• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The US

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The drone attacks might disrupt some terror networks temporarily but terror cells will multiply all the more in the long run.

Despite the U.S.-led War on Terror, there has been a rapid proliferation of Salafi-jihadist styled groups, according to a new RAND report by Seth G. Jones. Since 2010, there has been a 58% increase in the number of jihadist groups, a doubling of fighters loyal to jihadist causes, and a tripling of attacks carried out by al Qaeda and its affiliate networks.

This chart shows the countries that are currently the highest concern for the U.S. A country’s risk is determined by the capability of the central government to enforce rule of law measured against the presence of terrorist organizations and their interest in attacking the United States.

http://www.businessinsider.sg/countries-where-terrorists-pose-threat-to-us-2014-6/#.U4-SRY2_nlY

screen%20shot%202014-06-04%20at%201.27.50%20pm.png
 

Reformedfindlay

cynical class clown
DP Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
3,409
Location
CONNECTICUT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

two options.

#1 **** it and bomb the hell out of places where terrorists operate on a massive scale indiscriminately, maybe even throw in some nukes.

#2 bring all soldiers back, increase security, and then what happens elsewhere isn't your problem

I go with #2, it's cheaper, probably just as effective, and it sounds much more sane.

Who cares where they come from, time to stop freaking going terror-crazy and spend trillions.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
132,937
Reaction score
42,770
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

Iran? That should include Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and some of Africa.



That list has sure gotten large over the past six years.

I thought Al Qaeda was on the run and was being decimated ?

It was different 6 years prior how?


two options.

#1 **** it and bomb the hell out of places where terrorists operate on a massive scale indiscriminately, maybe even throw in some nukes.

#2 bring all soldiers back, increase security, and then what happens elsewhere isn't your problem

I go with #2, it's cheaper, probably just as effective, and it sounds much more sane.

Who cares where they come from, time to stop freaking going terror-crazy and spend trillions.

#3 (also known as reality): Engineer engagements to maximize benefits to the west, human rights and democracy. Sometimes diplomacy, economics, cultural events (like sports), sanctions, military support and, yes, even war.

You present a ridiculous (and unethical) false dichotomy in order to justify your extremist position. Having clearly recognized (and explained) the fallacy upon which your position stands, it can be safely dismissed. If there was any real support for such extremism, you would have presented it instead of nonsense.

Two choices...

1. Nuke everyone.
2. Do what I want.


What is that, Kim Jong Un?
 
Last edited:

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

It was different 6 years prior how?

At the end of 2008, Al Qaeda was cornered in Yemen, Northern Pakistan and on the Horn of Africa.

During the past six years Al Qaeda has been "on the run," running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding it's base of operations.

6,000 Al Qaeda fighters were killed during the Iraqi insurrection and in 2008, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, Guess what ? There back.

Today Al Qaeda is openly operating in Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Morocco, etc where they weren't six years ago.

Then you have all of the other radical jihadist groups that have grown and have become more dangerous that can be found all over the Middle East and Africa where they weren't six years ago.

In 2008 the entire Middle East and North Africa wasn't a basket case like it is today.

Back in 2008 we weren't negotiating with the enemy to get back an American soldier who deserted his unit in a combat zone and had Presidential spoke hole lying to the American people that deserting the U.S. Army during war time is as the same as serving "honorably and distinction." :lamo
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,552
Reaction score
5,896
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

The drone attacks might disrupt some terror networks temporarily but terror cells will multiply all the more in the long run.



CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The US | Business Insider

screen%20shot%202014-06-04%20at%201.27.50%20pm.png

drone strikes dont disrupt them at all,infact it aids their recruitment due to their indescriminate nature.

terrorism is a non uniformed enemy that blends with the populations,and uses civilians as shields,while using civilian deaths to recruit more.the way to win the war on terror is to turn the people against terrorist organizations,not to bomb them.terrorist groups are not conventional uniformed enemies,and conventional methods wont work,because if that were the case,we would have erradicated it a decade ago.


fyi im not surprized phillipines is on the list,they have the abu-sayef,which is meaner and much older than al-quaeda,they had enough problems there the the phillipine govt used to have strict curfews and some very authoritarian police forces in order to deal with terrorist organizations within their country.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,552
Reaction score
5,896
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

That list has sure gotten large over the past six years.

I thought Al Qaeda was on the run and was being decimated ?

that whole list isnt alquaeda,the world has dealth with terrorism for a long time now,israel has dealt with it since its existence,phillipines had the abu-sayef which makes alquaeda look weak,there are also numerous groups worldwide,some been around for decades.


but to counter your numbers rising,its because obama has selectively enforced the coin strategy,by making troops follow it,but bypassing it by using drones.coin being counter insurgency.terrorists use civilians as shields,and drones tend to take out civilians as well as enemies,terrorist groups use that as recruiting tools.terrorism is insurgency fighting,which is unconventional warfare,so convential war tactics dont work.


the us had success using coin for the short time the bush admin used it,around the end of his presidency,to the beginning of obamas until drone warfare became commonly used to bypass the coin strategy.
 

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

that whole list isnt alquaeda,the world has dealth with terrorism for a long time now,israel has dealt with it since its existence,phillipines had the abu-sayef which makes alquaeda look weak,there are also numerous groups worldwide,some been around for decades.


but to counter your numbers rising,its because obama has selectively enforced the coin strategy,by making troops follow it,but bypassing it by using drones.coin being counter insurgency.terrorists use civilians as shields,and drones tend to take out civilians as well as enemies,terrorist groups use that as recruiting tools.terrorism is insurgency fighting,which is unconventional warfare,so convential war tactics dont work.


the us had success using coin for the short time the bush admin used it,around the end of his presidency,to the beginning of obamas until drone warfare became commonly used to bypass the coin strategy.

Abu Sayyaf is pretty well know in this region for many years. They do a lot of kidnapping of foreigners for ransom. They are located in the island of Mindanao and provide training for terrorists in this region. Several Singaporeans went there for training to conduct terror activities on American interests here. They were under surveliance here and then arrested, put on detention, and go through a rehabilitation program.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U


That is an.... interesting list.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

drone strikes dont disrupt them at all,infact it aids their recruitment due to their indescriminate nature.

That is an interesting claim. Given that it is false in its' presumption (that drone strikes are indiscriminate) and that all the available literature debunks the notion of "kill one, create more", how do you justify arguing it?

terrorism is a non uniformed enemy that blends with the populations,and uses civilians as shields,while using civilian deaths to recruit more.the way to win the war on terror is to turn the people against terrorist organizations,not to bomb them.

Not to bomb the people? Probably not. You shouldn't generally target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians, certainly. Fortunately, we do not do that.

However, hard power still takes the lead.

fyi im not surprized phillipines is on the list,they have the abu-sayef,which is meaner and much older than al-quaeda,they had enough problems there the the phillipine govt used to have strict curfews and some very authoritarian police forces in order to deal with terrorist organizations within their country.

ASG is dilapidated. I'm surprised they are on the list where they are, especially given the successful MILF talks.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
54,945
Reaction score
37,831
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

That is an interesting claim. Given that it is false in its' presumption (that drone strikes are indiscriminate) and that all the available literature debunks the notion of "kill one, create more", how do you justify arguing it?



Not to bomb the people? Probably not. You shouldn't generally target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians, certainly. Fortunately, we do not do that.

However, hard power still takes the lead.



ASG is dilapidated. I'm surprised they are on the list where they are, especially given the successful MILF talks.

I'd have to agree on both counts, drones are only as indiscriminate as their commander and the information available about the current situation. Seems like in the known track record the Air Force drone commanders have demonstrated themselves to be pretty dam restrained and not indiscriminate.

Further, I think that Islamic fundamentalism, the Whabi sect, which is the ideological basis of the Islamic extremist terrorism has targeted the west, and the US in particular, as the sources of what they see as cultural contamination, culture counter to the Islamic fundamentalism that they believe is the righteous path of God. The West, particularly the US, have pretty much make careers exporting their culture, at times dominating the local culture.

This Islamic fundamentalism will, as many other fundamental groups, burn itself out, much like a virus, as more and more people adopt and embrace, or at least tolerate without objection, other cultures and their influences, specifically the West and the US.

At this point, I think that there are too many non-Muslims in the world for Muslim fundamentals to kill enough to have their fundamental ways to become dominate, the same way that there are too many fundamentals for the Western secular culture to kill off and make their culture dominant. Basically, I figure that both groups are just going to have to figure out how to live with the existence of the other, much like the Islamic centers of learning of the old world where non-Muslim religions and non-Muslim cultures were living side by side in peace for centuries. Really, both sides should strive for something that egalitarian.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,552
Reaction score
5,896
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

That is an interesting claim. Given that it is false in its' presumption (that drone strikes are indiscriminate) and that all the available literature debunks the notion of "kill one, create more", how do you justify arguing it?



Not to bomb the people? Probably not. You shouldn't generally target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians, certainly. Fortunately, we do not do that.

However, hard power still takes the lead.



ASG is dilapidated. I'm surprised they are on the list where they are, especially given the successful MILF talks.

well for one drone strike are fairly indiscriminate,ofcouse ground strikes by soldiers may be somewhat indiscriminate as well,ground soldiers have an option of trying to determine friend from foe,but still may kill friendlies if deemed an immediate threat,while drones strike targeted areas,the drone pilots sit in a desk far away and drone cameras dont have xray vision,so unless the intel leading to the attack was extremely precise in eliminating non combatants,it will always be highly indescriminate in nature.


well no bombing the people is stupid,but the enemy hides among people,its not like prior wars where the enemy wheres uniforms or evacuates towns before battles.instead insurgent fighting always uses people as a shield,making collateral damage strike more counter productive than good.gorilla fighters hit and run,but insurgents use innocent people as shields,hence why hard power has made zero progress so far.the most effective way is to do what bush said but never practiced until the end which was win the hearts and minds of the people.enemies who hide behind civilians are also known by civilians,and those civilians generally side with whoever they feel will protect them the best.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

well for one drone strike are fairly indiscriminate,ofcouse ground strikes by soldiers may be somewhat indiscriminate as well,ground soldiers have an option of trying to determine friend from foe

:lol: dude, I've been a part of both ground and air targeting. Trust me, drone strikes are anything but indiscriminate. In fact, they feature lower civilian casualties per dead bad guy than ground operations.

Even Pakistan, which constantly bitches about Drones (even though it authorizes and allows them) admits that only a very small number of those killed are noncombatants.

;) and you might be surprised at what kinds of vision they have.


The idea of the indiscriminate drone strike is a myth. There are precious few of those things relative to the mission need, we don't have the ability to use them indiscriminately, even if we wanted to.

well no bombing the people is stupid,but the enemy hides among people,its not like prior wars where the enemy wheres uniforms or evacuates towns before battles.instead insurgent fighting always uses people as a shield,making collateral damage strike more counter productive than good.gorilla fighters hit and run,but insurgents use innocent people as shields,hence why hard power has made zero progress so far.

That is incorrect, but an understandable mistake for a westerner to make. I would recommend Maslow, Hobbes, and West.

the most effective way is to do what bush said but never practiced until the end which was win the hearts and minds of the people.

:lol: yeah. The same people who know for a fact that if they back you the enemy will kidnap and murder their children. Good luck getting them to action their emotions unless you are able to provide the hard power necessary to secure their area and protect them from depredation.
 
Last edited:

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,552
Reaction score
5,896
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

:lol: dude, I've been a part of both ground and air targeting. Trust me, drone strikes are anything but indiscriminate. In fact, they feature lower civilian casualties per dead bad guy than ground operations.

;) and you might be surprised at what kinds of vision they have.



That is incorrect, but an understandable mistake for a westerner to make. I would recommend Maslow, Hobbes, and West.



:lol: yeah. The same people who know for a fact that if they back you the enemy will kidnap and murder their children. Good luck getting them to action their emotions unless you are able to provide the hard power necessary to secure their area and protect them from depredation.

mighty big talk,but you claim ground and air targeting,while ive been in that country,seen the people,seen the taliban,and watched with my own eyes what works and what doesnt.


just for a history lesson,your method failed horribly in iraq until it was replaced by gen petraus coin strategy in the 07 surge,in which we actually made progress in iraq.so your strategy failed for years,yet the strategy that succeeded must have failed?


it sounds like your some gunny whos too stubborn to admit war has changed as well as the enemy,people like you are the reason we lost vietnam,because the leaders were so stubborn to admit it was different than previous wars,and new tactcs needed to be used.come iraq and afghanistan,people again scream to use tactics that never succeeded because they were used against a different type enemy.


just name this what have we done to alquaeda since the drone strikes?????answer they are more powerfull now than ever,again refuting your point.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

mighty big talk,but you claim ground and air targeting,while ive been in that country,seen the people,seen the taliban,and watched with my own eyes what works and what doesnt.

you've been in Pakistan? Or Afghanistan. Because if you've been to Afghanistan, then you ought to know better - think night letters.

just for a history lesson,your method failed horribly in iraq until it was replaced by gen petraus coin strategy in the 07 surge,in which we actually made progress in iraq.so your strategy failed for years,yet the strategy that succeeded must have failed?

You seem to be confused. Hard power formed the center of General Petraeus strategy, and its employment is a critical requirement for both COIN and CT. What was the hallmark of the Surge? Pushing out into the populace to provide them with protection via hard power. Only once you can protect the populace do their "hearts and minds" in the form of you building a clinic mean diddly squat. You are confusing "hard power" with "staying on FOBS with relatively small numbers of troops, and try to only conduct CT missions". When you build a joint security station and put a platoon of soldiers or Marines in a village or neighborhood and agree to kill anyone who tries to come in and make trouble, you are A) on the road to winning the COIN fight and B) employing hard power to do so.

it sounds like your some gunny whos too stubborn to admit war has changed as well as the enemy,people like you are the reason we lost vietnam,because the leaders were so stubborn to admit it was different than previous wars,and new tactcs needed to be used.come iraq and afghanistan,people again scream to use tactics that never succeeded because they were used against a different type enemy.

Actually I got out as a SSgt who helped teach both targeting and COIN, and was on the ground working the Surge as it was being implemented. I did the intel breakdown that helped lead to its successful implementation in half of Fallujah - people on this forum knew me while I was doing it, I was posting from Iraq on another debate forum we were members of together.

just name this what have we done to alquaeda since the drone strikes?????answer they are more powerfull now than ever,again refuting your point.

1. you are right that AQAA is expanding
2. when do you think was the last time we had a regular program of drone strikes?
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,552
Reaction score
5,896
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

you've been in Pakistan? Or Afghanistan. Because if you've been to Afghanistan, then you ought to know better - think night letters.



You seem to be confused. Hard power formed the center of General Petraeus strategy, and its employment is a critical requirement for both COIN and CT. What was the hallmark of the Surge? Pushing out into the populace to provide them with protection via hard power. Only once you can protect the populace do their "hearts and minds" in the form of you building a clinic mean diddly squat. You are confusing "hard power" with "staying on FOBS with relatively small numbers of troops, and try to only conduct CT missions". When you build a joint security station and put a platoon of soldiers or Marines in a village or neighborhood and agree to kill anyone who tries to come in and make trouble, you are A) on the road to winning the COIN fight and B) employing hard power to do so.



Actually I got out as a SSgt who helped teach both targeting and COIN, and was on the ground working the Surge as it was being implemented. I did the intel breakdown that helped lead to its successful implementation in half of Fallujah - people on this forum knew me while I was doing it, I was posting from Iraq on another debate forum we were members of together.



1. you are right that AQAA is expanding
2. when do you think was the last time we had a regular program of drone strikes?

ive been to afghanistan.

yes petraeus used hard power,but his focus was on non collateral damage,and minimizing civilian casualties.i am not confusing anything,your comparing using drones to cause collateral damage with soldiers who work in teams to inflict damage toindividual targets while minimizing civilian casualties.if you were talking about drones vs things like bombings and mortar stikes,your right,but the military does neither now,as it has been 100% innefective against insurgent warfare.


if you were withing the coin strategy,you should have fully understood its not a convential war and conventional tactics are useless.of course no soldier should just die to appease the populace,the goal was minimal civilian casualties while not only eliminating enemy forces but convincing civilians to side with the us turning in enemy comatants,and crippling their recruitment.how our current wars are fought,coin is a must,however our next war may be much different,i fear generals may try to use coin where it doesnt apply much as generals tried to fight vietnam iraq and afghanistan like it was ww2.


i cant tell you if we even have a regular program of drone strikes,i know we quite often cross sovereign boarders to perform thm,which is an open declaration of war,the us seems to cling to the fact that those countries are too poor and disorganized to counter such acts.however when i was in afghanistan,drone srikes were common,they used to launch them for everything,we used apaches often,but drones tended to be more often.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

ive been to afghanistan.

yes petraeus used hard power,but his focus was on non collateral damage,and minimizing civilian casualties.i am not confusing anything,your comparing using drones to cause collateral damage with soldiers who work in teams to inflict damage toindividual targets while minimizing civilian casualties

No. I am comparing drones who focus on individual targets while minimizing civilian casualties with ground-based operations that focus on either individual or group targets while seeking to minimize civilian casualties. And your description of the Rumsfeld Doctrine as somehow equating to "hard power" is indeed confused.

if you were talking about drones vs things like bombings and mortar stikes,your right,but the military does neither now,as it has been 100% innefective against insurgent warfare.

That is also incorrect. Both regular aerial delivery and ground-based indirect fire have proven that they have a role to play in counter-insurgent warfare, although it is more limited than traditional, peer-competitor, linear fights. Insurgents do not only fight while surrounded by civilians.

if you were withing the coin strategy,you should have fully understood its not a convential war and conventional tactics are useless.

That's interesting. So if you are walking a patrol and find yourself in a near ambush, you shouldn't turn and assault the enemy position because conventional tactics are useless? No longer should you ensure to initiate ambushes of enemy patrol formations of your own with the highest casualty producing weapon because conventional tactics are useless? No longer do you need a reserve force, no longer do we require presence patrolling, no longer do we require the utilization of ISR, no longer do we maintain dispersion on patrol, no longer should the rear facing man or gun truck cover the backwards-facing long axis, because hey, conventional tactics are useless?

I think you are confusing tactics with strategy. COIN is a strategy.

of course no soldier should just die to appease the populace,the goal was minimal civilian casualties while not only eliminating enemy forces but convincing civilians to side with the us turning in enemy comatants,and crippling their recruitment

Yup. So here's a scenario for you. We went out and recruited a bunch of Iraqi police officers. Hooray, they were convinced to help us fight the bad guys. Then the bad guys came and grabbed them in the night, spent a few days taking them apart piece by piece, and then scattered those pieces across the city as a warning to others. the next time we came recruiting, how many do you think rushed to sign up? If you guessed zero, you would be correct.

UNTIL we pushed out into the city on a 24 hour basis with hard power, securing the populace with hard power, and demonstrated that we could protect them from depredations by utilizing our superior hard power. Then we started seeing more recruits come a-joining. Because all of that 'turn their hearts and minds" stuff is useless unless you can first win the hard power fight and protect them from reprisal by the enemy.

how our current wars are fought,coin is a must,however our next war may be much different,i fear generals may try to use coin where it doesnt apply much as generals tried to fight vietnam iraq and afghanistan like it was ww2.

That would not surprise me at all. As we move into the ODTAC environment, my one great hope is that we have raised a generation of thinker/leaders with a lot of experience in experimentation.

I cant tell you if we even have a regular program of drone strikes,i know we quite often cross sovereign boarders to perform thm,which is an open declaration of war

No it is not. Both the Pakistani and Yemeni governments approve of US drone flights in their airspace, much as we approve of the Russian military flights over US airspace as part of the Open Skies program.

the us seems to cling to the fact that those countries are too poor and disorganized to counter such acts.however when i was in afghanistan,drone srikes were common,they used to launch them for everything,we used apaches often,but drones tended to be more often.

When were you in afghanistan?
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,552
Reaction score
5,896
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

No. I am comparing drones who focus on individual targets while minimizing civilian casualties with ground-based operations that focus on either individual or group targets while seeking to minimize civilian casualties. And your description of the Rumsfeld Doctrine as somehow equating to "hard power" is indeed confused.



That is also incorrect. Both regular aerial delivery and ground-based indirect fire have proven that they have a role to play in counter-insurgent warfare, although it is more limited than traditional, peer-competitor, linear fights. Insurgents do not only fight while surrounded by civilians.



That's interesting. So if you are walking a patrol and find yourself in a near ambush, you shouldn't turn and assault the enemy position because conventional tactics are useless? No longer should you ensure to initiate ambushes of enemy patrol formations of your own with the highest casualty producing weapon because conventional tactics are useless? No longer do you need a reserve force, no longer do we require presence patrolling, no longer do we require the utilization of ISR, no longer do we maintain dispersion on patrol, no longer should the rear facing man or gun truck cover the backwards-facing long axis, because hey, conventional tactics are useless?

I think you are confusing tactics with strategy. COIN is a strategy.



Yup. So here's a scenario for you. We went out and recruited a bunch of Iraqi police officers. Hooray, they were convinced to help us fight the bad guys. Then the bad guys came and grabbed them in the night, spent a few days taking them apart piece by piece, and then scattered those pieces across the city as a warning to others. the next time we came recruiting, how many do you think rushed to sign up? If you guessed zero, you would be correct.

UNTIL we pushed out into the city on a 24 hour basis with hard power, securing the populace with hard power, and demonstrated that we could protect them from depredations by utilizing our superior hard power. Then we started seeing more recruits come a-joining. Because all of that 'turn their hearts and minds" stuff is useless unless you can first win the hard power fight and protect them from reprisal by the enemy.



That would not surprise me at all. As we move into the ODTAC environment, my one great hope is that we have raised a generation of thinker/leaders with a lot of experience in experimentation.



No it is not. Both the Pakistani and Yemeni governments approve of US drone flights in their airspace, much as we approve of the Russian military flights over US airspace as part of the Open Skies program.



When were you in afghanistan?

for one,i dont know how drones can compare to ground troops,again drones do not possess x-ray vision in their cameras,if a drone attacks a building a top taliban guy is hiding in,and 12 children live in the same building,a drone pilot has no difference,as they run on intel,not vision of inside like ground troops would.


false,ariel firepower has still been proven usefull,but ground indirect fire has been proven useless.indirect fire leads to unneeded casualties,unneeded casualties violates coin,so you must be saying the only way for oin to succeed is to violate it,despite it being proven succesful?


nice spin,but coin doesnt prohibit attacking an immediate threat,coin prohibits using tactics that kill without reason or need,like using mortars to kill a taliban leader in a school vs sending in soldiers who can isolate the target vs destroying everything to get him.

fyi we use drones in more than pakistan and yemen.

i was in afghanistan in jun 2010-2011
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
54,945
Reaction score
37,831
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

for one,i dont know how drones can compare to ground troops,again drones do not possess x-ray vision in their cameras,if a drone attacks a building a top taliban guy is hiding in,and 12 children live in the same building,a drone pilot has no difference,as they run on intel,not vision of inside like ground troops would.


false,ariel firepower has still been proven usefull,but ground indirect fire has been proven useless.indirect fire leads to unneeded casualties,unneeded casualties violates coin,so you must be saying the only way for oin to succeed is to violate it,despite it being proven succesful?


nice spin,but coin doesnt prohibit attacking an immediate threat,coin prohibits using tactics that kill without reason or need,like using mortars to kill a taliban leader in a school vs sending in soldiers who can isolate the target vs destroying everything to get him.

fyi we use drones in more than pakistan and yemen.

i was in afghanistan in jun 2010-2011

I, for one, want to thank you for your service.

As far as children and other non-combatants becoming victims of a drone strike, seems to me that part of the responsibility also lies on the top taliban guys when they surround themselves with non-combatants. Surely they know very well that they are targets, yet expose non-combatants, their loved ones, to their target status. Wouldn't it be more responsible to be out by yourself, or at least with other combatants?
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

for one,i dont know how drones can compare to ground troops,again drones do not possess x-ray vision in their cameras,

You don't think so? Ever looked through IR before?

The prep work on the intel side in support of a drone strike against one of these guys is insanely painful, drawn out, and painstaking.

if a drone attacks a building a top taliban guy is hiding in,and 12 children live in the same building,a drone pilot has no difference,as they run on intel,not vision of inside like ground troops would.

Sure, except we've been watching that building for three weeks, so we know exactly who lives there, which is why we are going to hit him when he gets in his car, which he does every morning at 0540 to drive to the local mosque for morning prayers.

false,ariel firepower has still been proven usefull,but ground indirect fire has been proven useless

That is incorrect, aerial firepower has proven useful for the same reason that indirect fire has - because sometimes it is the best method with which to engage the target, particularly when and if ground forces are unavailable.

.indirect fire leads to unneeded casualties,unneeded casualties violates coin,so you must be saying the only way for oin to succeed is to violate it,despite it being proven succesful?

COIN sucks, but it works. However, it is not a law of COIN that enemy fighters are always surrounded by civilians, particularly in Afghanistan, where open engagements outside of populated areas are not at all uncommon. Utilizing a combined arms approach to fix and maneuver on an enemy in open combat in that scenario is an excellent, proper, and useful application of indirect fire.

ice spin,but coin doesnt prohibit attacking an immediate threat,coin prohibits using tactics that kill without reason or need,like using mortars to kill a taliban leader in a school vs sending in soldiers who can isolate the target vs destroying everything to get him.

That's nice. I like how we can always physically transport a squad (platoon, whichever) to the target before the target leaves, and without alerting the target. Do trucks and helicopters make no noise in your experience, or is it that soldiers can ruck at 15mph? Or how innocents don't get killed in urban warfare. Are all of our soldiers Special Forces with CT hostage-rescue training and experience now?

Drone strikes produce fewer direct civilian casualties per bad guy dead than ground operations, especially in Pakistan. :shrug: It's just part of the brutal mathematics of CT ops.

fyi we use drones in more than pakistan and yemen.

That's interesting. Where else are we using drones for kinetic finish?

i was in afghanistan in jun 2010-2011

And how often did you use drone strikes.


And in 2012, there have been far fewer drone strikes: just 27 as of July 11, compared with 45 during the same period in 2010.

Because they are being sharply reduced.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,136
Reaction score
37,581
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

I, for one, want to thank you for your service.

As far as children and other non-combatants becoming victims of a drone strike, seems to me that part of the responsibility also lies on the top taliban guys when they surround themselves with non-combatants. Surely they know very well that they are targets, yet expose non-combatants, their loved ones, to their target status. Wouldn't it be more responsible to be out by yourself, or at least with other combatants?


That is, in fact, precisely what the Laws of Armed Conflict say as well - he who decides to fight from a civilian position is legally at fault for the effects of combat on it.

However, what I think he is addressing is less the "fault" question and more the "effectiveness" question.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
54,945
Reaction score
37,831
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: CHART: These Are The Countries Where Terrorists Pose The Greatest Threat To The U

That is, in fact, precisely what the Laws of Armed Conflict say as well - he who decides to fight from a civilian position is legally at fault for the effects of combat on it.

However, what I think he is addressing is less the "fault" question and more the "effectiveness" question.

True. Effectiveness between drones and boots on the ground, I guess it'd really depend on what your goals are. I, for one, am fine terrorizing terrorists with drones, rather than boots on the ground. If you cut off the head of the snake, and keep doing so, the snake isn't going to be able to do much effectively.
 
Top Bottom