Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Has anybody been following this story? Apparently the CIA was targeting a dinner party, in which top Bin Laden official Ayman al-Zawahiri was rumored to be in attendance.
It turns out he probably wasn't, and as many as 18 civilians, including children, were killed in the strike.
However, CNN is now reporting that we may have killed Al Qaeda's chemical weapons expert, Midhat Mursi, although that now sounds doubtful too.
So my question is this-- Is what we did in Pakistan wrong? Critics of the war in Iraq will often say that nation state vs. nation state warfare won't defeat Al Qaeda, which I happen to agree with. But then aren't tactics such as this the alternative? I mean, I'm certain we could end our relationship with Pakistan, declare war, and simply invade the western/northern portion of the country. We'd kill a lot of innocent people, and probably piss people off, but we'd also quite possible find Osama Bin LAden, right?
So if war in Iraq is wrong, and strategic strikes such as this are wrong, then what is right? |
I believe airstrikes, regardless of how strategic, fail in comparison to boots on the ground; we need to get more special forces inserted and have them directly engage targets, for these are the men that can always tell the difference between women & children and dirty old Jihadists.
We should insure that women and children do not die in our operations, and so I disagree with it.
However, if this is used as more attacks against the Bush administration, you are wrong; all Presidents since Viet Nam have been more interested in techne than boots on the ground. Have it be an attack on the comprehensive policies governing warfare in recent years.
BTW: I dislike liberals. Do not associate me with them because I oppose this air strike.
Hybrid Mode
