2 ms·

This is why I asked who was operating the drone. Too frequently people wave their hands and say "drones" or "military" in reference to whatever they're disatisf

by kodah 5y ago

This is why I asked who was operating the drone. Too frequently people wave their hands and say "drones" or "military" in reference to whatever they're disatisfied with. US SOCOM does not follow the same rules or procedures line companies do.

throwanem 5y ago
From a policy perspective, or even a civilian one more generally, is this all that unreasonable? It's not as if SOCOM is not military, and while I agree it's risibly stupid to slander all for the actions of some as I often see people do on the internet, I'm not sure why the distinction matters in the context of asking whether US military forces in general may violate, or are directed to violate, what some international bodies hold to be laws or conventions of warfare.
- kodah 5y ago
  Yes, I do think it's unreasonable. . When people speak in generalities it makes conversation vague but entertaining. It doesn't differentiate between policies that work and ones that don't. eg: most civilians don't understand the difference between this graph: DOD <> State Department <> SOCOM. I'm not trying to shade the person that responded to me, but I think this is a learning opportunity. They clearly know very little about what they're talking about in general, but it sounds like they've heard detailed specific stories and applied it to the wider concept. This is entertaining, maybe to some (to me it's not, I don't like being cast as a war criminal by presumption), but utterly lacking in information to learn from (future policy) or worth remembering (history). Instead, it's only function is divisiveness and furor. War won't stop any time soon and warrior culture needs to go in existing so long as war is constant so that we continue to fight wars with discipline and some amount of honor. If you remove information and history in favor of conjecture, we can do neither. More specifically, there's a lot of stories I could tell about having to interact in near-proximity to SOCOM that may shed light on why strange things seem to happen with them so often. That said, if I'm spending all my time trying to understand if said criticism also involves me (in a totally different department, whose acting on totally different policies) then that information will never make it to the reader because my line is busy. Also, I'll leave you with this: There's a lot we don't know about the Korean War and Vietnam (aside from video, which isn't that great). It's largely because veterans refused to share their stories, officially or unofficially. If I, in order to share anything, have to overcome that I am a monster in your mind first, I probably won't speak. When you accuse someone of war crimes it's not a joke, and let's be real - that is exactly what many people casually do when talking about war. The realities on the ground at war are informed by policy and real-world split second decision making which is reinforced by training. It's invaluable that we have an atmosphere where people are understanding and discerning between fact and fiction if we're ever to do things better.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    > most civilians don't understand the difference between this graph: DOD <> State Department <> SOCOM I certainly don't, at least inasmuch as it is a surprise to learn there are policy differences between DOD and SOCOM, which I understand to be one of its constituent parts, and also as a military command not given latitude to set policy in ways that would conflict with any cabinet department. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly there, though, because my own perspective is limited. I was aware the State Department and DOD are different departments with their own agendas which to say the least don't always run side by side, but it's news to me that State operates any weapons systems, as you seem to be saying they do. Again assuming I've understood you correctly here, that is also quite surprising, and on both points I'd be obliged for any references you could point me to. > there's a lot of stories I could tell about having to interact in near-proximity to SOCOM that may shed light on why strange things seem to happen with them so often Not that I'd blame you for continuing to demur, but I'd be interested to hear any such stories you find yourself inclined to tell. As you accurately note, there's a learning opportunity here; however undesirable warfare may be, as you also note and as anyone who reads the headlines should know, it is not going anywhere any time soon. That being so, I'd like to know more accurately if I can how my country goes about it, the better to understand what's happening today and try to predict what might happen tomorrow.
    - kodah 5y ago
      My contact information is on my profile if you have IRC
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > where people are understanding and discerning between fact and fiction if we're ever to do things better. Which bits of the linked news article were fiction?
    - kodah 5y ago
      I wasn't referring to your article, more stressing why it's important to be specific about details. In this instance, folks are asking why it's important who controlled the drone resource, at times arguing that it doesn't matter. My argument was that if you want a policy change, knowing who to make it with is important. If folks just walk around with overly broad criticisms such as "war bad" then folks won't listen.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Essentially parent commenter is making a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Whatever they said is irrelevant. We were drone-striking weddings. For a decade. In a country with no functioning police/military, carrying an AK was considered enough to make you a combatant. Imagine if Canada invaded the US and decided that a couple of guys with hunting rifles in a pickup truck riding back from a hunting area were "enemy combatants."
  - kodah 5y ago
    Ehhh, the policy divide between the DOD, SOCOM, and the State Department is not bridged by "no true Scotsman". If you're going to criticize something, knowing who and what you're criticizing is a good first step. The State Department using drones to bomb weddings and the policy that allows it is not congruent to the policy that allows a Marine in the ground to declare "troops in contact" and perform a 9-line. They're informed by very different things. The key differentiator in my mind is one policy that works and one policy that clearly doesn't because I keep reading about it in the news. If you want a policy changed so bad, why is pointing out who the policy rests with - and an example of a similar policy that works - so problematic to you?
    - alphabettsy 5y ago
      I take your point, but I don’t think innocent foreigners care about the distinction between US departments when their family is killed as collateral.
      - kodah 5y ago
        If I was speaking to an Afghani whose family had been devestated by a loved one dying due to combat I absolutely wouldn't be quick to correct the semantics of their language or argument. I'd speak to them with same reverance and scope that I'd speak to a Gold Star family. KennyBlanken, who I replied to, mixed the facts of several incidents into one and presented them as a singular coherent idea. I think I'm allowed to dissect an argument on a public forum, if I so see fit, at that point.
      - 5y ago

by kodah 5y ago

throwanem 5y ago

From a policy perspective, or even a civilian one more generally, is this all that unreasonable? It's not as if SOCOM is not military, and while I agree it's risibly stupid to slander all for the actions of some as I often see people do on the internet, I'm not sure why the distinction matters in the context of asking whether US military forces in general may violate, or are directed to violate, what some international bodies hold to be laws or conventions of warfare.

kodah 5y ago
Yes, I do think it's unreasonable. . When people speak in generalities it makes conversation vague but entertaining. It doesn't differentiate between policies that work and ones that don't. eg: most civilians don't understand the difference between this graph: DOD <> State Department <> SOCOM. I'm not trying to shade the person that responded to me, but I think this is a learning opportunity. They clearly know very little about what they're talking about in general, but it sounds like they've heard detailed specific stories and applied it to the wider concept. This is entertaining, maybe to some (to me it's not, I don't like being cast as a war criminal by presumption), but utterly lacking in information to learn from (future policy) or worth remembering (history). Instead, it's only function is divisiveness and furor. War won't stop any time soon and warrior culture needs to go in existing so long as war is constant so that we continue to fight wars with discipline and some amount of honor. If you remove information and history in favor of conjecture, we can do neither. More specifically, there's a lot of stories I could tell about having to interact in near-proximity to SOCOM that may shed light on why strange things seem to happen with them so often. That said, if I'm spending all my time trying to understand if said criticism also involves me (in a totally different department, whose acting on totally different policies) then that information will never make it to the reader because my line is busy. Also, I'll leave you with this: There's a lot we don't know about the Korean War and Vietnam (aside from video, which isn't that great). It's largely because veterans refused to share their stories, officially or unofficially. If I, in order to share anything, have to overcome that I am a monster in your mind first, I probably won't speak. When you accuse someone of war crimes it's not a joke, and let's be real - that is exactly what many people casually do when talking about war. The realities on the ground at war are informed by policy and real-world split second decision making which is reinforced by training. It's invaluable that we have an atmosphere where people are understanding and discerning between fact and fiction if we're ever to do things better.
- throwanem 5y ago
  > most civilians don't understand the difference between this graph: DOD <> State Department <> SOCOM I certainly don't, at least inasmuch as it is a surprise to learn there are policy differences between DOD and SOCOM, which I understand to be one of its constituent parts, and also as a military command not given latitude to set policy in ways that would conflict with any cabinet department. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly there, though, because my own perspective is limited. I was aware the State Department and DOD are different departments with their own agendas which to say the least don't always run side by side, but it's news to me that State operates any weapons systems, as you seem to be saying they do. Again assuming I've understood you correctly here, that is also quite surprising, and on both points I'd be obliged for any references you could point me to. > there's a lot of stories I could tell about having to interact in near-proximity to SOCOM that may shed light on why strange things seem to happen with them so often Not that I'd blame you for continuing to demur, but I'd be interested to hear any such stories you find yourself inclined to tell. As you accurately note, there's a learning opportunity here; however undesirable warfare may be, as you also note and as anyone who reads the headlines should know, it is not going anywhere any time soon. That being so, I'd like to know more accurately if I can how my country goes about it, the better to understand what's happening today and try to predict what might happen tomorrow.
  - kodah 5y ago
    My contact information is on my profile if you have IRC
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > where people are understanding and discerning between fact and fiction if we're ever to do things better. Which bits of the linked news article were fiction?
  - kodah 5y ago
    I wasn't referring to your article, more stressing why it's important to be specific about details. In this instance, folks are asking why it's important who controlled the drone resource, at times arguing that it doesn't matter. My argument was that if you want a policy change, knowing who to make it with is important. If folks just walk around with overly broad criticisms such as "war bad" then folks won't listen.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Essentially parent commenter is making a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Whatever they said is irrelevant. We were drone-striking weddings. For a decade. In a country with no functioning police/military, carrying an AK was considered enough to make you a combatant. Imagine if Canada invaded the US and decided that a couple of guys with hunting rifles in a pickup truck riding back from a hunting area were "enemy combatants."
- kodah 5y ago
  Ehhh, the policy divide between the DOD, SOCOM, and the State Department is not bridged by "no true Scotsman". If you're going to criticize something, knowing who and what you're criticizing is a good first step. The State Department using drones to bomb weddings and the policy that allows it is not congruent to the policy that allows a Marine in the ground to declare "troops in contact" and perform a 9-line. They're informed by very different things. The key differentiator in my mind is one policy that works and one policy that clearly doesn't because I keep reading about it in the news. If you want a policy changed so bad, why is pointing out who the policy rests with - and an example of a similar policy that works - so problematic to you?
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    I take your point, but I don’t think innocent foreigners care about the distinction between US departments when their family is killed as collateral.
    - kodah 5y ago
      If I was speaking to an Afghani whose family had been devestated by a loved one dying due to combat I absolutely wouldn't be quick to correct the semantics of their language or argument. I'd speak to them with same reverance and scope that I'd speak to a Gold Star family. KennyBlanken, who I replied to, mixed the facts of several incidents into one and presented them as a singular coherent idea. I think I'm allowed to dissect an argument on a public forum, if I so see fit, at that point.
    - 5y ago