RE: Obama finally apologizes for murder by drone strike... since it was an American
April 24, 2015 at 1:26 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2015 at 1:28 pm by Hatshepsut.)
Used to be heads of state did not apologize, period. To do so shoves it up the rumps of loyal persons who went on a limb to perform the act being apologized for. Besides that it shows weakness to the rest of the world's rulers. Now apologies are a dime a six-pack. Perhaps the old school geopolitical rules no longer apply. But really, do apologies do any good? Obama apologizes today then orders another drone strike tomorrow.
Terrorists in fact do keep their wives and kids and other civilians around them precisely so that casualties will result and they will get propaganda points. Saddam also used human shields in Kuwait. But to allow the "blackmail" says, in effect, that we're willing to guarantee an adversary's safety as long as he's got human shields. So we don't cave in. This was decided back in the '80s in connection with airline hijackings, when Israel and other countries refused to release prisoners though the refusal meant hostages would die. Police, who do negotiate to some extent, nonetheless don't give in to material demands of hostage-takers either.
Terrorist groups love to exploit the soft hearts of Western liberals, often claiming only to represent the interests of oppressed peoples. Here the Islamic radicals are not even going that route. Their only dialogues with Westerners are aimed at radicalizing and recruiting. Why should we of relatively liberal leanings give them more ideological ammo?
Wartime killing is really a bummer. It's also the way it has to be done in this case.
Terrorists in fact do keep their wives and kids and other civilians around them precisely so that casualties will result and they will get propaganda points. Saddam also used human shields in Kuwait. But to allow the "blackmail" says, in effect, that we're willing to guarantee an adversary's safety as long as he's got human shields. So we don't cave in. This was decided back in the '80s in connection with airline hijackings, when Israel and other countries refused to release prisoners though the refusal meant hostages would die. Police, who do negotiate to some extent, nonetheless don't give in to material demands of hostage-takers either.
Terrorist groups love to exploit the soft hearts of Western liberals, often claiming only to represent the interests of oppressed peoples. Here the Islamic radicals are not even going that route. Their only dialogues with Westerners are aimed at radicalizing and recruiting. Why should we of relatively liberal leanings give them more ideological ammo?
Wartime killing is really a bummer. It's also the way it has to be done in this case.
