The government of Pakistan has confirmed that at least four or five terrorists were among those killed in the Predator strike that has been widely reported as having killed 18 "civilians."
The attack has been criticized for having resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women and children while (apparently) missing Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant who helped mastermind the September 11th attacks.
Now we know that the attack did kill four or five terrorists. In addition to elminating the direct threat from these terrorists, their sudden deaths serve as a warning to anyone harboring Al Qaeda terrorists near the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Of course it is tragic when any truly innocent civilian lives are lost -- especially the lives of children, or of women who are treated like property in some parts of the world. But that's how we got into this war to begin with: These terrorists, or their close allies, decided to take the lives of thousands of innocent civilian men, women and children on September 11, 2001 (and in terrorist strikes before and after as well, dating back to the 1970s, with more still being plotted today).
If we can never attempt to take the life of a terrorist mastermind like Al Zawahiri unless we are certain that no civilian will be killed (and certain that the attack on the Al Qaeda leader will definitely be successful), then the civilized world is doomed. There is no guarantee that every missile will find its target, and every terrorist will be surrounded by civilian human shields. It is the terrorists, not we, who have chosen to put these innocent lives at risk.
We are dealing with an enemy that uses targeted, deliberate attack on innocent civilian men, women and children as its primary strategy -- it's goal. These terrorists have deliberately taken the lives of noncombatant American and Israeli and British civilian men, women and children, among other innocent civilians around the world.
These terrorrists and their supporters have danced in the streets and passed out candy to celebrate these deliberate innocent civilian deaths. This enemy knows our weaknesses, one of which is that we are civilized and compassionate in our treatment of innocent civilians. That is a good weakness, but it has the potential to be fatal.
We do not deliberately target innocent men, women and children for death. In this war on the masterminds of the September 11th attack and their supporters, if we allow the mainstream media to turn every accidental or collateral death of innocent persons in wartime into an occasion for self-villification, we will soon be paralyzed. We will be unable to stop those who are working feverishly to find a way to kill us, and the next innocent civilian deaths we mourn will be many of our own.
More at Powerline.
Update 1/18/06: Captain's Quarters points out the significance of the fact that the bodies of these four or five "foreigners" were removed from the scene to escape identification. If the bodies were removed, then there will be no DNA analysis of them, which leaves open the possibility that Zawahiri could have been one of the five (at least until we hear from him again). At a minimum, a noticeable impact was made on the terror network.
Related Post: More New York Times Photo Fraud in War on Terror?
I'm the author of the criticism to which you link at the beginning of your post. If you re-read what I wrote, I think you'll find that my criticism is based on the likely reaction within Pakistan to our missile raid. Specifically, I said "If it turns out that we fired the rockets, whether we had tacit Pakistani approval or not, and that al-Zawahri wasn't there but a bunch of innocent villagers were.....we just made it a lot harder for Pervez Musharraf to survive as the head of Pakistan, and a whole bunch harder for Pakistan to cooperate closely with us on any future operations."
Whether or not you think we are justified in conducting raids like this, there are political consequences to them. If you think the war on terrorists is as important as your post indicates you do, you should be as concerned as I am about those consequences. We need to take a longer view than thinking we were successful because we "got" 4 or 5 terrorists. Is that worth it if the result in the longer term is that Pervez Musharraf is assassinated or overthrown, with his replacement more firmly aligned with the Muslim fundamentalists?
Is it worth it if, instead of putting fear into the villagers near the Afgan-Pakistan border, as you contemplate, we simply make them more committed to resisting us and our desire to track down terrorists living there?
Posted by: Lee Russ | January 17, 2006 at 06:29 PM
Thank you for your comments, Lee. Thoughtful comments are always welcome here even when they disagree with me.
There is something to be said for your position. Taking any kind of military action within Pakistan is inherently tricky, given the huge amount of Islamic extremism and anti-Western sentiment in that country. You're right that there's a risk of fanning the flames.
However, I don't think the anti-American reaction in Pakistan is primarily about whether America pulled the trigger in this case or whether terrorists were hit or not. Even if Musharaff himself had fired a single missile and that missile had hit Osama Bin Laden, and only Bin Laden, I think we'd see similar massive protests in Pakistan and elsewhere by the Islamic extremists. In other words, I believe that the deaths of some civilians is more of an excuse du jour for the protests rather than the driving force behind them.
Unless we are going to treat Pakistan as a "safe" country for Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri and other Al Qaeda leaders, or just abandon the effort to put these leading terrorists out of commission and let them operate freely, we must take action similar to the type of action we have taken.
In military matters, there is no way to guarantee that you will hit your target every time. I believe that those who authorized this missile strike had good reason to believe that the probable benefits of this strike far outweighed the downsides. Even taking loss of innocent civilian life into account, far more innocent civilian lives were probably saved by this single strike than lost, if "only" four or five terrorists were killed. How many civilians do you think that each of those terrorists would have wiped out, on average, over the remaining course of their lifetimes? I am confident that many more innocent lives were saved than were lost, simply because terrorists target innocent civilians as their primary strategy. That is why they are evil, without exaggeration.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments because they are thoughtful and strategic, not to mention polite. We can disagree without being enemies, and perhaps in time we will find common ground on this subject or others.
By the way, my post was not a criticism of your post. I just linked to your post as an example of some of the criticism of the U.S. missile strike that is out there. Sorry if you felt "targeted." (Actually "targeted" is probably a poor choice of words given the subject matter.)
Posted by: Gina Cobb | January 17, 2006 at 07:55 PM
No, I didn't feel attacked, just wanted to clarify what I was saying.
On your comment:
"I believe that the deaths of some civilians is more of an excuse du jour for the protests rather than the driving force behind them.
Unless we are going to treat Pakistan as a "safe" country for Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri and other Al Qaeda leaders, or just abandon the effort to put these leading terrorists out of commission and let them operate freely, we must take action similar to the type of action we have taken."
I think that much of the current unrest is based on the fact that a foreign country conducted an attack within Pakistan--i.e. didn't respect their sovereignty. I'm sure the flames are being fanned, but we keep handing them the ammunition they need to do the fanning.
Even in WWII there were countries who remained neutral and the combatants recognized them as such. The US and England didn't bomb Switzerland if a Nazi big whig went there, and the Nazis didn't bomb Switzerland when a US big whig went there.
In this "war on terrorists, we seem to have unilaterally declared that there shall be no neutrality, and we shall be the sole arbiters of when and where to attack.
It doesn't take a lot of insight to understand that this is a policy practically guaranteed to isolate us from the rest of the world, and make it easier for people who want to attack us.
I think our entire approach is self-destructive in the long term.
Posted by: Lee Russ | January 18, 2006 at 08:50 AM
I don't know how you expect to keep Americans safe from another September 11th attack or worse if you allow terrorists to operate in Pakistan without any fear for their own safety.
Posted by: Gina Cobb | January 18, 2006 at 12:36 PM
That's the dilemma: how do you balance the offensive efforts against the likelohood that you are simply creating more terrorists and enemies?
But what good is killing 4 or 5 terrorists if it ends up costing you the only ally you have in the region, puts extremists in charge of Pakistani nuclear weapons, and creates another 1,000 terrorists? It doesn't take too many of those kinds of "successes" before you lose the war.
We have to find other ways. It may involve letting some terrorists live but tracking them and their contacts until they are in a place where you can attack them without causing yourself great harm. It may take a lot more diplomatic skill than this administration has shown any talent for.
Posted by: Lee Russ | January 18, 2006 at 07:25 PM
"I think that much of the current unrest is based on the fact that a foreign country conducted an attack within Pakistan--i.e. didn't respect their sovereignty. I'm sure the flames are being fanned, but we keep handing them the ammunition they need to do the fanning."
I don't think you know much about Pakistan and especially the Tribal Areas. They were anti-American (read anti-anyone not Islamic) before any of this stuff happened.
And for anyone to be so GULLIBLE as to think a tiny village DOESN'T KNOW WHO THE SPECIAL FOREIGN VISITORS ARE HERE FOR TONIGHT'S FEAST is just silly.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is not a western army and typically travels with women and children, at least until they go on a mission to kill us.
Should we allow them a free pass to operate anywhere in the world simply because they choose to put their own people at risk?
Posted by: Aaron | January 19, 2006 at 03:52 AM
"Should we allow them a free pass to operate anywhere in the world simply because they choose to put their own people at risk?"
No, not because of that. And I don't think that I'm talking about a "free pass" in any sense that I understand.
I'm talking about looking at both sides of the equation before taking an action: "what will we potentially gain" and "what will we potentially lose"?
If you potentially gain the death of a few terrorists, and potentially lose the support of your only ally in the region, possibly putting nuclear weapons into the hands of the very people who hate you, and create several times as many terrorists as you killed, I'd give a whole lot of thought to the wisdom of taking the action.
This just isn't as simple as "go get 'em," no matter how much we'd like it to be. If we continue to act like it's simple, if we continue to look only at one side of the equation when we decide whether to take an action, we're going to lose.
Whatever the eventual consequences of the air strike in Pakistan, we have undeniably made it a lot harder for Musharraf to stay in power. If Musharraf is overthrown, it will in all likelihood be by fundamentalists, whose hand we've strengthened.
And this shouldn't be that hard to understand. Think about how you would respond to a foreign country making an air strike inside the U.S., without our premission, to "take out" people that the foreign nation wants for terrorism.
Posted by: Lee Russ | January 19, 2006 at 10:29 AM
With all due respect, "diplomacy" has no magical powers. There seems to be this undercurrent of wishful thinking: "Oh, if only someone other than our current president were in power! What magic he could weave with his golden tongue! And then they would like us. Really like us! Or at least leave us alone!"
The planning for the September 11 attack began before the current administration was in power, and most the preparations were completed during that time. In fact, Islamic terrorists launched a whole series of attacks against America and its people starting in the 1970s, when Democrat and "diplomat" Jimmy Carter was in power, and those attacks continued in the subsequent decades through Democrat and Republican administrations alike. They accelerated during Bill Clinton's term, including an attempt to assassinate a former president as well as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, and the 2000 U.S. Cole bombing. All of this happened even though Clinton is supposedly the ultimate silver-tongued diplomat. America just didn't take much notice of the terrorist attacks until they took a big enough toll on September 11th.
Now if none of the presidents since the 1970s have had the right combination of "diplomatic" skills to stop terrorist attacks on our nation, is it possible that in the real world there is only so much that any mere mortal can achieve by attempting diplomacy with terrorists?
In the real world, diplomacy is just talk. Words, no matter how eloquent, are easily ignored unless they are backed by rewards or by force or the threat of force. Since it would be immoral and ultimately self-defeating to offer bribes to terrorists not to launch another September 11th type attack, the alternative is to use force or the threat of force. It is both moral and effective to threaten force against those who intend to slaughter our citizens, and those who harbor them and are unwilling or unable to stop them.
Pakistan is either been unable or unwilling to take out Al Qaeda on its own. Since Al Qaeda is a direct threat to our security, it is we who must take action. Nobody else will do it for us.
Some folks also seem to think that there is an unlimited number of potential terrorists on earth -- that no matter how many you eliminate, you won't discourage any of the others -- they will just explode in numbers every time you stop any of them, like creatures from a horror film. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. Terrorism grows when it is left unchecked. Military action does have a deterrent effect. Having your leaders suddenly in prison or dead is downright discouraging, not to mention inconvenient and hard to work around. If you were running a terrorist operation, would you rather have your summit meetings to plan further terror attacks in peace in the Pakistani mountans or constantly be worried that this meeting could be your last?
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Four or five dead terrorists today (including Al Qaeda's master bomb maker/chemical weapons expert, http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2006/01/great_news_us_p.html) is worth a lot more than one POSSIBLY, HOPEFULLY dead terrorist YEARS from now -- IF they happen to take a trip outside Pakistan to some other country where HOPEFULLY nobody will notice or object if they are killed.
If you wait for a combination of lucky happenstance and the permission of the world before taking effective action against the top leaders of Al Qaeda, you'll be waiting an awfully long time. While you wait, many innocent civilians (including possibly you or your loved ones, depending on where you live or work or what flight you happen to take) will be dead by the time you find what you hope is the perfect time to do what has to done.
Posted by: Gina Cobb | January 19, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Well, I understand the frustration, but you really didn't address any of the potential consequences that concern me, other than to say that there isn't an unlimited number of terrorists. What about the consequences? Do you think there aren't any? That the benefit outweighs them?
And how would you feel as an American if Pakistan "took out" a terrorist with an air strike on Montana?
We're pretty obviously going to end up disagreeing on this, but I am curious--what about the consequences?
I doubt that you're going to agree with this either, but if you want to understand the anger of the Muslim world--not just the terrorists, but many, many ordinary Muslims--you have to look back further than al Qaeda, and more broadly than religion. I hope you don't think they just woke up one day and said "we all hate Americans; not Finns, not Canadians, not Belgians, but boy we hate Americans."
Where does that hatred and distrust come from? Are we simply making it worse, now? Are you sure enough that they'll run out of terrorists that you'd keep taking actions that create them?
Posted by: Lee Russ | January 19, 2006 at 01:29 PM
Yes, I believe I have addressed "the potential consequences" you referred to. Perhaps I need to be more clear: The potential consequences are not materially different from what already exists. If those who hate America could seize power from Musharraf, they would already have done so.
Yes, the benefits of this air strike that took out several top Al Qaeda leaders far outweigh the downsides. A master bomb maker and several other Al Qaeda leaders will not be making any more bombs or orchestrating any more attacks. That is one immediate and tangible benefit, not a speculative one. Al Zawahiri, assuming he survived, is now on the run and at least temporarily disrupted. When he runs, he may be easier to find and put out of commission permanently.
I have heard nothing back about the details of your plan of waiting and hoping that the Al Qaeda terrorists leave Pakistan someday so that maybe you can hunt them down somewhere else and maybe kill them then (if nobody there objects), leaving them in place meanwhile to plot and carry out more terrorist attacks on the U.S. and other nations. Since that's not a practical nor a safe option, it's clear that we've chosen the correct course.
"And how would you feel as an American if Pakistan 'took out' a terrorist with an air strike on Montana?"
If America was harboring terrorists who had already attacked Pakistan and killed 3,000 or so of its people, and if for some reason our nation did not have the military wherewithal to take out the terrorists, but instead our president engaged with America's full knowledge in a joint operation with Pakistan to kill the terrorists, I'd enthusastically endorse it. (This assumes that Pakistan was a reasonably peaceful, free, democratic country similar to the U.S.)
"I hope you don't think they just woke up one day and said "we all hate Americans; not Finns, not Canadians, not Belgians, but boy we hate Americans."
"Where does that hatred and distrust come from? Are we simply making it worse, now?"
The hatred comes from living under totalitarianism in Muslim countires. It also comes from propaganda in the host countries that has nothing to do with reality. Go to MEMRI's website and see the kind of racist nonsense that is fed to Muslims in the Middle East every day.
As for Belgium, funny you should mention it. Read this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/
9/24/134111.shtml
Belgium may be one of the countries being used by international terrorists as a safe harbor. If so, Belgium is part of the problem, not an example of a country that is getting it right. Yet even innocent Belgian citizens were attacked by hooligans shouting Muslim slogans on September 24, 2001. Belgium's days of peace and sovereignty are probably numbered. Demographically, the Muslims are on their way to taking over much of Europe, just by sheer population growth. Read any of the Mark Steyn articles I've linked to from time to time.
Canada has had many terrorist attacks on its citizens. Like those on the U.S. prior to 9/11, they have been a series of isolated incidents, but there have been many. Check Wikipedia.
Finland is so small that it is not a fair comparison. (Its population of 5 million is less than the population of a major city such as Tokyo, which has over 12 million.) (Belgium also has fewer people than Tokyo.) You might as well ask why not every major city on earth has been hit by the terrorists yet. Give them time. They're working on it.
You should also read my post "What Do All These Countries Have in Common?"
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2005/11
/what_do_all_the.html
You will notice that, for terrorists, any excuse will do. They have attacked nations of every economic level, religion, pacifism or lack thereof, etc. France, for example, has done everything humanly possible to appease Islamic terrorists, and how much peace is France enjoying? Car arson is routine. Trains are attacked by Muslim "youths." The Muslim population is on its way to outgrowing the French population, and France will become an Islamic state.
Terrorists are about dealing in death and trying to build their own power through raw force. Any target will do. Just as there are no "innocent" citizens who should be exempt from attack as far as these terrorists are concerned -- even children and babies are routinely targeted for deliberate bombing and slaughter -- there are no innocent nations except their own. If you don't feel the chill of terrorism working its way bit by bit through every nation on earth, give it time. And while you're waiting to be convinced, perhaps you can give the benefit of the doubt to America's leaders who are fighting a very determined adversary which recognizes no moral limits whatsoever, other than its own raw will.
Posted by: Gina Cobb | January 19, 2006 at 02:49 PM
"If those who hate America could seize power from Musharraf, they would already have done so."
That wrongly assumes that nothing can change the balance of power. Events and power shift constantly, and we are directly affectiing that shift.
"The hatred comes from living under totalitarianism in Muslim countires."
Living under totalitarianism somehow leads inevitably to hatred of America because.....?
My approach, by the way, is not to never do anything. It is to pick and choose what we do, with an eye to the consequences, an eye to the causes, and an eye to what is and is not possible.
My take on the last post is that you are convinced that things are as bad as they can get r.e. terrorism, so why not do something, anything. I fear you will be sadly disappointed.
We're not going to agree, and seem to have reached the point of impasse, so I'll let this be my last response.
Posted by: Lee Russ | January 19, 2006 at 05:18 PM