What high-tech evils will Iraq war spawn?
Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the photo accompanying the article on Gen. David Petraeus in the Sept. 8 Rocky Mountain News? It showed an Iraqi man having his retina scanned by a U.S. soldier, a reminder that armed conflicts are testing grounds for new technologies.
Our government (partnered with private defense contractors) is testing new methods of identification and new techniques of civilian pacification on the Iraqi people. What guarantee will we have that such battle-tested (and continually improved upon) technologies and policing methods won’t be used domestically when this conflict ends?
Terrorism, we are told, is a conflict that will be fought for generations. Which technologies and authoritarian methods will “follow us home” from the battlefield to be deployed — by government and private businesses — on the home front, all in the name of keeping us “safer”?
John Wilkens, Boulder
”Which technologies and authoritarian methods will “follow us home” from the battlefield to be deployed — by government and private businesses — on the home front, all in the name of keeping us “safer”?”
I can tell you one that might make you a valid target.
If a person sitting in Colorado Springs can fire weapons at somebody in Pakistan from a Predator RPV, then wherever that person goes becomes a valid extension of the battlefield. If the relatives of the family he accidentally killed decide to reply in kind by blowing themselves up in a Walmart where he shops, who can morally fault them?
In an attempt to keep the war “over there” and keep pilots out of harm “over here”, the war may very well come here to find him.
If attacks on foreign soil are piloted from Colorado-Springs, that makes Colorado-Springs a valid target for return fire. We send remotely guided drones, they may reply with intelligent weapons – suicide bombers.
the only hi-tech advancements muslilms use are weapons......
Posted by on September 24, 2007 03:35 AMFortunately, Bango, the insane Muslim does not need a reason to blow up a Wal-mart. See, they did not need a reason.
So, your argument falls flat on its face. And I can and will fault them. Every time. Do you even see the moral distinction? If we kill a non combatant, it is an accident, if they do, it is on purpose.
Posted by Dravur on September 24, 2007 06:35 AMDravur,
Is that why the Iraqi Premier is protesting the actions of Blackwater? Just "accident", eh?
And I seem to remember some other news articles about G.I. actions elsewhere that - for you I guess - were also just "accidents". Never mind the fact that military courts martial found otherwise.
And - for you, I guess - My Lai was just another "accident" too.
All in support of the War-Is-Wonderful-and-Shooting-People-Is-Fun Party, and "victory", eh?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 24, 2007 07:48 AMyep john your safe haven up there in the republic of boulder could really be under attach with high tech stuff. look at what they want to do at airports of all places.
quick run to whole foods and get some grain and go hide in a hole till 09 when you will feel safe once again under do nothing libs like your self.
Bangalore and Old Grouch:
There is a moral distinction to be made between those that unintentionally kill civilians and those who view civilians as targets.
Old Grouch, please be more specific when referring to the actions of our toops. That said, you're right. There have been a few incidents where servicemen acted inappropriately. The difference is if one of our guys intentionally kills a non-combatant, he is put on trial. If the enemy kills a civilian, he is celebrated for it. Anyone capable of rational thinking can see the difference.
Eli: "The difference is if one of our guys intentionally kills a non-combatant, he is put on trial. If the enemy kills a civilian, he is celebrated for it. Anyone capable of rational thinking can see the difference."
Your logic falls on deaf ears with Old Crotch. He comes from an extreme leftist position (claiming to be "liberal") and will damn any and all who do not share that world view.
He takes the criminal actions of the very few and extrapolates them to be inclusive of all in the military. He's very much like 40acres, aka Lt. Cmdr James Tenant in his irrationality -- just smoother in his presentation.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 09:09 AMEli, and 09:09 AM anonymous,
The writer I was answering stated: "If we kill a non-combatant, it is an accident, if they do, it is on purpose."
I suggested then - as I suggest now - that that generalization doesn't hold water. I gave some questions concerning the "accident" idea of several non-combatant killings.
I made the distinctions, by asking the questions.
Or are you trying to uphold the generalization as it was made?
Your imaginations are just about as hyperbolic as that of Jones. Do try responding to what is actually there. It might even lend a little bit of credibility to your blather.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 24, 2007 09:39 AMOld Grouch: I repeat: "He takes the criminal actions of the very few and extrapolates them to be inclusive of all in the military."
You make the exception to the rule as the new rule or general policy to reinforce your preset conclusion.
Nobody said that our military was totally clean of criminal actions. Yet you reach back 40 years for My Lai to help justify your contention that we are equal in guilt because we wantonly kill civilians.
The terrorists kill civilians to generate fear in the general populace -- civilians are originally targeted due to their vulnerabilities.
We kill civilians either as the result of unfortunate collateral damage; or, because we have rogue individuals who go off the deep end on their volition.
While dead is dead, we don't target civilians as policy in the same manner as the Islamic terrorists do.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 09:56 AM09:56 AM,
And I simply reply, ridiculous! I'll flatter you, by implying that you actually have a brain with which to be identified in the following:
"Be sure brain is in gear, before engaging typing fingers."
There is no "extrapolation" in asking questions concerning particulars that may, or may not, belong to the generalization.
Your imagination - as with others - merely works overtime, tring to avoid the necessity of even bothering to learn logic, much less understand its use.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 24, 2007 10:12 AMOld Grouch: You're the fool who makes extravagant unsubstantiated claims concerning anything that's not originating from the far loony left you call home. Then, when called to task you provide some pseudo intellectual babble attacking the other person.
You are a pathetic individual in many ways.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 10:18 AMTruly a Strawman Old G.
Yes, there are problems with Blackwater, etc and there are individuals who have committed crimes in war.
Welcome to Reality.
But here is the difference. WE prosecute these people. We don't celebrate them and give their families cash money. so, thanks for the effort, but making generalizations based on your faulty premise simply do not work.
Nice try however, but the point still stands.
Posted by Dravur on September 24, 2007 10:58 AMDravur: Nice try, clear and concise explanation. But, it doesn't fit within the twisted framework of what Old Crotch laughingly claims to be logic -- it didn't originate from the left of MoveOn.
"WE prosecute these people. We don't celebrate them and give their families cash money."
Old Crotch would prefer to persecute the entire segment of American society that doesn't walk in mental lockstep with him; and, celebrate the Islamic fanatical as a beneficial tool in his demeaning this country and it's institutions.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 11:06 AM
Dravur and whatever @ 11:06 AM
It was NOT MY premise to begin with.
YOU, DRAVUR, are the one who made the generalization concerning the matter of "accident", sir; as well as making a supposed "moral distinction" I merely questioned that generalization as to its all-inclusiveness.
Anyone who can read, AND comprehend what was written, can verify that.
And the "point" certainly does stand. Namely and to wit, that YOUR GENERALIZATION, DRAVUR, was over-stated.
As to you, anonymous, you are just another stupid fool, expecting people to take seriously what you are fantasizing as to what someone else is supposed to be thinking. You and your confreres - such as "AnAmerican" and others - are pitiful examples of the kind of brainless nonsense that abounds among those who represent the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-"conservative" positions. Obviously, you can't begin to comprehend what you read either.
All that would have been necessary, DRAVUR, would have been a brief acknowlegement that there ARE exceptions to YOUR all-inclusive generalization about "accident"; and, perhaps, that the acts I asked about belonged among those exceptions. And, again, just perhaps, a remark to the effect that the "moral distinction" wasn't all that perfect either.
This last of yours doesn't even rate a grade as a "try".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 24, 2007 11:50 AM"This last of yours doesn't even rate a grade as a "try"."
The god of the left has spoken; it's now settled.
Pull your big panties on, Old Crotch, and grow a brain that's not myopic.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 12:00 PMOld Crotch is the perfect name for that stinky scabbed wanker.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 12:54 PMActually, my generalizations were quite accurate and defensible.
The vast majority of the time... or, in general... the US army does not target civilians... Are there civvie casualties? yep, unfortunately. Do we do it based on a desire to terrorize and attack them indiscriminately? nope.
We have the smartest bombs possible. We do not resort to Dresden style bombing anymore. We try to harm the actual bad guys, not the civilian just trying to get a loaf of bread.
We also have people who do not live up to that standard, just as we have criminals in our midst who do not subscribe to the generalization that we, as Americans, do not punch puppies.
Again, the generalization stands. The VAST majority of the military does not target indiscriminately, and isn't that what a generalization does? Gives shrift to the vast majority?
Posted by Dravur on September 24, 2007 02:04 PMwould love to respond, but all my posts go into the "blog owner to approve" bucket
Posted by Bango Skank on September 24, 2007 03:39 PMBango Skank said; "would love to respond, but all my posts go into the "blog owner to approve" bucket"
Posted by Bango Skank on September 24, 2007 03:39 PM
See! I told you there was a vast right wing conspiracy!
H. Clinton
Posted by on September 24, 2007 05:12 PMDravur,
As modified, by your addition of, "in general" and/or "the vast majority", the generalization is reasonably acceptable.
As originally phrased, "If WE - without modification - I took issue at its all-inclusiveness, questioning about some potential exceptiions, one of which appeared in the morning's RMN.
As modified, recognizing the exceptions as existing, there is nothing to dispute in the statement.
Thank you for your clarification, which raises the statement above the level of mere bluster.
It is, indeed, unfortunate that exceptions occur. And, again speaking in terms of it being, for the most part, our policy when they do occur, I have to agree that we deal with the exceptions according to principles that should be an example to all others.
The greatest problem here is the very different set of cultural perceptions. The culture of the Middle East tends to reflect a closer tie to a direct form of "eye for an eye" - or feud approach - than we do in the West. And that culture is inclined to a more direct and immediate form of response than we are, as well.
Thus, our system of trial - even by court martial - in the event of a wrong action is not well understood, much less accepted, there. Which makes the continuation, and escalation, of violence a matter of concern; one which, unfortunately, is not easily overcome under the circumstances.
War, itself, however is not really the venue in which to attempt to teach cultural tolerance.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 24, 2007 06:13 PMOld Grouch is UNABLE to admit he is wrong.
Never has been able to and never will be able to. The tortured logic and prose just gets more incoherent the tighter you corner him.It is really rather entertaining.
z
try again
Dravur said ”Fortunately, Bango, the insane Muslim does not need a reason to blow up a Wal-mart. See, they did not need a reason.”
That would make sense if all Muslims were insane, or if only insane Muslims became suicide bombers, or if all future combatants were going to be insane Muslims.
Trouble is that this is not what the research reveals. The bombers are usually very rational, and are responding to what they perceive as an unfair and humiliating war against people that cannot defend themselves.
RPVs may have exactly the opposite effect of what was intended, and bring the conflict home, that is my point.
Eli said ”There is a moral distinction to be made between those that unintentionally kill civilians and those who view civilians as targets”
On the surface, I agree, but once you lift the sheet the argument loses its integrity.
To whom would you say this is morally distinct? To the Pakistani family whose members have been shredded by a missile fired from a Predator drone – simply because a nameless, faceless person in Colorado Springs “made a mistake”?
Would you, in their place, shrug off your spouse and children’s deaths with a “no worries, it was an accident”.
And how many accidents and unintentional collateral killing would it take before you thought that maybe these accident-prone trigger-happy folk should rather be taught a lesson to make them go make mistakes elsewhere?
So, please go ahead and explain to me how this moral distinction is supposed to work for the victim.
”… if one of our guys intentionally kills a non-combatant, he is put on trial …”
Really, we do that very often?
This is something that inspires a lot of hatred, they don’t see due process going on. They see non-combatants killed every day, and here and there somebody gets a few years in jail for it. They don’t see the justice, so they become more aggressive about taking revenge. Revenge is a cultural norm there, especially when they don’t see speed and equity in punishment. They do not see a few years in jail for blowing away a family as justice.
09:56 said ”While dead is dead, we don't target civilians as policy in the same manner as the Islamic terrorists do.”
One would hope so! Us being civilized Christian folk and all.
However, our policies and practices knowingly puts those people at risk and leads to their deaths. You can’t go tossing bombs about and spraying bullets and then claim that you didn’t mean for anyone to get hurt. We would get very uptight if this was going on here, so why does it become ok over there?
It seems to me that the Intentionalist moral argument only works for the perpetrator, and not the victim.
Bangalore Skank said:
"If a person sitting in Colorado Springs can fire weapons at somebody in Pakistan from a Predator RPV, then wherever that person goes becomes a valid extension of the battlefield."
Cute. I can see the base being a target (aren't all bases), but I don't see how the individual pilot is in danger at WalMart. a) How will they know who actually piloted the Predator? b) Why go through the effort of killing one pilot when they could demolish the base? c) Couldn't you make the same argument about any soldier who returns home from the war for R&R?
What concerns me is that continually advancement of a soldier's weaponry while the citizen is stuck with 100+ year old technology. There's no counterbalance.
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 12:14 PMJohn, the difference is that he is operating from CS and he is an active combatant rather than just doing a traditional desk job.
You hit the nail on the head though, since they won't know exactly who the pilots are (unless they have big mouths in public) the bombers will simply target anyone who comes from the base.
Hitting them in a public place will be easier and more effective than trying to hit the base, ergo, they are likely to hit him in public.
On top of that, they also argue that since this is a democracy, we must be in agreement with the practice or else would have put a stop to it, and therefore civilians also become valid secondary targets.
All quite rational from their pov.
RPVs were meant to further reduce battlefield casualties, but I think they will actually just expand the battlefield.
As for the other implications, I think RPVs will start showing up more in policing and crowd control in the future.
You don’t have to fret about the imbalance of weapon technology, it seldom makes much difference in internal conflicts, and in any civil war it becomes easy to acquire the kinds of weapons one needs from the people who start out with them.