Very often the morally superior entity has to take losses and expend assets along the way to achieving goals that other may not. It must be more careful, respectful and precise.
It is not the primary mission of the military to go home safely. If that were so they'd never leave home. It is to complete the mission.
And "the mission" in guerilla wars absolutely has to include hearts and minds. The mission which may kill an insurgent but which also kills numerous innocent people has failed - the hearts and minds component failed. There is only a dead insurgent or two, which will be replaced faster than you can grab an AK-47 from a body. And the family and friends will hate the US for it's immorality forever.
That mission failed. There is nothing complex about this. It's foolish to believe you can kill 'em all, and that "collateral damage" doesn't equate to failure. As evidenced by Bush's 7 years in Afghanistan. 7 years of failure.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to Yes. Our methods of destroying terrorists in hostile areas who surround themselves with civilians will "change."
There is a price for moral superiority.
The whole thread (10 posts)
- "Secret order lets U.S. raid al Qaeda around the world."
- re: Bush's failed policies
- Yes, under Obama, there will no longer be collateral damage in military attacks.
