Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hordini wrote:
Yes, but we're not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq either, and similar things have happened there as well.

We're still at war with both. At least to the extent that "authorization to use military force" is a placeholder for a declaration of war.

Hordini wrote:
To clarify, you're not talking about innocent people who get caught in a crossfire or an explosion during a fight with or an attack on insurgents/terrorists, but rather innocent people who are mistakenly identified as terrorists and because of that, intentionally targeted and killed?

Sort of. I'm talking about people that are killed in nations that are not necessarily those with which we are engaged in open hostilities.

In essence, we're chasing terrorists in Afghanistan, but we often kill civilians in Pakistan.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
Yes, but we're not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq either, and similar things have happened there as well.

We're still at war with both. At least to the extent that "authorization to use military force" is a placeholder for a declaration of war.

I'm not really talking about the authorization to use military force as a placeholder for a declaration of war. I would argue that we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not at war with Afghanistan and Iraq. We are waging war against certain factions in both countries, but aren't really at war with the country as a whole, in the sense of both their governments and their general populations. If anything, the US is trying to help and protect the majority of their populations and create some stability that will give their governments a chance to eventually take care of their people and combat insurgency without needing direct US intervention.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
To clarify, you're not talking about innocent people who get caught in a crossfire or an explosion during a fight with or an attack on insurgents/terrorists, but rather innocent people who are mistakenly identified as terrorists and because of that, intentionally targeted and killed?

Sort of. I'm talking about people that are killed in nations that are not necessarily those with which we are engaged in open hostilities.

In essence, we're chasing terrorists in Afghanistan, but we often kill civilians in Pakistan.

True, but we also kill terrorists and insurgents in Pakistan. I'm sure you know this, but it is a bit more complex of a situation in the tribal areas than just "this side is Afghanistan, this is Pakistan." Tribal affiliations hold much more sway on either side of the tribal border regions than their respective national governments. Obviously, the governments of many nations have a different perspective on the situation as well, which makes sense, since they are conditioned to approach things primarily in terms of nations and political borders. Unfortunately, this isn't how everyone who lives in the tribal regions on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan operate, and many insurgents and terrorists are attempting to use this cultural disconnect to their advantage. For better or worse, it appears that the US has been trying to adapt to their tactics.

Hordini wrote:
I would argue that we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not at war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree, but international convention doesn't keep pace with reality very well.

Hordini wrote:
True, but we also kill terrorists and insurgents in Pakistan. I'm sure you know this, but it is a bit more complex of a situation in the tribal areas than just "this side is Afghanistan, this is Pakistan." Tribal affiliations hold much more sway on either side of the tribal border regions than their respective national governments. Obviously, the governments of many nations have a different perspective on the situation as well, which makes sense, since they are conditioned approach things primarily in terms of nations and political borders. Unfortunately, this isn't how everyone who lives in the tribal regions on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan operate, and many insurgents and terrorists are attempting to use this cultural disconnect to their advantage. For better or worse, it appears that the US has been trying to adapt to their tactics.

I agree, but there are certain consequences to saying that nation-states don't mater. Some of them are positive, for example we could drop into the Mexican Cartel fiasco. Some of them are negative, all those oil rights we have to the Gulf would be enforced only by guns, which means killing people, ours and theirs.