3 ms·

The US can't even figure out how to assassinate key military adversaries based on Baluchistan, one of the most violent and contentious areas in the world. I'm

The US can't even figure out how to assassinate key military adversaries based on Baluchistan, one of the most violent and contentious areas in the world. I'm not sure this is relevant. Life in Baluchistan is not nearly as amenable to government surveillance as life in Sweden. And besides, I'd say that the US government is pretty skillful at killing people with drones by the point. Not always the people they meant to kill.... The idea that they'd be scheming to kill someone simply out of spite (for nothing they do at this point to Assange is going to keep the machinery he's put in motion from publishing every document disclosed to him) is an insult to our intelligence. One thing that has surprised me is the degree to which people in the US national security community believe that organizations can be stopped by killing the right leader. It seems like a case of "if all you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail" -- we're good at killing individuals but pretty clueless when it comes to understanding mass movements let alone engaging with them or changing their incentives. For example, there was a lot of internal resistance behind backing the Anwar Awakening in Iraq as opposed to continuing the status quo of killing insurgency leaders. So I agree with you: killing Assange would do nothing to stop WikiLeaks. But I'm not sure that understanding is commonly held in the national security bureaucracy.

tptacek 16y ago
There is simply no evidence that anyone in "the national security bureaucracy" is entertaining the idea of killing Julian Assange. There isn't even any evidence that any military or law enforcement agency in the US is entertaining the idea of apprehending him. On what grounds would they do so? It is, on the other hand, very easy for me to accept that the US would try to recruit any one of the tens of thousands of well-armed, morally ambiguous bandits carousing around the western tribal provinces of Pakistan. After all, tens of thousands of well-armed American and NATO fighters are waiting just on the other side of an invisible border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to shoot at those same bandits. There is simply a world of difference between the Assange scenario and the AfPak scenario; an avalanche of incentive exists in AfPak, and yet we're still bound by a kabuki dance of "rules of engagement" and "surgical" airstrikes. There's no way I can win an argument about this with you, because it demands that I prove a negative: that nobody in the US government, no matter how ineffectual or mentally incompetant, would, given the chance, seek to neutralize Julian Assange (by PR, by arrest, or by murder). But suffice it to say: you're talking to someone who believes that if agents from the FBI, CIA, and AFOSI were standing right in front of Julian Assange in an unlit alley blocked on either end with vans ready to spirit him away, they'd try to get him to answer a few (or many) questions... and then leave him to walk away.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  There is simply no evidence that anyone in "the national security bureaucracy" is entertaining the idea of killing Julian Assange. There isn't even any evidence that any military or law enforcement agency in the US is entertaining the idea of apprehending him. On what grounds would they do so? Um...I'm not claiming that anyone is planning on killing Assange. Please reread my comment. I'm only disputing some factual claims that you made. Just because I think portions of your argument are weak and unsupported (or irrelevant) doesn't mean that I agree with the people you're arguing with. There is simply a world of difference between the Assange scenario and the AfPak scenario; an avalanche of incentive exists in AfPak, and yet we're still bound by a kabuki dance of "rules of engagement" and "surgical" airstrikes. When you say "we", are you referring to the US military or the civilian contractors that are running their own airstrikes in AfPak totally apart from the military and military rules?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Can you be more specific about which of my arguments you're trying to help me shore up? When you say things like "the US government is skillful at killing people with drones" and "I'm surprised by the degree to which people in the national security community believe that organizations can be stopped by killing the right leader" and that killing people is an "everything looks like a nail" solution and that while killing Assange wouldn't stop Wikileaks "that understanding isn't commonly held" in the US government... when you say these things, it sure sounds like you agree with the conspiracy theorists.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      When you say things like "the US government is skillful at killing people with drones" My point here is that talking about government killings in Baluchistan is irrelevant. Baluchistan is a very different place than Sweden. The fact that government has great difficulty finding and then killing people in a remote tribal region doesn't tell us anything about their ability to find and kill people in a place like Sweden. "I'm surprised by the degree to which people in the national security community believe that organizations can be stopped by killing the right leader" My point here is that your mental model for how people in the national security bureaucracy seems incomplete. I think your belief that WikiLeaks can't be stopped by killing its leaders is correct -- I just don't think we have any basis for assuming this belief is shared inside the intel/defense establishment, especially given its recent history of being unable/unwilling to consider the futility of campaigns based on leadership strikes. when you say these things, it sure sounds like you agree with the conspiracy theorists. Not at all. I disagree with ignorant and poorly reasoned arguments. You are bringing some to the table.

tptacek 16y ago

There is simply no evidence that anyone in "the national security bureaucracy" is entertaining the idea of killing Julian Assange. There isn't even any evidence that any military or law enforcement agency in the US is entertaining the idea of apprehending him. On what grounds would they do so? It is, on the other hand, very easy for me to accept that the US would try to recruit any one of the tens of thousands of well-armed, morally ambiguous bandits carousing around the western tribal provinces of Pakistan. After all, tens of thousands of well-armed American and NATO fighters are waiting just on the other side of an invisible border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to shoot at those same bandits. There is simply a world of difference between the Assange scenario and the AfPak scenario; an avalanche of incentive exists in AfPak, and yet we're still bound by a kabuki dance of "rules of engagement" and "surgical" airstrikes. There's no way I can win an argument about this with you, because it demands that I prove a negative: that nobody in the US government, no matter how ineffectual or mentally incompetant, would, given the chance, seek to neutralize Julian Assange (by PR, by arrest, or by murder). But suffice it to say: you're talking to someone who believes that if agents from the FBI, CIA, and AFOSI were standing right in front of Julian Assange in an unlit alley blocked on either end with vans ready to spirit him away, they'd try to get him to answer a few (or many) questions... and then leave him to walk away.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
There is simply no evidence that anyone in "the national security bureaucracy" is entertaining the idea of killing Julian Assange. There isn't even any evidence that any military or law enforcement agency in the US is entertaining the idea of apprehending him. On what grounds would they do so? Um...I'm not claiming that anyone is planning on killing Assange. Please reread my comment. I'm only disputing some factual claims that you made. Just because I think portions of your argument are weak and unsupported (or irrelevant) doesn't mean that I agree with the people you're arguing with. There is simply a world of difference between the Assange scenario and the AfPak scenario; an avalanche of incentive exists in AfPak, and yet we're still bound by a kabuki dance of "rules of engagement" and "surgical" airstrikes. When you say "we", are you referring to the US military or the civilian contractors that are running their own airstrikes in AfPak totally apart from the military and military rules?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Can you be more specific about which of my arguments you're trying to help me shore up? When you say things like "the US government is skillful at killing people with drones" and "I'm surprised by the degree to which people in the national security community believe that organizations can be stopped by killing the right leader" and that killing people is an "everything looks like a nail" solution and that while killing Assange wouldn't stop Wikileaks "that understanding isn't commonly held" in the US government... when you say these things, it sure sounds like you agree with the conspiracy theorists.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    When you say things like "the US government is skillful at killing people with drones" My point here is that talking about government killings in Baluchistan is irrelevant. Baluchistan is a very different place than Sweden. The fact that government has great difficulty finding and then killing people in a remote tribal region doesn't tell us anything about their ability to find and kill people in a place like Sweden. "I'm surprised by the degree to which people in the national security community believe that organizations can be stopped by killing the right leader" My point here is that your mental model for how people in the national security bureaucracy seems incomplete. I think your belief that WikiLeaks can't be stopped by killing its leaders is correct -- I just don't think we have any basis for assuming this belief is shared inside the intel/defense establishment, especially given its recent history of being unable/unwilling to consider the futility of campaigns based on leadership strikes. when you say these things, it sure sounds like you agree with the conspiracy theorists. Not at all. I disagree with ignorant and poorly reasoned arguments. You are bringing some to the table.