Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote “The drones have effectively destroyed the Taliban's ability to fight anything but a small guerilla conflict, which has significantly reduced the casualities on the allied side.”

But you just can't know that. I could quite easily say the use of this type of weaponry has caused such anger on those targeted that they have reacted with greater ferocity as a direct result and thus significantly increased casualties.

From the BBC; “Pakistani leaders had expressed hope that the new US administration would halt the controversial air strikes, saying they fuelled public anger and complicated Pakistan's own counter-insurgency efforts.”

From Zcommunications; “However, in response to the US Government's figures the Pakistani Government leaked data of its own to The News International, the second-largest English language newspaper in the country. These records revealed that out of the 60 US drone strikes that had been carried out in Pakistan since January 2006 only 10 hit their actual targets, killing 14 Al-Qaeda leaders.  Meanwhile these attacks have killed 687 Pakistani civilians (about 160 of which have been killed since Obama took office according to the Los Angeles Times). “

“David Kilcullen, the top counter-insurgency advisor to General Petraeus, told the House Armed Service Committee in the US that the drones attacks are "highly unpopular" in Pakistan and have "given rise to feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism". One such "spike" was the March terrorist attack on the police academy in Lahore, which the Pakistani Taliban said was in revenge for the remotely-controlled air strikes. Returning from a fact-finding trip to the region, the UK's social cohesion minister Saddiq Khan backed up Kilcullen's testimony, noting "the anger at the drone attacks was huge.  The view they [the students he met] had was the UK was somehow responsible for this... They lumped us together with the US, which to me is a poison."

Or is it only allies casualties that we care about?

Dear King Hazza,

“In attack a brave man draws other on, the coward holds them back. In defence the brave man stands his ground and fires at the right time and at the right place but the coward avoids exposing himself and his fire is unaimed.”
Reflections on the Art of War  By Reginald Clare Hart

Possibly a description more suited to more simple times but given the figures of drone 'collateral damage' the last part is not that far off the mark.

This is a more pragmatic view by Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War.
“Order of disorder depends on organisation; courage or cowardice on circumstances; strength or weakness on dispositions."

“Li Ch'uan: Now when troops gain a favourable situation the coward is brave; if it be lost, the brave become cowards. In the art of war there are no fixed rules. These can only be worked out according to circumstances.”

It begs the question where are we most likely to find bravery in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And what of countries? How do we measure the banning of the use of torture by the Israelis who are under a fair degree of threat, compared to a presidential endorsement of such practices in America.

From the Tao of Politics; “Cultivated people can only live by justice; if they loose justice they loose their raison d'etre. Infantile people can live only by desires, if they loose their desires, they have no way to live. Cultivated people fear loss of justice; infantile people fear loss of material advantages. By observing what they fear you can tell the differences.”

And yes I probably do need to get off this high horse.

*And yes I probably do need to get off this high horse.*

You probably should, csteele. For you are trying to defend a
group, who have done what cannot be defended. From blowing
up girls schools, to filming the execution of their victims,
murdering and torturing people, to public executions every
weekend.

Nope I don't feel sorry for the Taliban or Al Queda. It
is the Taliban who use civilians as a shield. Clearly
they are not so brave!

Anyone who dares vote, is threatened with execution.

Sorry csteele, but rather then your high horse, your
defence comes from the gutter

Yabby, I think you have provided one end of the "how do we wage war" spectrum that bugged me enough to start the thread.

>>you are trying to defend a group, who have done what cannot be defended. From blowing up girls schools, to filming the execution of their victims, murdering and torturing people, to public executions every weekend.<<

This is the "they are evil, therefore they must be stamped out" approach.

This stance justifies the use of everything from torture of prisoners to biological warfare to nuclear weapons.

For which, quite possibly, plans already exist. On both sides.

War is necessarily ugly. But not entirely without ethics.

One of the aspects of "civilization" over the years has been the acceptance that there have to be some rules. Otherwise, what on earth was the point of establishing the Geneva Convention in the first place?

It handled, for example, the difference in treatment that you as a protagonist could dish out to individuals on the opposite side. If they were soldiers, you were required to detain them in POW camps. If they were spies, you could shoot them etc.

I guess my underlying question is, have we now moved on from that position? And should we/could we replace it with an updated set of guidelines that are more appropriate to the twentyfirst century?

Or is it already too late to even contemplate such a notion?

My concern is that what we are seeing is more reminiscent of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" than Tobruk. But is this merely a hangover from past idealism, or a genuine fear for our future?

*One of the aspects of "civilization" over the years has been the acceptance that there have to be some rules.*

Pericles, I guess that still exists between countries. AFAIK we
still abide by the Geneva Convention. That is fine for war between
Govts, but that hardly applies in the case of the Taliban. If
you read up on Qutbs ideology which is what Mullah Omar follows,
our whole concept of Govt and rules, is not acceptable to them.

When Omar ran Afghanistan, the floor of his house was basically
the Afghan parliament. The only laws that apply are their
interpretation of the Koran. So all your Govts and Conventions
simply don't matter in their world.

I just get a little pissed off sometimes, when people do this
black and white thing as in "evil America - the poor Taliban."

If anyone was a bully, it was the Taliban whilst they ran
Afghanistan.

So I support any attempt to give the actual people in Afghanistan
a say about their own lives, like the right to vote.

There was recently an interesting debate on BBC TV about Afghanistan
and it involved some female Afghan MPs as part of the discussion.

One of the big worries in Afghanistan is that if an individual should
show open support for the introduction of a democratic system,
when Western troops leave and should the Taliban take over once
again, they will basically be chopped liver. Unlike csteele, these
people have experienced the brutal side of the Taliban.

The real problem is men like war and killing people- particularly the defenceless. The world is run by sick phycopaths. Kill them all!