If you are really trying to educate yourself why did you continually go back to your pet theory of our presence is the problem. With out going back and re listening I count 4 tries to push this theme and a best got a bunch of have hearted qualified agreement. Even after Mr Rolston admitted that it can be a problem, in certain places and under certain conditions, it doesn't seem to be the issue from Mr Rolston perspective. Did you come to learn or merely hope to confirm your already held position?

Quoting piscivorous: If you are really trying to educate yourself why did you continually go back to your pet theory of our presence is the problem. With out going back and re listening I count 4 tries to push this theme and a best got a bunch of have hearted qualified agreement. Even after Mr Rolston admitted that it can be a problem, in certain places and under certain conditions, it doesn't seem to be the issue from Mr Rolston perspective.

Did you come to learn or merely hope to confirm your already held position?

I didn't get the impression that Bob was attempting to fortify an already-held position. As I saw it, he was simply seeking clarification of what Capt. Rolston was saying.

No one is going to learn anything from this. It stank. Is this guy brain-dead? Why didn't Bob press him on the political supposition behind this "Afghan army?" Is this an army paid entirely by a presumed central govt. in Kabul? No one who opposes the increase in American troops is going to be encouraged in the slightest by this guy, and I suspect that the reverse is also true, that no one who supports the increase in troop strength will be discouraged. Please, no more interviews with Canadian military technocrats. Wow, we found a Canadian who thinks all is not lost. So what? And what does he know about the Taliban? Nothing. Lowest possible rating. Complete waste of time. You know, it's not enough to have been there. I would not have thought it possible that I could sit through this and learn, essentially, nothing, but it happened. This guy's whole profession is not to have opinions. In the long and storied history of boring Canadians, we have found someone who is beyond boring, he is hyper-boring, hyper-soporific, hyper-Canadian. I hated it. One generality after another, worst pabulum ever. Did I say that I hated it?

Bruce Rolston mentioned that the 1994 Taliban were a bunch of Pakistan backed "boys" who "got lucky" but that the current Taliban forces are mostly indigenous; and furthermore that Pakistani Pashtuns are considered unwelcome "foreigners" almost as much as Westerners. Presumably Al Qaeda members from Pakistan -- all 200 of them by some reports! -- would also be considered unwelcome outsiders. Given these circumstances, would a future Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, assuming it happened, really want to risk a repeat of 9/11 by hosting Al Qaeda? It doesn't sound likely. I would also like to hear more about the problem of regional and local "war lords." I remember reading that in the 1990's these war lords were fighting each other for sexual rights over local 12 year-old boys, which unsurprisingly alienated local populations. This is what gave the original Taliban their opening. Aren't there ways short of Western occupation -- or whatever it is we are doing with our 100,000 troops -- to prevent such a scenario from unfolding again? It sounds like we are trying to do the impossible to prevent the improbable -- and paying a high price in the process.

Always good to hear reports from people who have been there. Thanks to Bruce, and thanks to Bob for the get and the good interview.

Kind of interesting, but doesn't really address the big questions -- just more military maneuvering and machinating, what Obama calls "getting into the weeds." Speaking of which, I found Obama's Thanksgiving 09 "weeds" comment quite interesting: “I’ve got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this.” Was the President washing his hands of Afghanistan and leaving it all to the brilliant boys from West Point? Or was he waking up to the realization that the generals were war-gaming his political integrity to death? In any case, there's a new Obama meme infecting the liberal media, as illustrated in this Politico piece today: Is the country's foreign policy now so dictated by generals that we've become a militaristic dictatorship-lite (generals decide war policy and flush the $$$ for other priorities down the Pentagon toilet), or does the Politico article just reflect the Obama press corps intellectuals making excuses for their hero?

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this

Quoting Wonderment: Kind of interesting, but doesn't really address the big questions -- just more military maneuvering and machinating, what Obama calls "getting into the weeds."

That was more than fine with me. You need the perspective of someone who has been on the ground, trying to implement the "big picture," to get some insights into what may and may not be worth pursuing.

Quoting Wonderment: Speaking of which, I found Obama's Thanksgiving 09 "weeds" comment quite interesting:

“I’ve got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this.”

Was the President washing his hands of Afghanistan and leaving it all to the brilliant boys from West Point? Or was he waking up to the realization that the generals were war-gaming his political integrity to death?

Or was he delegating, the way a chief executive should?

Quoting Wonderment: In any case, there's a new Obama meme infecting the liberal media, as illustrated in this Politico piece today: Is the country's foreign policy now so dictated by generals that we've become a militaristic dictatorship-lite (generals decide war policy and flush the $$$ for other priorities down the Pentagon toilet), or does the Politico

Quoting piscivorous: If you are really trying to educate yourself why did you continually go back to your pet theory of our presence is the problem. With out going back and re listening I count 4 tries to push this theme and a best got a bunch of have hearted qualified agreement.

But here is Bruce agreeing with Bob's concern.

Of course, we can count on the rePubOLITICO to act like this is a "worrisome sign" only now that there's a Democratic president.

As you know, I'm trying to look at this in a non[bi]-partisan way. I would be delighted if more Republican-leaning publications turned pro-peace. I didn't go through the whole hour with Bruce Rolston (By the way, could you imagine a US army officer -- as opposed to Canadian -- who would be allowed to appear on BH?). Did they comment on the following (invasion of Pakistan) part of the story, as reported by the NYT?

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders, warning that if it does not act more aggressively the United States will use considerably more force on the Pakistani side of the border to shut down Taliban attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said.

The blunt message was delivered in a tense encounter in Pakistan last month, before President Obama announced his new war strategy, when Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, and John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, met with the heads of Pakistan’s

In any case, there's a new Obama meme infecting the liberal media, as illustrated in this Politico piece today: Is the country's foreign policy now so dictated by generals that we've become a militaristic dictatorship-lite (generals decide war policy and flush the $$$ for other priorities down the Pentagon toilet), or does the Politico article just reflect the Obama press corps intellectuals making excuses for their hero?

That's an invitation for Andrew Bacevich if i ever heard one! I'm shocked any citizen would have the president delegate to the generals. Was it a mistake not to follow MacArthur's "advice" in 1950? Should we trust an officer who white-washed the Tillman episode? There is a retred general at the US embassy in Kabul, after all, for those who need a general to make it all right! Let's remember, it was the ISI and Pakistan's generals who probably did more harm to US interests in the late 80s by encouraging both al-Qaeda and the Taliban on the CIA's long leash, and by frustrating attempts to get OBL at Tora Bora. How many times do we need to get burned?

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders.... For their part the Pakistanis interpreted the message as a fairly bald warning that unless Pakistan moved quickly to act against two Taliban groups they have so far refused to attack, the United States was prepared to take unilateral action to expand Predator drone attacks beyond the tribal areas and, if needed, to resume raids by Special Operations forces into the country against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. ... Tariq Ali on the Pakistani Army - at 31:00 mark

I believe I acknowledged that as part of the comment, which you seem to have somehow failed to notice was "..Even after Mr Rolston admitted that it can be a problem, in certain places and under certain conditions.." Are you preferential to Bing or Maraschino.

Tariq Ali recounts the great public outpouring of sympathy when the Iranian woman was killed in the demonstration, with Obama in the fore. On that same day, a US drone attack killed 60 people in Pakistan, mostly women and children.

Tariq Ali recounts the great public outpouring of sympathy when the Iranian woman was killed in the demonstration, with Obama in the fore. On that same day, a US drone attack killed 60 people in Pakistan, mostly women and children.

Please refrain from invidious comparisons. When we kill 60 people, it's not really killing and not really people. They are.... a) Collateral damage
b) Harboring terrorists
c) Al Qaeda sympathizers and trainees
d) Taliban
e) Accidents
f) Unfortunate incidents
g) Unavoidable
h) All of the above

Should we trust an officer who white-washed the Tillman episode?

I thought the military had high standards for integrity as well as consequences for misbehavior. Were there ever any consequences (besides promotion, I mean) for McCrystal's lies? Also, should we expect changes in war policy from a government that keeps fossils from the Bush I and Bush II administrations in charge of the Pentagon?

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates arrived in this war-torn country Tuesday morning on an unannounced visit, prepared to offer U.S. troops a message from Washington after President Obama's decision to boost troop levels significantly: "We are in this thing to win." ....

"We are not going to repeat the experience of 1989," Gates said. As U.S. troops begin to depart in favor of trained Afghan forces, developmental and economic aid will continue to flow, he stressed. "We intend to be their partner for a long time to come," Gates said.

Gates's remark that the United States is in the battle in Afghanistan "to win" marked an unusual description of the mission here by an administration official.

Obama has shied away from such expressive language, either in his speech last week announcing the decision to

I dunno that we should expect Bruce Rolston's narrative to fit easily in the framework of journalistic coverage of Afghanistan. The aims of journalists and the manner in which they construct their stories are just different from the aims of the officers trying to make things happen in Afghanistan. Very few journalists do a very good job of describing the military situation-even guys like Eli Lake and Spencer Ackerman, who consider military analysis to be a central part of their jobs. Which isn't to say that the journalism should be ignored, just that Rolston's point of view isn't going to necessarily fold into whatever we've read in the news about the conflict in Afghanistan.

Quoting Wonderment: Please refrain from invidious comparisons. When we kill 60 people, it's not really killing and not really people. They are....

a) Collateral damage
b) Harboring terrorists
c) Al Qaeda sympathizers and trainees
d) Taliban
e) Accidents
f) Unfortunate incidents
g) Unavoidable
h) All of the above

It's still killing of course. The difference can be summed up in a single word. Intent. That concept defines the difference between killing and murder. And while I realize some people think there is no difference between those two things, some of us, like myself hold to latter to be far worse, ethically.
It is the difference between the acts of this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Manuel_Alvarez and this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan Similar death totals based on the actions of each man, and to some, that is all that matters. Each mans actions would therefore be equally malevolent. Know that those of us with functional ethics cannot follow you there. We have the capacity to see the latter persons actions as the worse act. Not in number of lives lost, but in the intent. An act of recklessness vs an act of evil. I really do wish you had some capacity to acknowledge the difference in the nature of the two types of acts. With full acknowledgement that reckless acts in and of

Quoting testostyrannical: I dunno that we should expect Bruce Rolston's narrative to fit easily in the framework of journalistic coverage of Afghanistan. The aims of journalists and the manner in which they construct their stories are just different from the aims of the officers trying to make things happen in Afghanistan. Very few journalists do a very good job of describing the military situation-even guys like Eli Lake and Spencer Ackerman, who consider military analysis to be a central part of their jobs. Which isn't to say that the journalism should be ignored, just that Rolston's point of view isn't going to necessarily fold into whatever we've read in the news about the conflict in Afghanistan.

Yes, I wish we could hear more first hand accounts and observations from people who were part of the efforts. Bob did a decent job here, he tried to play the opposite side a bit and had someone on who seems to have a greater willingness to keep forces in Afghanistan longer than he would for the second time now.

Quoting JonIrenicus: It's still killing of course. The difference can be summed up in a single word.

Intent.

That concept defines the difference between killing and murder. And while I realize some people think there is no difference between those two things, some of us, like myself hold to latter to be far worse, ethically. [...]

I agree, to some degree, but don't you think that at some point, carrying out yet another instance of some action where it is known that there is a high probability of killing those not targeted begins to carry its own ethical freight? I'm not (necessarily) saying that, for example, Predator attacks are therefore inherently evil or, more generally, that we shouldn't be using lethal force against violent extremists. (I do remain highly skeptical of both, but that's a separate issue.) But I am saying that at some point, you can't just dismiss the realities of what usually happens when, say, we shoot a missile filled with high explosive into some mountain village. We still have blood on our hands. In fact, that the Pentagon's spin doctors have developed so many euphemisms for the unintended but predictable deaths seems to me to compound the culpability, and the more

I will ignore the three times in your one post in which you dismissed me as a moral imbecile. Moving along....

It's still killing of course. The difference can be summed up in a single word.
Intent.

Of course, everyone knows that homicide law has evolved everywhere to (rightly) consider what we call in the USA "degrees" of murder, premeditated killing (intent) being the most heinous and the most severely punished, "manslaughter" being the least severely punished, and true (reasonably executed) self-defense not punished at all. It gets a lot more complicated in war, since everyone claims self-defense or some related justification (of dubious credibility). While I personally tend to claim that all war is immoral, you needn't accompany me there to judge as murder other kinds of war death. Some of the conditions you might adduce for viewing war and acts of war as immoral are as follows: illegal undeclared (and dictatorial) wars, wars of aggression, acts of excessive force, civilian death, use of certain illegal weapons, wanton disregard for human life, collective punishment, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, suppression of civil/human rights during war, assassination, and wars of "choice" vs. wars of "necessity." Some scholars who accept "just war" theories in principle are beginning to see that in

No, we kill them and mutilate them... definitely we do. As long as the rules of engagement are followed it is all justifiable homicide and justifiable gross bodily harm.

Were not on a significantly higher moral ground than the Taliban, al Qaeda, or the average Afghani? Really? Do they even have rules of engagement? Are they fighting under the Geneva Convention, at all? Yes, we are killing people and have blood on our hands... cause we are fighting a War there!!! Hello!!!

Quoting Lyle: Were not on a significantly higher moral ground than the Taliban, al Qaeda, or the average Afghani? Really?

We are certainly not on a significantly higher moral ground than the average Afghan. (And please stop calling them "Afghanis" -- it's the equivalent of calling citizens of the US "dollars.") We are on a higher moral ground than al Qaeda, in my estimation. However, that doesn't address the issue at hand, which is in our quest to kill members of aQ, how much moral culpability do we have for all of the unintended killing that we do?

Quoting Lyle: Do they even have rules of engagement? Are they fighting under the Geneva Convention, at all?

Are we? Seems to me you're holding them to a higher standard than you demand of our own military and intelligence services.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, we are killing people and have blood on our hands... cause we are fighting a War there!!! Hello!!!

For the record, I am unconvinced that we're fighting a "war" in Afghanistan in any legal sense, but even leaving that aside, that does not change our obligation to avoid killing and maiming innocents.

Yes, of course we follow the Geneva Convention. That's what our rules of engagement are all about. Afghans or Afghanis, who cares... it means the people of Afghanistan. You know that don't you? And yes we exist on a higher moral plain than the average Afghan. They marry children to octogenarians for Allah's sake!!! They stone women to death for all kinds of reasons. Do you not actually know what life is like for a lot of people over there? ... and how precious. You're not convinced we're legally fighting a war in Afghanistan. No, it's not war when you deploy a few divisions worth of troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda. Its some great big super duper police action. Is President Obama and every member of the U.S. Armed Forces serving there a war criminal then? Should Obama and his generals be tried for war crimes? Cause if ain't a war and we aren't following our rules of engagement, Obama and everyone else in the U.S. military is a fucking criminal. Is that what you think! Is that what you think! We're killing and mutilating people cause we're at War... get the fuck

Quoting Lyle: Yes, we are killing people and have blood on our hands... cause we are fighting a War there!!! Hello!!!

Quoting Lyle: We're killing and mutilating people cause we're at War... get the fuck over it!

I'm fascinated by your choice of capitalization.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, of course we follow the Geneva Convention.

No; we don't. You can't explain at length why you're not following a rule and then claim to be following it.

Quoting Lyle: Should Obama and his generals be tried for war crimes? Cause if ain't a war and we aren't following our rules of engagement, Obama and everyone else in the U.S. military is a fucking criminal. Is that what you think! Is that what you think!

First, here's a hankie. Second, yes; it's what I think. They should all be tried for war crimes. No Afghan ever attacked an American on U.S. soil. The U.S. military has egregiously violated the Geneva Conventions. Sounds good to me.

I'm interested in everything this evidently fine officer has to say about the efforts we need to make to make the policy a success. But what was up with this: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/243...6:07&out=16:15 ?

Ah, that would have something to do with his being Canadian. Apologies.

Quoting Lyle: No, we kill them and mutilate them... definitely we do. As long as the rules of engagement are followed it is all justifiable homicide and justifiable gross bodily harm.

Lyle, the international conventions which you above cited to defend America's moral high ground do not allow you to hold as justifiable anything which fits America's rules of engagement. Rather, those conventions mandate that our rules of engagement be altered to eliminate particular forms of killing or bodily harm. And re: Afghans. Of course it matters if you call them by the correct name. We no longer condone, for example, usage of words like "Spic" even though obviously everyone knows what the terms mean. That you don't think it matters here betrays some belief that the Afghans are culturally inferior, and therefore that a practice we largely eschew with respect to population groups inside the US, is perfectly fine when referencing them. Both your stance re "it's an okay war practice because the US army wants it to be" and "who cares what Afghans want to be called" smack of prejudice and racism.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm fascinated by your choice of capitalization.

That's how they do it in the original German. ‘Original German’ concept created and perfected by Molly Ivins. I am aware of all pre-Internet traditions.™

Quoting claymisher: That's how they do it in the original German.

‘Original German’ concept created and perfected by Molly Ivins. I am aware of all pre-Internet traditions.™

ROFL!

So U.S. soldiers don't have rule of engagements and aren't following them? You mean they are out right murdering people, i.e., every time they drop a bomb on a group of Taliban they are murdering them? Haha. How is the U.S. violating the Geneva Conventions by killing people it is at War with? You think President Obama and every political leader of every NATO country in Afghanistan should be tried for war crimes? President Obama should be thrown in jail... really? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Afghanis is akin to "spic". Really? Where is the pejorative in it Preppy? Oh my God, I called them Afghanis! Oh my God I don't pronounce Qatar correctly!!! Oh my God I can't tell the difference between someone from Guatemala and El Salvador!!! Oh my fucking God!!! Shoot me!!! Let's having a fucking national conference about it!!! Ahhhhhh!!!!!! Where do I even argue this nonsense, "it's an okay war practice because the US army wants it to be"? Our rules of engagement are guided by the Geneva Convention the United States is a party to. Which means our rules of engagement fall under international law. Isn't that right? Perhaps some people don't want it to fall under what they think international law should be, but that's not how the law works is it Preppy? We go by what the law is, and our rules of engagement are entirely lawful under current international law. You disagree?

Quoting Lyle: Afghanis is akin to "spic". Really? Where is the pejorative in it Preppy? Oh my God, I called them Afghanis! Oh my God I don't pronounce Qatar correctly!!! Oh my God I can't tell the difference between someone from Guatemala and El Salvador!!! Oh my fucking God!!! Shoot me!!! Let's having a fucking national conference about it!!! Ahhhhhh!!!!!!

Please stop using alarmist language Lyle. We've already discussed on these boards how I feel about that. Reason it's perjorative is that you use because you can't be bothered to call them by their real names, or to pronounce a country's name correctly or whatever. You dismiss it as an insignificant consideration. This suggests, not only to me, but to them, that they are unimportant while those cultures whose names you CAN pronounce are important. And it's that veneer of cultural or ethnic superiority that I call racist.

Quoting Lyle: Our rules of engagement are guided by the Geneva Convention the United States is a party to. Which means our rules of engagement fall under international law. Isn't that right? Perhaps some people don't want it to fall under what they think international law should be, but that's not how the law works is it

Quoting ledocs: No one is going to learn anything from this. It stank. Is this guy brain-dead?

Wow. I had the complete opposite reaction! Did you even listen to what he was saying? I thought it was a really informative interview. From the make-up of the Afghan Army and police - the idea that one ethnic group would police a region better than another because they are outsiders. To his experiences about the issues with afghan army taking the lead. It was fascinating. Especially after I just listened to a bunch of blogging heads podcasts in a row about Afghanistan, and they all focused on the big picture -troop numbers, the politics etc. If you want more of that, listen to about the 5 other blogging heads about that. And Bob asked him some very good questions. The only one he didn't answer was the question about exact troop numbers. He pivioted the question to an area he knew best, the tactics. This was the view from the ground, from working with Afghans. Very interesting! I honestly learned a lot. I would like to hear more from him frankly.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Please stop using alarmist language Lyle. We've already discussed on these boards how I feel about that.

Good lord, Lyle is worse when he's taken seriously than when he's being mocked. He's really too old for that kid of behavior now.

I thought it was a really informative interview. From the make-up of the Afghan Army and police - the idea that one ethnic group would police a region better than another because they are outsiders. To his experiences about the issues with afghan army taking the lead. It was fascinating. Especially after I just listened to a bunch of blogging heads podcasts in a row about Afghanistan, and they all focused on the big picture -troop numbers, the politics etc. If you want more of that, listen to about the 5 other blogging heads about that. And Bob asked him some very good questions. The only one he didn't answer was the question about exact troop numbers. He pivioted the question to an area he knew best, the tactics. This was the view from the ground, from working with Afghans. Very interesting! I honestly learned a lot. I would like to hear more from him frankly.

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree, to some degree, but don't you think that at some point, carrying out yet another instance of some action where it is known that there is a high probability of killing those not targeted begins to carry its own ethical freight?
...

Yes. If things get to some variation of this they have gone too far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce8CgJRkr_I#t=1m30s

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Please stop using alarmist language Lyle. We've already discussed on these boards how I feel about that.

Haha... alarmist language. What alarmist language? What am I'm raising an alarm to? And who cares how you feel about it? What, people are supposed to shush themselves because you're sensitive? Haha. You're a tough girl Preppy, you can take whatever I dish out.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Reason it's perjorative is that you use because you can't be bothered to call them by their real names, or to pronounce a country's name correctly or whatever. You dismiss it as an insignificant consideration. This suggests, not only to me, but to them, that they are unimportant while those cultures whose names you CAN pronounce are important. And it's that veneer of cultural or ethnic superiority that I call racist.

Preppy I didn't write Afghanis to demean the Afghan people. I wrote it out of ignorance; not disrespect. Get it now? I forget to call them Afghans and just add on the i, as in Pakistani. That's what I was guffawing about with kommissar keefe. It was just a mistake.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: What I am saying is it would be possible for us to write up and attempt to implement rules of military engagement that were not

Quoting Lyle: Preppy I didn't write Afghanis to demean the Afghan people. I wrote it out of ignorance; not disrespect. Get it now? I forget to call them Afghans and just add on the i, as in Pakistani. That's what I was guffawing about with kommissar keefe. It was just a mistake.

Everybody makes mistakes. But I've seen you make this one several times on this board, and when it happens a lot, one wonders if you're trying at all to fix it or avoid it in the future. Keefe, I and others are saying that, as a form of respect, you should make the effort to combat the ignorance.

Quoting Lyle: How are our rules of engagement not in line with the protocols America is a party to? Ipso facto, our rules of engagement comport with the Geneva Treaty we are a party to, because the Treaty (or whatever portions) are United States law. If our rules violated the Treaty, they would be violating our own Federal and constitutional law. Are our rules in violation of our laws? Why hasn't Obama doesn't something about our rules of engagement if they don't comport to our treaty law?

I'm simply making the point that our

Glad you made that clear. I hadn't gotten that. I don't really care if you don't like my argumentation though. If it fails to persuade, it fails to persuade. I'm not sure what specific argument it is I was supposed to properly address with more specifics though. Seemed to be that everything said was broadly and generally stated.

Quoting Lyle: Glad you made that clear. I hadn't gotten that.

Yey! I'm glad we've achieved clarity.

Quoting Lyle: I'm not sure what specific argument it is I was supposed to properly address with more specifics though. Seemed to be that everything said was broadly and generally stated.

Here are some specific charges made by others in the above part of the thread. If you actually want to engage in persuasion, (rather than simply declaring your opinion and then saying QED) I'd suggest taking these on directly: --killing of civilians and innocents in attacks on villages rather than on specific military targets (BJ and Wment both cite this)
--the undeclared nature of the war (BJKeefe and Wment both cite this)
--Making war on a nation and its people to retaliate against a non-state organization aQ that happens to be there (BJKeefe, Wment and Ray all say this)
--torture and mistreatment of prisoners (Wment says this)
--use of illegal weapons (Wment says this)
--suppression of civil liberties at home (Wment says this) In any case, these were their arguments not mine, so you and I, I believe, are now done here.

Preppy, Where was I having a conversation about any of these points, other than in an oblique way? Only two of your points are even related to what I've been talking about, the first point about killing civilians and the point about illegal weapons, everything is more broad and has nothing to do with the U.S. military's use of the RoE. I chose to address Wonderment's apparent argument that somehow people don't get that we are killing and mutilating people in Afghanistan. He seems to think (I think he was making this point at least) that if Americans only knew we were killing and mutliating people in Afghanistan, the American people would make Obama stop it all. I chimed in to just say, yes, we know what is going on. I simply brought up the rules of engagment (in response to Ray, I think) to show that our soldiers follow a set of rules before they lawfully kill or mutilate a combatant or noncombatant. Our rules of engagement are guided by the Geneva Convention we're a party too. This is common knowledge. Nothing more needed to be said when the argument being made to me

Lyle, I think Ray, Wment and BJ were saying that some things we do in the process of war do not comport with the Geneva Conventions or UN Charter or other international law. To which you responded simply that our practices comport with the RoE. But as you've just yourself said, the RoE doesn't cover all the categories of activity that international law does, which is why I was saying that (if you assume, as I do, that Ray, Wment and BJ raised such specific concerns) then you would need to take those specific practices and link them to international law to refute their arguments. I agree that Wonderment may not have meant these things were illegal but simply that he dislikes them on a moral basis, but Ray and BJ DO specifically appeal to international law in their posts to say that specific things the US does (method of declaring war, nature of the enemy in these two cases, method of dealing with prisoners, role of civilians) are not in tune with those international laws. Please see the 8-10 posts in this thread directly above the place where I intervened. I'm not going to any cricket while I'm here if