Calling All Armchair Ethicists- What Would You Do?

[sr71plt]

If the military doesn't have a contingency plan for this type of situation, they shouldn't launch the mission. Personally, I would have given the goatherders qualudes (time-release qualudes to match the duration of the mission) and tethered them to a tree with plastic handcuffs.

The outfit I worked for (which had operations such as this) did have a contingency plan for this scenario: abort the mission. Alienating the local civilians and inviting a media diluge wasn't considered part of any sort of success scenario. You pulled out by prior arrangment and patiently looked for the next opportunity for clear-cut success.

 

[rgraham666]

The outfit I worked for (which had operations such as this) did have a contingency plan for this scenario: abort the mission. Alienating the local civilians and inviting a media diluge wasn't considered part of any sort of success scenario. You pulled out by prior arrangment and patiently looked for the next opportunity for clear-cut success.

Which to my mind is the wisest thing to do.

Wars are as much about ideas as they are about combat. The moral dimension can't be ignored.

The meanest son of a bitch in the valley only lasts until everybody else gets scared and angry enough to decide they have nothing to lose.

 

[trysail]

The US invaded a country that had nothing to do with its causus belli, the attack of 9/11.

Which country are you talking about? Your response has every appearance of being a non sequitur.

 

[rgraham666]

Which country are you talking about? Your response has every appearance of being a non sequitur


.

Iraq.

 

[trysail]

Iraq.

Congratulations! You just demonstrated, "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

 

[rgraham666]

Congratulations! You just demonstrated, "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

Sigh. Ad hominem. I was so hoping you were above that. You did show some signs of debating ability.

Shrugs. I'm used to disappointment.

 

[sr71plt]

Congratulations! You just demonstrated, "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

If you really want to talk about learning from hindsight, I know of a few government folks who would be delighted now to go back to the time when Bin Laden offered to take out Saddam Hussein for us. Then we might not have been in the position of firing at Iraq when we were aiming for Al-Qaida. We'd at least then have been able to see the real target. (And, even more significant, perhaps Bin Laden wouldn't even have been mad enough at us to do what he then did).

 

[trysail]

Sigh. Ad hominem. I was so hoping you were above that. You did show some signs of debating ability.

Shrugs. I'm used to disappointment.

The remark was NOT ad hominem.

From post #1:
The one ground rule is simple: put yourself in the shoes of these SEALS (for those of you who are not too swift, this is NOT a thread or a place to discuss the coalition presence in Afghanistan. Neither I, nor anyone else, is the least bit interested in starting or reading a debate that's been rehashed nine zillion times).

 

[BlackShanglan]

Trysail, I understand your position, but there's not much point in posting a thread to an open forum and then telling people that they can't say what they like about it. Whether that would be desirable or not is beside the point; it's not really possible. You raised the topic of responses to September 11th yourself; that's the way conversations go.