I agree with you except for the last bit. From the accounts that I have read, I think Bin Laden's chances of surviving the Abbotabad raid was hypothetical at best. He had less than a fraction of a second to make an undeniable gesture of complete surrender in a surprise early morning raid. He could not put down a weapon because he did not have one on him. According to the SEAL who shot him, he was shot twice in the head and then again on his torso as a startled unarmed man waking up to the din. I am not arguing for or against whether he was entitled to a realistic chance, just stating that he didnt and it was by design.

>I am not arguing for or against whether he was entitled to a realistic chance, just stating that he didnt and it was by design.

I know that you aren't passing judgement yourself, but I hope that before anyone else does, they consider the fact that Bin Laden was extremely intelligent and fantastically disciplined. He was the kind of guy who ALWAYS considered every possibility. His system for remaining hidden was absolutely amazing in a world where highly educated people routinely make idiotic mistakes from an OPSEC standpoint. You could argue that air-gapping and delivering USB sticks to remote internet cafés isn't isn't impressive, but the reality is, few people stayed on top of their OPSEC like this guy did. When we did find him, it was because ONE guy on his crew fucked up, one time, after hiding for several years. The only OPSEC mistake that Bin Laden himself made was trusting a guy that had proven himself dependable for many years.

Now, when you have a really brilliant guy like this that already knows that at some point in the future, he will be found by his enemies, you have to consider the possibility that he prepared for it. Thus, when our guys rolled into the complex, they had every reason in the world to believe that either someone in the compound would be wired with explosives, or that the compound itself would be rigged. With that being a real possibility, you don't really have time to give someone a proper chance to surrender.

Of course not. It's not like they are Himmler's or Goebbels that clearly deserved fair trial for starting a war that costed 70 million deaths. We don't give that to people who blow up buildings killing thousands.

At some point we started to be very cynical about our own values, like liberalism for that example. I wish we had taken our own values more to the heart. That's the only way to win these things morally as well.

I agree that we should start taking our values to heart, but its ridiculous to act as if the situations are remotely comparable.

First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back.

Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

> First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back.

It was decided precisely by all Allied Forces: USA, UK, USSR during Yalta Conference in 1945 that some kind of International Tribunal will be established to give the Nazis elite a fair process. Mind you, that was after 70m people dead and horrors of the war. When Aushwitz was months old history, not years old. And they still gave them free process. Why? Because they believed in the values of our civilization. Once the political will like that is there, we are morally victorious as well. We just show to the world that our values are different. What you show by killing innocent 16 year old boy whose only fault was to have a father that was suspected of terrorist acticity is that you yourself don't believe in your values anymore and are cynical about them. And this makes radical muslims case in their countries of origin this much stronger. "You see, they are just like us, they kill innocent children too, they are just hypocrites and cynical people when they talk about the freedom, democracy, due process. There are no such things in the world". They can say it, and you know what? They'll be right! On this level we already lost big time, there is no slightest shadow of a doubt about it in my mind. They are ready to commit suicide in the name of their values. We don't give a crap about our own. How exactly you want to win this war of civilizations in this circumstance? Robespierre was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. Dantone was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. People are not going to die in the name of cynism. Capture Bin Laden and give him free, honest, open free trial. That's what people who actually believe in what they preach would do. If we don't believe in these things anymore, why on Earth you think that we can even remotely win?

> Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

Talibans didn't lost. You ask me, they are winning. Winning like a little fly being still alive wins when you try to kill it with a machine gun. Just by its existence is a proof of your inability to win using the current strategy.

Once again you are ignoring every word of what I wrote. You quoted me, but neither of the responses had much to do with what I said. They were just a reiteration of your previous statements. We weren't talking about the legitimacy of our war strategy, or who is winning in Afghanistan, we were discussing whether or not Bin Laden could have been taken alive given the information about him that we had before the raid, as opposed to 20/20 hindsight.

I don't think you understood. There is something that we know makes sense from a military perspective. I.e. Osama is dangerous and must be dealt with at the spot. I understand what you saying. You didn't understand my response which is: this what you described is and must be a political decision and not military one. It was a political decision to shoot him like a dog at the spot. The excuse you give for that action could have been given regarding Himmler too. It wasn't because at that time it was important to us that even monsters like Himmler - personally responsible for overseeing Holocaust, and actually coming up with the idea itself - were given a chance of defense in a trial. Because that was the decision made by the USA President (among other leaders) at that time at the Yalta Conference. You expected me to come on real terms with your cheap excuse? First, stop your own cynism, and come to the terms with the fact that it was a political decision and then we can talk about the reasons for or against it. Don't give me this BS here as I'm some kind of a naive 6 year old.

If you think that it was politically decided before the operation began that he would be assassinated, that's a different issue entirely. I'm not going to speculate on that because there isn't any way we can know for sure because the people involved aren't going to tell us. You're free to develop a theory, but it will likely never progress beyond that.

I actually agree with you in principle, that a trial would have been preferable. I just don't see how it would have been possible without putting even more lives at risk.

How would you have recommended we go about apprehending him alive, without any casualties? Its clear that the Pakistanis weren't going to help us apprehend him any time soon.

I'm sure that the political decision to capture top Nazis alive, so they can have a free trial, did in fact cost more lives too. But I will not buy for a second the idea that we killed Osama on the spot because of the perceived higher risks for the Navy SEALs. I'm just not buying it.

I think, that if the US made a political decision to give this monster - Osama - a chance for a free trial, as well as other Al Quaida members that would be a step in the right direction as far as winning the war goes. Because you play by your own rules. When opposite is being done, like killing children who are US citizens by Presidential Order just because their parent was a suspected terrorist killed a week earlier - that's like we're Al Quaida now. Because we run this war the same way they do. Like terrorists. The whole point of 9/11 was that we give up our values - freedom, democracy, rights, capitalism - and we did just that. We became exactly what they wanted us to become. Instead of forcing them to play by our rules. Can you imagine bin Laden having a trial? It's the concept from our civilization. That even the worst monster - like a master mind behind the Holocaust - deserves a trial. That's what differentiates our civilization from theirs. Applying this rule to Osama, and him partaking in it, is showing the Arab world the suporiority of our system. Going there and killing him like a dog when he isn't armed, just execution mafia style, is showing them we're not better.

At this level of decision, I believe that the political decisions always overweight military ones. These are the top SEALs, this dude would stand no chance this or another way. Forcing a trial on him and his organization and sentencing to hanging for crimes against the humanity - this would resonate much more and have better outcome as long as winning the war goes. You show them - you put planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocents - and we still give you honest trial. That's what made us great. Believing in freedom. I think Arabs would be totally shocked to see that. They'd be more inclined to accept superiority of our system. And maybe that's why Germans in WW2 didn't fight after some point. They felt like moral losers. Like the evil that was defeated by something good. I think that's what we're lacking in this war. And without it, I doubt we will ever win it.

Yeah, sure, of course. I used OBL because I don't have a list of US special forces assassinations. Big old list of drone ones though... If you like, I could say random foreign family who might have one member who the NSA/CIA think might be some how connected to what ever the US defines are "terror", leaving its own terror actions aside. I dunno, some thing like using a helicopter to gun down people in a van, then gunning down those who come to help the victims. Some thing terrorising like that. Any was, that family cant surrender to a robot killing machine.

My point is about a human to human contact, or the lack there of. Not the specifics of these murders.

And make no mistake, they are murders. I don't use the term lightly. Even if they are authorised by Obama himself, Obama has no right what so ever over non Americans on non American soil, who didn't vote for him and don't live in the US or its territories. Eight follow international law, respect borders and so on, or become the terrorist. Which many would argue happened decades ago, hence the considerable international, hate and suspicion. When Amercia causes Europe to become skeptical and suspicious on a political level, something is wrong. We should be America's default ally and that's beginning to crumble.

Beginning to wonder if Germany might reconsider Snowden's asylum. Would send quite a stark message, and I do think a national thank you for exposing the disgraceful surveillance of an ally's head of stated is well in order.

Oooops, Im long ranting again. I'll stop.

This stuff annoys me. America is supposed to be the good guys. :(

>It is always easier to press a button that look a man in the eyes and shoot him.

I was a Soldier, I've never had to shoot anyone, but I strongly agree with this. I am 95% sure that I could shoot someone if my life depended on it, but I'm 1000% sure that I would have absolutely no problems launching a missile from a drone, while I'm safely located 1000s of miles away. Hell, video-games are one of the few things I've ever been talented at.

Now, just to clarify, I would have problems if it meant that innocent people would get caught in the blast, I was purely focused on the issue of killing someone that meant to do me or any other innocent person harm.

I also agree that its far too easy for a commander/politician to order a drone strike. Often, when the military decides not to take a particular action, its because the commander doesn't want to be responsible for sending a Soldier off to die. With drone strikes, the possibility of this happening is eliminated.

While I feel that our drone program is out of control, I also feel that it could be reigned in and used in a way that's both productive and ethical. We need to place a priority on preserving innocent life, even if it is difficult. If Soldiers are on the ground, in a fire-fight, its arguable that saving their lives may involve the loss of innocent lives. That's a sad reality of war. However, when the aforementioned Soldiers are sitting in an air-conditioned building, there is no ethical dilemma that could possibly justify collateral damage. We need to reign in the drone strike program, and reserve its use for the rare opportunities where we can take out a high value target without killing innocent people.

> Oh yes it does. There have been plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate this. It is always easier to press a button that look a man in the eyes and shoot him.

I'm not so sure. That's probably true all things held equal, but that doesn't mean being a drone operator is any easier than being a ground soldier, psychologically.

My dad was a Marine. He was a combat engineer rather than an infantryman, but he saw his share of combat in three wars and while he absolutely hated killing people, the only way he could live with it was through the knowledge that in a combat situation, it's either you or them. That's emphatically not true for some specialties, like snipers and drone operators, and even seasoned combat veterans struggle with the moral weight of killing people without being in any danger themselves. Being in a firefight is hell but at least it feels like you're just trying to survive. Being a sniper or a drone pilot feels like you're just murdering people who pose no immediate threat to you. It's a tough thing to deal with.

They are similar risk to airforce units (ie: little/no risk to pilot). They are similar cost to airforce units (about 2/3 the cost of an F-15, which is certainly significant but not completely game changing). They perform similar actions to airforce units. I am always surprised that people draw such a big line between the pilot being in the cockpit and out of it.

It's also totally possible Bin Laden did hold up his hands. None of the points you are making really have anything to do with drones.

There was a report earlier about stress and drone pilots, that spurred some coverage, like:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-08/psychologic...

partial quote: "The dazzling clarity of the drone's optics does have a downside. As a B-1 pilot, Dan wouldn't learn details about the effects of his weapons until a post-mission briefing. But flying a drone, he sees the carnage close-up, in real time—the blood and severed body parts, the arrival of emergency responders, the anguish of friends and family. Often he's been watching the people he kills for a long time before pulling the trigger. Drone pilots become familiar with their victims. They see them in the ordinary rhythms of their lives—with their wives and friends, with their children. War by remote control turns out to be intimate and disturbing. Pilots are sometimes shaken."

In other words: similar:yes, same:no.

That's really interesting to me because it claims the opposite of what most people are arguing re: the detachment of drone pilots. Thanks for sharing that article.

If you haven't yet done so, I also recommend reading the article posted here (Confessions of a Drone Warrior) -- I think quite a few of these commenters either commented before reading, didn't read the article very thoroughly, or took the article with quite a few pounds of salt. It references the study/report on PTSD among drone pilots, among other things.

Most killings in war haven't involved looking a man in the eyes and shooting him for a very long time. At least as recently as WWI, most deaths (excluding disease) were caused by artillery shells fired by someone who would usually never see his victim at all. That's even more impersonal than killing someone with a drone.

But in those cases you don't know if you actually killed someone or not, you're just launching a shell off into the void. In this case the person pulls the trigger and then watches the carnage live and in IR/thermal. The action of pulling the trigger and the aftermath are inextricably interconnected. As perhaps they should be, but it's certainly not the same as being a gunner in an artillery battery.