1. The strategic and tactical value of IED's is not killing American soldies, per se. It's in expotentially increasing the financial costs associated with maintaining logistics and supply. Roads have to be traveled in convoys, vehicles are disabled and wounded have to be evacuated, helicopters have to be used for valuable payloads and VIPs. That's the real value of the IED's--- that's a large part of the reason it's now costing about $3 billion a week to operate there. Killing the soldiers is incidental-- wounding them is what costs.

2. Drones and even most laser guided ordnance is great at hitting a prescribed spot. They are terrible at actually identifying who happens to be on that spot. In that sense, the suicide bomber, contrary to the car bomb, is actually a theoretically more moral weapon because the targeting software-- the brain and eyes of the bomber, are able to accurately discern his target and identify them. Now, if the bomber is interested in killing only civilians, a car bomb would do just as well. Suicide bombers are tactically more useful only when you want to reduce collateral damage by ensuring who's around when it goes off and who isn't. Now, they don't always let it work out that way and civilians do die in suicide bombings, But I'd wager that the collateral damage ratio is actually smaller with a suicide bomber than it is with either drone directed or laser guided munitions.

3. You fail to note the mismatch in life values. You use the term "morality" as though we equally value Iraqi civilian lives as well as our own. That's nonesense. Coalition rules of engagement are all about force protection. We're willing to use remote devices precisely because we're willing to incur much higher levels of Iraqi civilian deaths than US soldier deaths. That's not morality as far as I understand the term. It's more convenience.

While it may be the case that "we're willing to incur much higher levels of Iraqi civilian deaths than US soldier deaths", it is also true that we don't go out of our way to inflict those deaths and when they do occurr we don't celebrate. Your subtle attempt to make the barbaric killers of the insurgency equatable with coalition soldiers is quite contemptible. Would you rather be an Iraqi prisoner with the US Army or an American prisoner of the insurgents?

Would you rather be an Iraqi prisoner with the US Army or an American prisoner of the insurgents?

These days? Who knows? Torture is now allowed by the Bush adminstration.

It's not a 'subtle' equivalence to ask if remote indiscrimate killing is better than indiscriminate suicide killing. And the lack of 'celebration' only indicates that most Americans couldn't be bothered to care what their government is doing.

"Would you rather be an Iraqi prisoner with the US Army or an American prisoner of the insurgents?"

Honestly with that choice I'm not sure, but as a Canadian I think my chances might be a little better with the Iraqis.

What if the terrorists could find a way to send their bombs like the US does, remotely? Would we stop talking about how 'immoral' they were?

Wow. Your responses are truly saddening. It's fine if you want to criticize the Administration and its policies (there's a lot to criticize), but let's be realistic at the very least.

The insurgents in Iraq don't care about human life. It doesn't matter if you are American, Iraqi, Canadian, whatever. I've been there and seen the tortured (really tortured, not pussy waterboarding BS) and mutilated bodies left in their wake. It's dishonest to compare the mindset of the American soldier to these vicious killers. You are quite disconnected from this conflict yourself if you imagine otherwise. Not only do these vile bastards revel in their sadism, they post it on the internet for anyone to see. They are proud of their bloody work. Proud that they strap bombs onto mentally handicapped women and explode them by remote in a crowded marketplace. Proud to bind fellow Iraqi Muslims hand and foot, douse them with gasoline, push them into a pit, and set them on fire. Proud to rape and murder women because they are of a different religious sect. If you'd like to throw your lot in with these, then that's your right. Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Kim Sun-il, and countless others, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, would surely beg to differ.

"The insurgents in Iraq don't care about human life."

Only a fucking moron believes this.

If you perceived your country to have been invaded and occupied by a foriegn power, where would you draw the line in what is acceptable or unacceptable to make them leave? I think you'd be surprised by what you could do.

Isn't moral relativism great? :-)

I can't count the number of times I've heard people justify torture because Saddam, bin Laden, the insurgents, or whoever are even worse. There's nothing like setting moral benchmarks based on the worse people in the world.

In the same way we (as westerners) view suicide bombers (or at least their sponsors) as cowardly, cruel, monsters, I'm sure they feel the same way about the Air Force launching a cruise missile out of a submarine and blowing up a hut via remote control in order to kill yet another al Qaeda #2 man irregardless of "collateral damage".

Here's an interesting scenario:

A. A suicide bomber kills 3 US troops and causes the death of 10 civilians in the process.

B. A cruise missile kills 3 al Qaeda members and causes the death of 10 civilians in the process.

Morally, is there any difference?

TheSavage:

While it may be the case that "we're willing to incur much higher levels of Iraqi civilian deaths than US soldier deaths", it is also true that we don't go out of our way to inflict those deaths and when they do occurr we don't celebrate. Your subtle attempt to make the barbaric killers of the insurgency equatable with coalition soldiers is quite contemptible. Would you rather be an Iraqi prisoner with the US Army or an American prisoner of the insurgents?

Hah! You're so funny. We don't "go out of our way to to inflict those deaths? Seems to me we went what, six or eight thousand miles out of our way to inflict them? Or didn't you notice that Iraq is not in the Western Hemisphere? We made the choice to start the war, to lie to the public and the UN, to go without a UN mandate on the basis of lies, to change the rationale for the invasion several times, and to do so without a legal or moral right to act.

But, no, we don't go out of our way to kill civilians, just to invade their country, destroy their gov't, their society and assume total sovereignty over them. You are quite a joker.

As for tactical considerations, it's been well established that we've managed to decrease US casualties for the most part by reducing on the street action in favor of air power. Air power by its inherent nature results in substantially higher civilian casualties.

So, while it is convenient, from the persective of conscience, to assume that we are morally superior because we do not target civilians, it's a fraud. We engage in war tactics in which the majority of those killed are certain to be civilians. Which means that, in legal terms, our mens rea is "a depraved indifference to human life" rather than premeditated murder. How comforting

As for who would I want to be prisoners of, before the war, that was an easy question. After Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the black prisons and so forth, that's no longer the case. I guess the choice is whether you prefer being beheaded to beaten, raped, drowned and electrified.

We've ceded the moral high ground in this conflict since, oh, May of '03. It's about time you figured that out.

I always wondered how "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is "moral" for the Iraqi people. We're gonna use your country to fight terrorists who were not there before we invaded, so we don't have to mess up our own lawns. This is moral how?

Funny, I thought I was on Slate, but it appears I've wandered onto DailyKos.

"Here's an interesting scenario:

A. A suicide bomber kills 3 US troops and causes the death of 10 civilians in the process.

B. A cruise missile kills 3 al Qaeda members and causes the death of 10 civilians in the process.

Morally, is there any difference?"

Did you just put US soldiers on the same level as terrorists? If you don't see the difference in your example then I can't help you.

I don't believe I ever justified torture in my post, and no reasonable person would make the argument that you're referring to so I'm not sure what your point is there.

Ok, so say we let the al-Qaeda guy live because we don't want to inflict collateral damage. Then what? He goes on and orders the killings of other innocent civilians and furthers his power in the area. You end up with the same number (or more) of dead and he's still in business. What a stupid scenario you've put together! So, in a variant of the "Drowning Hitler" question: Would you order the bombing of a house that you knew Hitler to be in if there was the chance of collateral damage? An extreme example, but that's where your logic takes you.

Screwjack,

How absurd you are! In one post you imply that I'm a "fucking moron" for believing that the insurgents don't care about human life (and they don't), then in the very next post you proceed to make excuses for what any reasonable person would consider unacceptable behavior. If my country was invaded I might take up arms but I'm certainly not going to cut someone's head off, torture them, or burn them alive. You might find that acceptable under those circumstances but anyone with a sense of compassion for others would find that abhorrent. You're also mistaking their motives for patriotism. Religion, sadism, criminality, money, drugs. revenge, all these are motivators for the insurgency, not love of country. Where do you get your knowledge on this subject from? Do you actually have experience in Iraq or do you take all your opinions from Michael Moore and his ilk?

doodahman,

What do you mean without a UN mandate? I don't remember the exact resolution number, but I know there was a resolution passed that gave Saddam Hussein the choice of allowing weapons inspectors in or facing war. Of course there was no security council vote because the Russians, Chinese, and French (and some US business interests also) were in bed with Saddam on the oil-for-food program. Since when do we need a UN mandate? It will be a bad day for free people everywhere if the UN is put in charge of the world.

You also make the most extraordinary claim that it was "their gov't", as if the majority of Iraqi's had any say in the matter! Sure, they might voice their displeasure, but they would be quickly vanished away. When Saddam wasn't busy with his genocidal campaign against the Kurds or his equally brutal oppression of the Shia (most of the Iraqi Army and the majority of the casualties in his war with Iran, which we, to our everlasting shame, supported), he was invading other countries or seeking to undermine the UN weapons inspectors that were in country. Indeed, the joke is on you if you think their society wasn't crumbling before we invaded.

"As for tactical considerations, it's been well established that we've managed to decrease US casualties for the most part by reducing on the street action in favor of air power. Air power by its inherent nature results in substantially higher civilian casualties."

Did you pull this paragraph out of your ass? How ridiculous! We haven't been relying on air power more than boots on the ground. The change of tactics that came with the surge was more involvement on a ground level, with longer stints in the neighborhoods and less staying behind the walls of our bases. Air power does not inherently result in higher civilian casualties. That may have been true years ago, but the technology is so advanced now that it's often less deadly than building to building urban combat.

It's also not true that we are indifferent to the collateral damage we cause. In each and every operation we seek to limit civilian casualties. The insurgents openly target civilians and seek to maximize the numbers they kill.

How can you actually equate Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to prisoner treatment at the hands of Al-Qaeda and company? Oh no! We made them pose for embarrassing pictures! There aren't any beatings or rapes. Let me be clear and say that this does not excuse the behavior in Abu Ghraib. Totally unacceptable and was rightly punished (too bad it didn't make it up higher in the chain of command). As far as waterboarding, it was only used on three prisoners, and each interrogator is put through the experience during training. I agree that it is also unacceptable but not in the same league as the horrors of an insurgent torture chamber.

I was right, you ARE a fucking moron. I clearly understand the situation better than you. If your entire family was blown apart right in front of you, including your children, you'd be surprised what you'd do. Yeah, no insurgents in Iraq just want us gone. You simply cannot allow your mind to see if from their perspective otherwise, you guessed it, you'd have a moral dilemma. So instead you deny, and tell yourself whatever is necessary to dehumanize them. Most of the insurgents just want us out. Most Iraqis want us out. And, I suspect they all love their children.

You're the one who sounds like Rush's parrot.

TheSavage:

Funny, I thought I was on Slate, but it appears I've wandered onto DailyKos.

"Here's an interesting scenario:

A. A suicide bomber kills 3 US troops and causes the death of 10 civilians in the process.

B. A cruise missile kills 3 al Qaeda members and causes the death of 10 civilians in the process.

Morally, is there any difference?"

Did you just put US soldiers on the same level as terrorists? If you don't see the difference in your example then I can't help you.

I don't believe I ever justified torture in my post, and no reasonable person would make the argument that you're referring to so I'm not sure what your point is there.

Ok, so say we let the al-Qaeda guy live because we don't want to inflict collateral damage. Then what? He goes on and orders the killings of other innocent civilians and furthers his power in the area. You end up with the same number (or more) of dead and he's still in business. What a stupid scenario you've put together! So, in a variant of the "Drowning Hitler" question: Would you order the bombing of a house that you knew Hitler to be in if there was the chance of collateral damage? An extreme example, but that's where your logic takes you.

Screwjack,

How absurd you are! In one post you imply that I'm a "fucking moron" for believing that the insurgents don't care about human life (and they don't), then in the very next post you proceed to make excuses for what any reasonable person would consider unacceptable behavior. If my country was invaded I might take up arms but I'm certainly not going to cut someone's head off, torture them, or burn them alive. You might find that acceptable under those circumstances but anyone with a sense of compassion for others would find that abhorrent. You're also mistaking their motives for patriotism. Religion, sadism, criminality, money, drugs. revenge, all these are motivators for the insurgency, not love of country. Where do you get your knowledge on this subject from? Do you actually have experience in Iraq or do you take all your opinions from Michael Moore and his ilk?

doodahman,

What do you mean without a UN mandate? I don't remember the exact resolution number, but I know there was a resolution passed that gave Saddam Hussein the choice of allowing weapons inspectors in or facing war. Of course there was no security council vote because the Russians, Chinese, and French (and some US business interests also) were in bed with Saddam on the oil-for-food program. Since when do we need a UN mandate? It will be a bad day for free people everywhere if the UN is put in charge of the world.

You also make the most extraordinary claim that it was "their gov't", as if the majority of Iraqi's had any say in the matter! Sure, they might voice their displeasure, but they would be quickly vanished away. When Saddam wasn't busy with his genocidal campaign against the Kurds or his equally brutal oppression of the Shia (most of the Iraqi Army and the majority of the casualties in his war with Iran, which we, to our everlasting shame, supported), he was invading other countries or seeking to undermine the UN weapons inspectors that were in country. Indeed, the joke is on you if you think their society wasn't crumbling before we invaded.

"As for tactical considerations, it's been well established that we've managed to decrease US casualties for the most part by reducing on the street action in favor of air power. Air power by its inherent nature results in substantially higher civilian casualties."

Did you pull this paragraph out of your ass? How ridiculous! We haven't been relying on air power more than boots on the ground. The change of tactics that came with the surge was more involvement on a ground level, with longer stints in the neighborhoods and less staying behind the walls of our bases. Air power does not inherently result in higher civilian casualties. That may have been true years ago, but the technology is so advanced now that it's often less deadly than building to building urban combat.

It's also not true that we are indifferent to the collateral damage we cause. In each and every operation we seek to limit civilian casualties. The insurgents openly target civilians and seek to maximize the numbers they kill.

How can you actually equate Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to prisoner treatment at the hands of Al-Qaeda and company? Oh no! We made them pose for embarrassing pictures! There aren't any beatings or rapes. Let me be clear and say that this does not excuse the behavior in Abu Ghraib. Totally unacceptable and was rightly punished (too bad it didn't make it up higher in the chain of command). As far as waterboarding, it was only used on three prisoners, and each interrogator is put through the experience during training. I agree that it is also unacceptable but not in the same league as the horrors of an insurgent torture chamber.

Look, doofus, there's no percentage in this for me. I'm not interested in convincing a morally and intellectually bankrupt dipshit about the errors of his ways. It's not worth my time, and I have better things to do than bang my head against a wall.

You don't understand the difference between a UN mandate and a Security Council authorization for war 9(or why, under international law that is the law of this country per the Constitution, we needed such authorization). You don't understand how we're conducting the occupation. You don't even understand the moral implications of using air power on a civilian population that we are legally obligated to protect.

Shit, fool, you can't even explain without passing the laugh test why we're even there in the first place.

All you've done is spent whatever time to spew out ten paragraphs of laughable shit.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing. Find someone on your own level. I'm sure there's somebody in Best of the Fray that will think you're worth talking to.

that was a little rough. I think you're way off on virtually everything you said, and I should just have let it be since I don't have time or the inclination right now to take it down piece by piece, especially as it would necessitate a lot of linking which I just don't feel like doing right now.

We'll try this a little later perhaps, when I have the time and am in a more congenial mood.