Now, it’s fair to say that none of this is America’s problem. And I probably agree with you. But there is a risk we wake up 30 years from now and huge swaths of the world have been taken over by fundamentalist ideologies that are very hostile to us. We should think a bit about what that world would look like and whether it’s desirable.
Americans take for granted that we live in a world shaped by American norms. 160 constitutions around the world are based directly or indirectly in our own. (Bangladesh’s constitution begins with “we the people” just like the United States’.) The Star Trek version of the future (“America in Space”) comes about because of our willingness to invest in the security and economic and social development of the world. And maybe we’ve done enough, and maybe it’s time to let others lead. I’m pretty sympathetic to the arguments that it’s time to turn our focus inward, and we’re doing more harm than good. But the analysis is much bigger than whether certain specific people are attacking US soil at this very moment.
So you have people like Osama Bin Laden, an elite Saudi funded by other elite Saudis, with a recruitment pitch that was heavily dependent on the intense hatred many arabs have for the brutal dictatorships of the middle east, and their American backers.
America is more or less the sole reason why dysfunctional dictatorships like Saudi Arabia survive. They provide the arms, the intelligence, the diplomatic cover, and sometimes the military assistance these states need to survive. The same states then fund the most intolerant forms of Islam, while radicalizing their own citizens and those of neighboring countries through intense repression and military adventurism.
All of them? What percentage of the dead were terrorists? Because "they" in this case is referring to around 1 million people now.
The US engages with the rest of the world in a way that is advantageous to the US. This is clear when you learn about the modern history of US foreign policy[1]. The US backed over 40 authoritarian coups through the 20th century. To write such a long comment about how the US cares about the places they bomb is at best naivety and at worst willful ignorance.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Yes Saudi Arabia which we continue to sell weapons to and blindly support. This administration is even more willing to bend to SA, as seen with Trump's visit and subsequent veto the bipartiston resolution to end US military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.
> while America has been fortunate to be spared from a major terrorist attack since 9/11
That is untrue. The Orlando shooting was absolutely driven by islamic fundamentalism, as was the 2015 Chattanooga and San Bernardino attacks and arguably the Boston Marathon Bombings.
Sure, if you are doing it, killing fewer bystanders is preferable on the surface. But if individual assassinations are less likely to cause an international outcry since fewer people died that likely leads to more assassinations.
Rather than develop those missiles, what could be achieved by investing those millions into developing economies and relationships abroad?
https://www.quotes.net/mquote/992742
"Paul Kersey: Nothing's too good for our friends!"
"Bin Laden been happening in Manhattan Crack was anthrax back then, back when Police was Al'Qaeda to black men"
Rest assured, there are people who wake up every single day plotting how they can kill Americans or Westerners, or training to do so.
This may be the West / USA's fault - but it's where we find ourselves, regardless.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_St...
The article specifically references that these devices used on members of aal-Qaida; the group responsible for 911.
It's neither proportional nor effective.
Same here. Prematurely joining conflicts now allows us to save scores of lives abroad (at least in theory).
As a counterargument, you can't know that. It seems like this argument could be restated as "I don't trust the US government to dispassionately determine who is a threat and even if they were a threat I am not in favor of killing people as a response." Which seems fair but the world is a complicated place and there are justifiable uses of drone strikes.
Herein lies the problem, different people and groups see different actions as justifiable or not. Drone striking the hell out of a country half way around the world has very debatable justifications. And what throws a lot of shade on the justification is when the country doing the bombing goes on to ally itself with with countries that are, from the point of view of the justification, no better or worse than the one being bombed.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-kn...
What are we gaining from doing this?
Hurras al-din has also given support to ISIS, who destabilized a good chunk of the middle east. It's a bad look since a lot of Americans died to effect regime change in Iraq. If Iraq ends up turning into a full-blown theocracy, it makes our efforts there seem even more wasteful.
According to the Russians, he was trying to gather supplies to make illegal chemical weapons but definitely take that with a grain of salt.
Supposedly this helps US goals in Syria, but TBH I'm not really sure what the US goals are. I suspect that both our current and previous president would have a hard time articulating goals that are consistent with their actions in Syria
This statement is funny because the US support of "moderates" has resulted in military support of the Al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda wing in Syria (they have tried to rebrand themselves, but only blind will not recognize in them a radical islamist organization).
2 - Probably maintaining/honing the skills. "If you don't use it you lose it" it's a very old and very actual saying.
I got hit very hard by this one at beginning of my programming career. Went home for vacation after my 1st year at Uni and when came back 3 months later I got very surprised to find I lost my speed typing ability. Had to start from beginning and was very frustrating. Never let my guard down after that.
Not going to let you off so easily here!
The world is grey, Jack. - Clear and Present Danger
Was WWII a more acceptable war because one side was clearly more morally reprehensible? Even then, it seems to often be a difference in degree, not in kind. Please do not take this as an excuse or lessening of severity for any group.
Overall a good thing.
Overall wars are terrible and so are "police actions" that we often do.
So my opinion is still that we need to figure out how to combat misinformation, propaganda, and radicalism rather than figuring out better/more efficient ways to kill each other. But that requires going after both social media companies, and stabilizing governments by providing spreading of wealth in poor countries, and relief to natural disasters.
I wouldn't be so sure. The ultimate issue here is the casual use of cold blooded extrajudicial assassination via drone. Anything which makes the decision to do that easier is a net negative. The whole reason we got to the point of regularly doing this over the last 20 years is because the technological means to do so have become commoditized and extremely "hands off". Colatteral damage is not what we should be worried about, but whether the act is even just in the first place. These are not battlefield commanders engaged in tactical decision making against our front line troops we're killing. They are strategic level beaureaucrats. The argument that this is just warfare doesn't apply. And if those people we were targeting had the means to do this to our own military officials driving down the street in Washington, we'd be hauling them into war crime tribunals.
I think they'll find that a drone missile can also be a boomerang.
EDIT: The objections to this scenario are taking it more literally than I was. I was thinking of a few dozen launched together from a yacht or freighter or enemy safe house in a nearby suburb. That's a lot easier than reproducing the US global operation.
There was a similar sequence near the beginning of Olympus has Fallen.
The closest is probably the Israeli Iron Dome, and that costs about $50M for a battery with 17km range. Great for a tiny country under constant attack, but hardly economical for good coverage of larger countries.
I think this is sound. Pax Americana is part of the foundation for massive human progress. It has led to a Golden Age the like of which has never been seen before.
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/07/30/drone-...
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34662/faa-documents-of...
I suppose this depends on one's definition of "this kind."
The R9X is deployed from a massive drone platform. Using it on our homeland requires air superiority around the target. That's not, in the near term, a significant risk.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-tea...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-e...
Technically almost impossible. The US have bases overseas, its enemies don't have anything within or close to the US borders.
Yes. Our military is pretty confident that it can handle any form of missile/flying object trying to reach US soil before its an issue, which is part of why we feel pretty much zero repercussions for being terrible.
But luckily for the public in his utter unprofessionalism Trump was pretty honest about it: https://www.newsweek.com/syria-trump-stealing-oil-us-confirm...
Who operates where and does what has always been more fluid than just 'well they're internationally recognized'.
After Trump declared that US troops will be withdrawn and they will not defend Kurds against Turkish forces, the government has easily reclaimed control over the large area with a very limited fighting.
why not take them out overseas first? they've declared war so are lawful combatants
