america, shooting that plane down would be self-defense. you can only defend yourself when you're currently being attacked. emphasis on currently.

"if bin laden was flying an armed plane towards america, shooting that plane down would be self-defense. you can only defend yourself when you're currently being attacked. emphasis on currently."

If this were the standard, then we'd never be able to get bin Laden. You would never, in a million years, catch him "flying planes toward America." That's not how Al-Qaeda actually works.

This is the equivalent of saying that we can only attack the Japanese warplanes as they were flying towards and actively bombing Pearl Harbor, and as soon as the planes fly off, we have no right to pursue them or the leaders who orchestrated the attack. That's not how war works, and make no mistake, 9/11 was an act of war. A war launched by a non-governmental organization rather than an actual country, but a war nonetheless.

"Paris Terrorist Attack"
Reads last few comments
Osama bin Laden
Wut

Oh, you think *that's* off-topic? Read the earlier posts....

I think Kasimax is referring to how he was killed without trial. He would have much preferred that Osama be sent to Guantanamo Bay to be brutally tortured and killed instead.

i do not care at all about the issue, i'm not from the us and don't know much about this topic, to be honest. neither did i question or condemn the killing of osama bin laden. i simply said that calling it "self defense" is dishonest at best. but keep putting up strawmen :)

The problem is the whole concept of non-state actors. If Bin Laden had been a WWII Nazi German general, a raid that killed him would have probably been accepted. He would have been an enemy combatant, and that would have been "legal." This is a new form of warfare that we haven't figured out yet. We haven't figured it out strategically, which is part of the reason the Iraq war was a disaster, and we haven't figured it out legally. It doesn't fit in our holes of how wars have been waged for millennium. We just don't know what to do with it.

ora: If attacking terrorist strongholds in Syria for comitting terrorist attcks will only create more terrorism, then wouldn't it stand to reason that social justice warriors who destroy "racist" people's lives for making a racial comment/joke are only creating more racism?

Terrorism goes away when it becomes ineffective. You get lulls when a method is blocked and leaders are killed so a terror group has to come up with a new method.

Look at Israel that blocked Hamas to the point that they are holding back other groups. The wall around the West Bank stopped suicide bombers crossing over into Israel. Iron Dome has reduced rocket attacks from hitting most useful targets. The tunnels from Gaza into Israel are being found. Killing off leaders with targeted strikes is making the remainder more cautious since they value their own lives over their followers.

"The neo-conservative plan all along was that if regime change in Iraq were successful, then Iran would have been the next target. And why not? Since 1979, Iran has worked tirelessly to thwart American ambitions in the region."

And there you have it. Iran thwarts America, thus they must be destroyed.

They are a veritable beacon of liberal democratic action compared to the Saudis, but the Sauids don't thwart America. So if you disagree that American policy is good for your country, you're on the hit list.

Simply as that, nothing to do with toppling ippressive dictators. Your analysis is spot on.

The US can't have countries successful oppose their policy, or they'd never get their way, better to defeat them militarily, or support a fascist opposition group (as they did across South America) the idea that communism might spread if it managed to take over Vietnam, was basically this, the US bullies people who disagree with them. And if they don't back down to the bullying bombs are sure to follow.

Once you bomb one of two countries into the stone age the rest are sure to bow down to just the bullying.

Now as happy I am to hear "I'd be happier if Saudi Arabia were a pluralistic, tolerant democracy." - but that has little impact on US policy in the middle east.

" I believe Qaddafi's brazen announcement of his intention to commit mass murder against his own people is what finally goaded President Obama into bombing Libya."

At least get your history right. It was the French President ho decided to bomb Libya, with the UK agreeing to support him. Obama only followed his allies into that campaign afterwards.

Admittadly the UK and France pretty much ran out of cruise missiles about a day or two after they started, and the US did the bull of the rest of the work. But i'm pretty sure Obama followed others in this case.

"This is the man who orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in history, and the worst ever on U.S. soil"

Again, not innocent until proven guilty?
I've no doubt he commited crimes, but i've also no idea whether he directly financed the operation, or directed the detailed olanning, or if he just gave his blessing in principle and others actually carried out the plan.

US intelligence probably had a better idea. BIn Laden certainly did, but he didn't get any defence; because to you, a terrorist stops being a person.

So, i will ask again, should the United Kingdom have used drone strikes or seal teams to murder George Washington when he started a rebellion against them (assuming they could) Would that have been the Just thing to do?

"If this were the standard, then we'd never be able to get bin Laden. You would never, in a million years, catch him "flying planes toward America." That's not how Al-Qaeda actually works."

And yes, that would be a standard you could apply, but you're blatantly wrong. There is nothing to say that SEAL team couldn't have taken Bin Laden alive; or attacked with non-lethal weapons. Or indeed the Pakistani police could have gone in and arrested him if the concept of sovereignty means anything to you.

"We haven't figured it out strategically, which is part of the reason the Iraq war was a disaster" - and the other part being Iraq had nothing WHATSOEVER to do with Bin Laden. And removing him left a power vacumn and painted a bunch of targets on US soldiers in Iraq, encouraging hundreds or maybe thousands of Islamic extremists to go to Iraq to kill Americans. It created a new front for the terrorists to fight you, when before Saddam would never have allowed them get even their foot in (because he was a power mad dictator, and would brook no competition).

@randomizer, i think you raise some valid points. You get lulls when you force someone to come up with new tactics. It doesn't make the original motive go away.

When you become a major world power with a military which nobody can challenge directly, they instead challenge it indirectly. That is asymmetric warfare, by 'terrorism' (which has become a nice word for, violence we don't approve of, usually without uniforms) Now i despise violence in all its forms. I can't be more clear on this, only in self-defence is violence justified. IS and Saudi Arabia both execute people by beheading. The US uses lethal injection, and China uses firing squads (or more recently has started using injections) but i oppose all of these measures.

They are all wrong and immoral. They serve Vengance not Justice.

I don't see ISIS as worse because they execute a few people. Or because they attacked France (which has a history in Syria) what they do is evil and should be stopped; but that doesn't make anything you want to do in responce Right and Good. It wouldn't justify, for example, using nuclear weapons in Syria.

As yourself why, and then ask why it was justified to use them against Japan.

(I know this is sounds like i'm arguing to the extreme, this is because i hope to find agreement at the extreme and pull it back from there...)