Madame Secretary Apologizes

One wonders whether the unstated though intentional goal of the United States is to destabilize Pakistan. But for what purpose?

RE: CITIES OF REFUGE

The latest round in the conflict between East and West did not originate in Pakistan, so it is fair to ask to what extent Pakistan is responsible for resolving the crisis.

Islamic militants invaded Pakistan ostensibly for refuge in the wake of the Western assault on Afghanistan. The militants comprise Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters.

The current American Administration is reevaluating the Western approach toward the War on Terrorism, both down-grading the overall offensive as an operation rather than a war and shifting the emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan and the frontier region of Pakistan, which shares an ethnic Pashtun population with neighboring Pakistan numbering 40 million people in total. The successes in Iraq, particularly in the Anbar Province, have in part permitted the redeployment of Coalition troops to the Afghan theatre.

There has been discussion of repatriating Taliban (but not Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan. There are numerous impediments, but the primary issue relates to the recognition by the Taliban of the authority of the pro-Western federal government in Kabul. Commentators have discussed empowering moderate Taliban with power sharing incentives. A primary advantage of repatriation is the presumed stabilization of Pakistan by removing the pressure caused from outside sources.

Would it be feasible to ease a regional meltdown by invoking the ancient concept of CITIES OF REFUGE? The Taliban would be permitted safe haven in their traditional Afghan homeland in designated areas for as long as they confine themselves there. The Taliban could thus claim a right of asylum; but, if found outside of these cities, they would be subject to the potential of blood vengeance. If CITIES OF REFUGE are sanctioned, it would be advisable to locate these cities away from the Pakistan frontier.

This concept may or may not work, depending on the level of trust engendered by the parties. But at this point, the Taliban have few incentives and therefore little to lose.

Well, Colonel Jack Jacobs, you are losing me. I was prepared to look up to you as a military specialist and one of the few talking heads I could respect on the tube. Alas, that preparation has come to naught. Most military people I know, who have genuine combat experience and have lived long enough to think things through, eventually come to the conclusion that war and combat are anathema to being a good human. It strikes me as rather obtuse on your part that you decry an apology for killing innocent civilians. That they may have been interspersed among the bad guys (don't want to say enemy as we seem to more and more get bogged down with enemies we can't properly identify) is immaterial. They are still innocent and still civilians. Instead of apologizing should we be proud of our massacres?

With all due respect Colonel Jacobs,

Madame Secretary Apologizes

In feel in this Sec. Hillary Clinton is correct. I have made many mistakes in my life for which a simple apology would have avoided bad feelings. And have paid dearly for it. Civilian casualties are sometimes unavoidable as you said.

No matter how strenuous are the efforts to prevent it from happening, it is regrettable that all wars kill civilians.

To reaffirm our commitment to avoid, as much as possible, further civilian casualties is in my opinion a step in the right direction. These peoples lives have been turned upside down by war and are hurting. The very least we can do is apologize. A very small price to pay for any unavoidable deaths that may occur in this time of turmoil in Afghanistan.

Its been reported that the Taliban use human shields. And it will happen that civilians get killed in war. And Clinton should have apologized.

What was the alternative? Non chalantly point to the taliban and say its their fault? How would that help anybody? Especially our troops?

Don't worry sometimes I write articles I don't think all the way through as well. Better luck next time.

Some of the complaint will be genuine humanitarian concern, but some will be politically motivated: Karzai is running for office and Zardari is fighting for his political life.

Tired last night Colonel. This is something among others that is important to remember.

I love it when the Air Force folks talk about collateral damage being unavoidable.

We've known this is how Taliban/Al Qaeda forces operate for a long time. They bully or otherwise coerce tribes into getting their way. They stick children in their caravans to prevent ambushes. They try to blend into regular society. It's the nature of desperate guerilla warfare.

The question isn't should she apologize, but what are we learning and doing to change tactics in how we deal with these enemies. I can't even tell you if she's right or wrong but she's doing what she was hired to do: be the used car saleswoman of the Obama foreign policy team. She just has to sell the apology. Yeah, she'll get right on instructing Green Beret and TACP teams on how to do their jobs right after she finishes a ceremonial clog dance with the Dutch queen.

But it's a balancing act on how to effectively deal with enemy forces in the region. Do we risk killing civilians to save more from a worse fate?

YouTube - Lamb chops play-Along

This show was from the early 1990's. It was one of my favorite shows when I was like 5! I can't believe that I still remember this show! I constantly find myself singing the ending ...

My daughters, one of which is in the army now loved this show...ummm..so did I..harumph..

IMHO, they need to sack Robert Gates. First he runs an independent investigation to be able to turn down a CMH award, when he did not like the out come of the original investigation. It was the first time in history that a SecDef has hired outside investigators to overturn Military Investigator.

Then he starts firing Air Force Generals who opposed him on war issues. Next he gave air operations to the Navy, because of his tiff with the Air Force and this led to many of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan, according to the Project on Defense alternatives.

We would not need to be apologizing so much if Gates were not at the helm!!

I have written now for some time about the Western intervention in Iraq as the foundation of a lasting global peace. Ironically, until today I had never met a veteran of the Iraq War.

Today has been a good day. An employee here brought her husband to work to in her words "show him off". In the past, she has talked about him probably partly in pride and partly because she missed him while he was deployed. She introduced him to me as follows:

"This is my husband."

I asked, "You were in Iraq?"

He said, "Yes, in Baghdad."

I felt a spontaneous gladness swell within me, and asked, "May I shake your hand?"

I extended my hand and he placed his hand in mine.

I said to him , "I write about Iraq from the viewpoint of the prophecies. You are taking part in something bigger than this war." Without further explanation, I added, "You are an honored man."

He then extended his hand to shake mine.

Perhaps the emotional significance of this encounter is best explained by a fact peculiar to myself: I do not typically permit anyone to touch me.

God bless this soldier. God bless Iraq. And God bless America.

Neron --- Good for you. Prophecies? Uhhhmmmm I can see where this is going.

The "wars" we are currently involved in just arent clear cut like past conflicts. We fire bombed german and japanese cities where perhaps millions of "civilains" perished. Did we apologize? We did what needed to be done to defeat the threats facing the world at the time. If the civilazation wont stand and fight the enemy in their midst then they shouldnt be there, and if they choose to remain, they should have enough sense to understand the situation they are in. To me the extremist ideologies today are the same as they were with the cultures involved in WW2. Fanatical lunatics hundreds of years behind in evolution exist in pakistan and afganistan. The general population doesnt have the resolve, education and society structure to know what to do, other than support in someways the extremist views pumped into there lives. These people will only learn when enough casulties occur, Japan being a prime example. Apologize? Perhaps in cases of greivous errors but that should be ulta rare in my opinion.

I have to agree with Colonel Jacobs on this one. It is very odd that Secretary Clinton is apologizing for actions that she has very little to do with. Last I check State and Defense still don't speak for eachother in the organizational sense. I think it is very accurate to state that Karzai is looking to get re-elected and cannot afford to seem "soft" on the Americans. If you asked him today whether he wanted us out of his country, I think his answer would probably be no. If it is, then he should not expect us to continue to apologize for doing the job his government is either unable, or unwilling, to do. Our government only further weakens our position in that part of the world by doing so.

I am prone to seek technological solutions to moral and political problems. If the Taliban are succeeding in "hiding among the villagers"-- the traditional way that guerrilla fighters pursue their strategy, then the best technological solution is, ta da--BETTER SNIPERS!

I should say, better sniping systems. The best sniping system for Afghanistan would be pylons each 100 feet high all around a village. The pylons are powered by a combination of solar, battery, and generator power. There is no human sniper in them. The human sniper on duty is actually half-way around the world. He may not even be active duty, but a retired veteran at home with a typical PC and HD screen who agrees to a 4-hr watch each day. He is monitored by a webcam to insure he stays awake and is not turning the duty over to a 12-year-old nephew or slugging down Jim Beam.

The watcher also does not have aim and fire capability. All he or she does is watch a village and consult a catalog with the photos of everyone who lives in the village and in which houses families can be found and their number and descriptions. If the watcher sees someone in the village who doesn't fit, their sole responsibility is to alert someone up the chain of command, who turns the contact over to someone who is able to authorize remote deadly force.

Up on the pylon I would have something like a .416 Barrett with a 200 rd air pressure feed clip. The base of the pylon would be the radius of a 100 meter-circle of concertina wire, Claymore mines, and a wonderful variety of motion detectors and sensors. The pylon head itself would be compact and armored against RPG attack.

A network of pylons tied in with existing watch posts and drones makes a territory that is extremely hard to infiltrate. The job of monitoring every video input with be impossible with available numbers of in-country people, but there is no reason that in-country people have to do this tedious job of 24/7 surveillance. It can be out-sourced. If American volunteers or part-time workers don't want to do it, somebody in the world would.

Having worked for a congressman who even had some time in the military I have to say that as a professional military man it was extremely difficult to explain how collateral damage would often happen regardless of the type of firepower employed against an enemy.  In Vietnam as Col Jacobs knows the terrain was jungle or mountainous with jungle cover making a direct hit really tough unless it was laser directed.  But even with lasers, the blast and frag effect will kill other than the intended target.....sometimes our own folks.  One of the most effective weapons against and entrenched enemy was napalm.  Well the militarily ignorant among our elite determined it was too inhuman to use even though it saved many US lives.  The simple truth is that collateral damage is inevitable regardless of how you employ force and only those seeking some moral context for killing are so ready to apologize for the necessary evils of warfare.   Thank you, Jack, For your continued service in trying to explain what so few who know nothing of being in harms way about war and those who feel compelled to apologize for political cover.