5 ms·

Of course the US Military wants to know what you're reading: “I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we fa

by aa-jv 4y ago

Of course the US Military wants to know what you're reading: “I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face.” - U.S. General Stanley A. McCrystal in his inaugural speech as ISAF Commander in June 2009. The publics' democratic attitude about America's war machines is a threat to Americas national security, especially if that public starts to question the nature of the crimes being committed in their name, and the costs .. The Pentagon probably wants to get out in front of any populist rise against their war crimes. Makes sense, given the magnitude of the crimes but also the magnitude of ignorance. This blowback may be the one thing that topples the security-states vast, significant fortress ..

TakeBlaster16 4y ago
If you're worried your citizens might not appreciate you committing war crimes, there's an obvious solution to that.
- HeckFeck 4y ago
  Indeed. Normalising the targeting of civilians is not a path we want to tread. The rule has already been applied against the aggressing nation.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  Judging by world history, the usual solution is crush the citizens.
  - 9tailedkitsune 4y ago
    Or point fingers and/or create a new enemy
- danielvf 4y ago
  McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. An example from someone I know: Multiple helicopters are searching for a piece of enemy equipment hidden in the mountains. They find it, miles from the nearest anything in a rocky open mountain. The helicopters then spend six hours in pair shifts circling it, while the authorization to shoot at it works it's way up to Washington DC and back down again, with multiple calls coming in to "confirm there are no civilians in the area". All to destroy something worth like $200. Airstrikes and artillery use were cut way back, and subject to crazy delays and process. This reduced how far out units could push, since support was far delayed. Army staff even proposed a medal for "Courageous Restraint", for going above and beyond not shooting even when threatened and allow by the rules of engagement. It was deeply unpopular with the boots on the ground. And civilian deaths actually went up. From an academic paper: "The restrictions on the application of firepower protected the Taliban as well. This was likely a contributing factor in the dramatic overall increase in civilian deaths during the year that courageous restraint was implemented given that the large majority of civilian deaths recorded were attributed to actions initiated by the Taliban."
  - colpabar 4y ago
    100% of these problems could have been avoided if we just didn't invade afghanistan.
    - shuntress 4y ago
      Ok but it's kind of complicated.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      That's a political question, not a warfighting question and it doesn't help the soldiers on the ground fighting the war. The fact is that they are there, now what can they do about it?
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    >McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. Please cite a source. Everything I have read from him indicates he was more concerned with the perception that civilians were being intentionally targetted, and it is also specious to argue that he attempted to reduce civilian casualties during a period when Obama intentionally changed the definition of "male enemy combatants" to ensure that any males in the target area - any at all - would be counted as combatants, not civilians - regardless of whether they were actually aggressive. This was a highly duplicitous act that has done more harm for American interests than good.
case0x00 4y ago
The publics' attitude toward America's military, more like. It is easy to get people to spy on their own country if they already have a hatred for it, and that _is_ a national security risk. That is not to say you must be blindly patriotic, but if you hate your country, hate your military, and only want to burn everything to the ground rather than reform, that is a massive insider threat that is exploitable by our adversaries. If you don't think the excessively high number of america-hating americans is concerning, then I don't know what to say.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  Concern is relative. Namely concern for nobody in a building is working is concerning. Except when there is a workplace shooter in the building or the building is on fire. It is the root cause which is in dire need of being addressed. Frankly if everyone hates the government you need reformers not spooks.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  >If you don't think the excessively high number of america-hating americans is concerning, then I don't know what to say. The higher number of American citizens who have absolutely no idea the magnitude of the crimes against humanity and war crimes being committed in their name is a far, far greater concern. As is the number of American citizens who are willing to justify those crimes as long as they remain the recipients of the related war treasure. These figures are of a much greater threat to American military-industrial 'security' than any other statistic, since its not just American's who will pay the ultimate price.

by aa-jv 4y ago

TakeBlaster16 4y ago

If you're worried your citizens might not appreciate you committing war crimes, there's an obvious solution to that.

HeckFeck 4y ago
Indeed. Normalising the targeting of civilians is not a path we want to tread. The rule has already been applied against the aggressing nation.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
ARandomerDude 4y ago
Judging by world history, the usual solution is crush the citizens.
- 9tailedkitsune 4y ago
  Or point fingers and/or create a new enemy
danielvf 4y ago
McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. An example from someone I know: Multiple helicopters are searching for a piece of enemy equipment hidden in the mountains. They find it, miles from the nearest anything in a rocky open mountain. The helicopters then spend six hours in pair shifts circling it, while the authorization to shoot at it works it's way up to Washington DC and back down again, with multiple calls coming in to "confirm there are no civilians in the area". All to destroy something worth like $200. Airstrikes and artillery use were cut way back, and subject to crazy delays and process. This reduced how far out units could push, since support was far delayed. Army staff even proposed a medal for "Courageous Restraint", for going above and beyond not shooting even when threatened and allow by the rules of engagement. It was deeply unpopular with the boots on the ground. And civilian deaths actually went up. From an academic paper: "The restrictions on the application of firepower protected the Taliban as well. This was likely a contributing factor in the dramatic overall increase in civilian deaths during the year that courageous restraint was implemented given that the large majority of civilian deaths recorded were attributed to actions initiated by the Taliban."
- colpabar 4y ago
  100% of these problems could have been avoided if we just didn't invade afghanistan.
  - shuntress 4y ago
    Ok but it's kind of complicated.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    That's a political question, not a warfighting question and it doesn't help the soldiers on the ground fighting the war. The fact is that they are there, now what can they do about it?
- aa-jv 4y ago
  >McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. Please cite a source. Everything I have read from him indicates he was more concerned with the perception that civilians were being intentionally targetted, and it is also specious to argue that he attempted to reduce civilian casualties during a period when Obama intentionally changed the definition of "male enemy combatants" to ensure that any males in the target area - any at all - would be counted as combatants, not civilians - regardless of whether they were actually aggressive. This was a highly duplicitous act that has done more harm for American interests than good.

case0x00 4y ago

The publics' attitude toward America's military, more like. It is easy to get people to spy on their own country if they already have a hatred for it, and that _is_ a national security risk. That is not to say you must be blindly patriotic, but if you hate your country, hate your military, and only want to burn everything to the ground rather than reform, that is a massive insider threat that is exploitable by our adversaries. If you don't think the excessively high number of america-hating americans is concerning, then I don't know what to say.

Nasrudith 4y ago
Concern is relative. Namely concern for nobody in a building is working is concerning. Except when there is a workplace shooter in the building or the building is on fire. It is the root cause which is in dire need of being addressed. Frankly if everyone hates the government you need reformers not spooks.
aa-jv 4y ago
>If you don't think the excessively high number of america-hating americans is concerning, then I don't know what to say. The higher number of American citizens who have absolutely no idea the magnitude of the crimes against humanity and war crimes being committed in their name is a far, far greater concern. As is the number of American citizens who are willing to justify those crimes as long as they remain the recipients of the related war treasure. These figures are of a much greater threat to American military-industrial 'security' than any other statistic, since its not just American's who will pay the ultimate price.