Moral Courage

[Jester]

Hi,

I actually think the model is fairly apt. While there are very few countries whose people don't like having democracy, those countries are actually democratic. If you look at the state of Latin America for most of the last century, when "democracy" was "spread", they ended up very much like Eastern Europe under communism: oppressive little hellholes where the majority of people deeply resented the system which had been imposed on them from outside.

Where democracy comes about by mostly internal processes, it is well liked. So are most systems, so long as it was created locally and genuinely. Try to stuff any such system down some nation's throat, and it will fail, doubly so if the nation doing the stuffing has ulterior motives.

Jester

[Jester]

"The pilots don't like it at all. They don't want to blow up things, nor people, who they did not intend to hit."

Then why did they work as hard as they did to get a job which clearly entails exactly that?

Jester

[jahcs]

"The pilots don't like it at all. They don't want to blow up things, nor people, who they did not intend to hit."

Then why did they work as hard as they did to get a job which clearly entails exactly that?

Jester
[right][snapback]66095[/snapback][/right]

"They don't want to blow up things... they don't intend to hit." Check your target before releasing sarcasm. If they didn't care about the right target or collateral damage then instead of a smart bomb we would be seeing footage of Arclight missions on the nightly news.

Our soldiers and government employees took a job that entails doing their best to hit what they are shooting at. They aren't perfect, but they try damn hard. Our military is one of the best equipped and most well trained in the world. They do get it right most of the time.

[Jester]

"They don't want to blow up things... they don't intend to hit."  Check your target before releasing sarcasm.  If they didn't care about the right target or collateral damage then instead of a smart bomb we would be seeing footage of Arclight missions on the nightly news.

Our soldiers and government employees took a job that entails doing their best to hit what they are shooting at.  They aren't perfect, but they try damn hard.  Our military is one of the best equipped and most well trained in the world.  They do get it right most of the time.
[right][snapback]66100[/snapback][/right]

Sure. But they *are* going to blow up things they don't intend to hit. And not in trivial quantities, either. So, either they don't know that, which is inconceivable, or they still prefer the job to the alternatives. I think I'd have to be pretty damn motivated before I picked a job where, even if correctly performed, there was going to be a trail of ruined innocent lives in my wake. I wonder what provides that motivation for other people.

Jester

[jahcs]

We are highly motivated, and the loss of innocent life does bother us. That's why we train so damn hard to do our jobs.

Some of our soldiers don't prefer the occupation to the alternatives they could have in the civilian sector. But nearly all of us prefer doing the job instead of not trying at all and the consequences that could bring.

I hope I'm staying close enough to the topic of colateral damage and the loss of innocent life without entering the Realm of Rant or being drawn into an argument instead of a conversation about an issue we disagree on.

[Chaerophon]

New American Century

Check out the heavy hitters signing the Statement of Principles!  Rumsfeld!  Cheney!  Bush the Jeb!  Wolfowitz (who wrote this crap back in 41's era and was subsequently hush-hushed) and .... Quayle?

Every court needs its jester, I suppose.  :wacko:
[right][snapback]66076[/snapback][/right]

Any 'pledge' that cites Francis Fukuyama as a key supporter is, simply put, a naive joke. The blind leading the blind (or stupid).

[Occhidiangela]

"The pilots don't like it at all. They don't want to blow up things, nor people, who they did not intend to hit."

Then why did they work as hard as they did to get a job which clearly entails exactly that?

Jester
[right][snapback]66095[/snapback][/right]

Why do birds fly?

Not everyone looks through the world through your lens, nor mine. Each person a way of seeing how evil needs to be addressed. Sometimes, it is through rhetoric; sometimes through lending a helping hand; sometimes by laying down a whipping. We need folks good at each case.

As to risk management, "will (fill in bad thing hee) happen on my mission" you have to believe that in each mission you undertake, you will get it right. More often than not you will. When things go wrong, which the law against zero defects demands will eventually happen, you try to make sure "it" doesn't happen again.

But you don't hide in a corner, paralyzed with fear, because something might go wrong today. You go forth and do your darnedest to get it right.

Unless you are a sheep.

Sheep are neither governed nor led: they are owned, ruled, sheared, and slaughtered.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

The aircraft.  In case a nuclear war starts, we'll have radiation proof planes ready to at a moments notice. :P
[right][snapback]66087[/snapback][/right]

From what I have learned about the acquisition process, nothing, not even MRE's, are ready at a moment's notice. :blink:

Radiation proof plane? At least 20 years after someone "proves" the requirement . . . :P

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Sure. But they *are* going to blow up things they don't intend to hit. And not in trivial quantities, either. So, either they don't know that, which is inconceivable, or they still prefer the job to the alternatives. I think I'd have to be pretty damn motivated before I picked a job where, even if correctly performed, there was going to be a trail of ruined innocent lives in my wake. I wonder what provides that motivation for other people.

Jester
[right][snapback]66102[/snapback][/right]

What has changed in modern times is lethality. An errant bomb in Vietnam era might miss or kill a half a dozen friendlies or bystanders, but with some of today's weapons a misplaced bomb run might kill hundreds.

[eppie]

What has changed in modern times is lethality.  An errant bomb in Vietnam era might miss or kill a half a dozen friendlies or bystanders, but with some of today's weapons a misplaced bomb run might kill hundreds.
[right][snapback]66187[/snapback][/right]

Hmmmm go back a bit further. In WW1 errant bombs killed thousands of soldiers.

The city where I live in now was bombed in WW2 (the allied forces thought it was a german city) etc.

I think the killing of innocent people by accident is getting less and less. The bombs they use now are often not much heavier than they used to be, most of the (smart) bomb is propulsion and electronics.

In that sense the allied troops (with modern armies) are contradicting themselves. First they say that with there modern weaponry there are less and less civilian victims, but we keep hearing about wrong bombings.

For outsiders it is very hard to find out the truth. Take the bombing of the chinese ambassy (kosovo wasn't it). What tells me it wasn't bombed on purpose?

[kandrathe]

Hmmmm go back a bit further. In WW1 errant bombs killed thousands of soldiers.

The city where I live in now was bombed in WW2 (the allied forces thought it was a german city) etc.

I think the killing of innocent people by accident is getting less and less. The bombs they use now are often not much heavier than they used to be, most of the (smart) bomb is propulsion and electronics.

In that sense the allied troops (with modern armies) are contradicting themselves. First they say that with there modern weaponry there are less and less civilian victims, but we keep hearing about wrong bombings.

For outsiders it is very hard to find out the truth. Take the bombing of the chinese ambassy (kosovo wasn't it). What tells me it wasn't bombed on purpose?
[right][snapback]66193[/snapback][/right]

Accuracy has certainly improved, utilizing GPS, and laser designators, but so have the explosives (MOAB, and variations of compact high explosive) and means of delivery (eg. cluster munitions, hypobaric, thermal). Tactical intelligence in selecting and bringing in the aircraft is also better.

In WWI, Gotha bombers carried 12-14 fifty kilogram bombs, for an entire bomb load of about 1000 pounds.

From Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI;

In all, there were 57 airship raids(564 killed and 1,370 wounded), and 27 aircraft raids (835 killed and 1,990 wounded) on Great Britain in the First World War. A total of 9,000 bombs (280 tons)was dropped.

I'm thinking of the errant bomb that is mistakenly dropped in the wrong place. In WWI, and WWII losses from friendly fire were very common, and sometimes a tactic of warfare. Think of how the infantry used to follow in an artillery barrage, taking between 5% and 20% self inflicted casualties due to overrunning it, or shorts depending on the era and army.

I think our dilema today is multi-facted; we have come to expect very little collateral damage, we use much bigger ordinance and bunker busters (designed to take out a hardened missile silo, not a terrorist house in Falluja), we sometimes choose targets based on faulty, incomplete, or old intelligence, and when a mistake is made every news outlet in the world covers it on page one.

[Occhidiangela]

Hmmmm go back a bit further. In WW1 errant bombs killed thousands of soldiers.

The city where I live in now was bombed in WW2 (the allied forces thought it was a german city) etc.

I think the killing of innocent people by accident is getting less and less. The bombs they use now are often not much heavier than they used to be, most of the (smart) bomb is propulsion and electronics.

In that sense the allied troops (with modern armies) are contradicting themselves. First they say that with there modern weaponry there are less and less civilian victims, but we keep hearing about wrong bombings.

For outsiders it is very hard to find out the truth. Take the bombing of the chinese ambassy (kosovo wasn't it). What tells me it wasn't bombed on purpose?
[right][snapback]66193[/snapback][/right]

When you look through a soda straw, you see the world differently than another who does not. "Wrong bombs" in an urban environment are a significantly different problem than wrong bombs in a suburban or rural environment. So, some folks hihde behind the skirts of their women, and use their best weapon, the soda straw view of the news camera, in a war. War is waged by far more than weapons.

The Chinese Embassy: an interesting series of errors, or a deliberate attack? I'd suggest the former. Remember, anything humans can do, they can screw up. "Nothing is idiot proof." Check out some of the more nonsensical warning labels on products, and consider what series of events required a bottle of fuel injector cleaner to hold the warning "do not drink this!"

You raised an interesting problem: expectations. The 1991 Iraq War was presented to the American people, and the world via CNN et al, with a certain spin: precision guided munitions, "surgical strikes," Tomahawk missiles, etc. The Silver Bullet hounds were salivating all over the place. That led to a series of expectations, driven by a partially told story, of "zero defects attacks."

There is no such thing. And remember, no matter where you are in the world, when your country is in a civil war, it sucks to be you. I see what is going on in Iraq right now as a civil war, one in which the US led coalition has apparently taken sides, but most folks on the ground cannot understand which side. :P

Occhi

[Jester]

"But you don't hide in a corner, paralyzed with fear, because something might go wrong today. You go forth and do your darnedest to get it right. "

For a fireman, I'm sure that makes a lot of sense. Sure, you get things wrong, and people might die. That's why you try your best, you train hard, you lobby for the best equipment. The people were doomed anyway if you didn't try. You are necessary.

But a pilot is not a fireman. Their job is to kill people, and to do so in a way that is known to kill lots of people you didn't intend to, even given extreme skill and the most sophisticated weaponry.

What I'm wondering is how people get this conviction that what they're doing is "right", not only in the sense that it is towards some nebulously moral objective, but is worth the known problems of killing and maiming people who didn't have very much at all to do with the war. I can understand how one might think fighting on the ground is worthwhile, where you're unlikely to kill too many things that you didn't intend to. But air warfare is much worse for civilian casualties. That's even discounting terror bombing, which I wonder how anyone at all manages.

Jester

[Jester]

"So, some folks hihde behind the skirts of their women, and use their best weapon, the soda straw view of the news camera, in a war. War is waged by far more than weapons."

Others prefer shock and awe. The two go really well together, come to think of it.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

"

But a pilot is not a fireman. Their job is to kill people, and to do so in a way that is known to kill lots of people you didn't intend to, even given extreme skill and the most sophisticated weaponry.

What I'm wondering is how people get this conviction that what they're doing is "right", not only in the sense that it is towards some nebulously moral objective, but is worth the known problems of killing and maiming people who didn't have very much at all to do with the war. I can understand how one might think fighting on the ground is worthwhile, where you're unlikely to kill too many things that you didn't intend to. But air warfare is much worse for civilian casualties. That's even discounting terror bombing, which I wonder how anyone at all manages.

Jester
[right][snapback]66396[/snapback][/right]

Jester:

To answer two posts in one.

Shock and Awe. Bah. A silly name for a standard method of attacking targets from the air. Had unguided munitions been used, much of Bagdad would be rubble. Glad it isn't. That would have been a real tragedy.

In a sick irony, car bombers in the past year and a half have spread the rubble plantations just fine on their own: the death of a thousand cuts. I found interesting the protrayal of that "Shock and Awe" episode via the media. A lot of long range shots of big explosions. Peter Arnett's use of the term "Mushroom Clouds." An explicit slice of a picture was being painted, with a purpose. And on the Official Rhetoric side, it appeared to many that a lot of smack was being talked. Wasted rhetoric.

No matter how it was said, quite a few things went "boom." Quite a few people died. Quite a few SAM's fired at Coalition aircraft fell back to earth, and landed in random places, with occasionally lethal effects. Gee, it is and was a war. War kills things. The war is not over. Someone has chosen to carry it forward, for their own ends, into a civil war. So, we fight them, rather than Saddam's Army. Jester, I think you and I will agree that it ain't pretty. It is ugly. (PS: Are you familiar with the writings of Chris Hedges? Very interesting commentary on war, from an on the ground correspondent's perspective. He got sick of it.)

What you might find remarkable is how little of Baghdad suffered any bomb damage during that air operation. Bagdad is a pretty big city. A few areas, and a bunch of Saddam's big bloody palaces (most of which are separated from built up areas by a park or other geogrpaphic buffer) took considerable damage. Due to weapons fusing, most of the bombs blew Up and not Out. That localized damage to some extent, but flying concrete and glass are still going to hit thngs and hurt people. The laws of Physics shall not be ignored. Given the tonnage that was dropped, I am still struck by how little of Bagdad suffered bomb damage.

As to your other points . . .

Point 1. Correct, a pilot is not a fireman, not sure why you offered that appleas and oranges. The primary purpose of an attack pilot, say in a CF-18, is to put weapons on targets in combat. He has many other tasks, however, to include scouting, reconaissance, armed reconaissance, etc. The fact that air attack is still being used as a method when "the big battlefield war" phase has ended is worthy of consideration. Reality? Urban warfare is ugly. Urban guerilla warfare is ugly. (Ask anyone who lives in Spain, after the years of ETA playing their games.) Part of what I saw going on in Falluljah, before the operation recently that "swept most of the foreign fighters from that city (really?) was a strange form of seige warfare imbedded in "normal life." One without the nicely drawn lines of Vauban's time.

Point 2. You appear to dwell on failure, and ignore that far more often than not, that pilot does indeed get it right. You also apear not to understand that on a vast majority of missions, particularly since May 2003, nothing falls from the sky. Nothing. On an enormous number of missions, far greater than on missions where bombs drop, a "low pass" or "Show of force" or "show of presence" defuses a tense situation on the ground, or stops a firefight. I saw this every day when I was over there. I am not surprised you do not see it, it is not often reported in the open press. Pilots do all of those missions as well.

More simply, to answer your question: Why do pilots do what they do? So that fewer people on their side die in combat. Simple. That is a positive purpose.

Being a victim of partial information can lead to a failure in reasoning: Your position seems to be that "If one error is made on a mission here and there, all or most of them must make lethal errors." That is nonsense. Risks of error are weighed on every attack decision, sometimes causing the bombs to stay on the rails. I saw that every week: the term of art is "Weapons Tight." But of course, the layman won't see that. It is not reported.

The other problem I have with your train of thought is: how far are you going to take your apparent lack of tolerance for error? "If it can't be done perfectly, don't do it at all." That is where your commentary appears to be headed. No one can afford that weapon, that plane, that sensor suite, that allows perefection. It has not been built yet, I don't care what the air craft and weapons manufacturers claim. No weapon has a Pk/Phit of 1.0. No weapons system has a success probability of 1.0.

I will guess, from your previous professions of pacifism, that you ask: why use force at all? I will point out to you that most of the warriors ask the same thing . . . up until the day the whistle blows and the shooting starts. Once the shooting stops, the warrior fulfills his role. That is why he, or she, is there.

Point 3. What's with the red herring in re terror bombing? Not a method currently in use, at least, not by our people. Of course, to anyone who is on the ground, friend or foe, when a bomb drops nearby with no warning, it is frightening as hell. Lethal too.

A few of your countrymen certainly knew that shock, a few nanoseconds before they got hit by "friendly fire" a few years back in AFghanistan. (Murphy's Law of Combat: Friendly Fire . . . isn't.)

Occhi

[jahcs]

Thumbs up, Occhi