Afghanistan 2011

[sky's the limit]

Well,

After a receiving a fair amount of interest from a number of Avcanadians, and with a revamped Misc. Forum, I've decided to give it it another shot on here this trip. Maybe

Maybe? Mmm, "maybe."

Getting to war zones just isn't as easy as it was a few short years ago.... Meaning, here I sit not 24hrs from departure without my UAE visa, which most of you know is a new requirement stemming from our ongoing dispute with that nation. In order to go, one now requires advance permission/paperwork as opposed to simply getting your passport stamp on arrival free of charge. An agency in Ottawa has been handling this for me, and they assure me that when I wake up tomorrow the required paperwork will be sitting in my Inbox - we shall see! For a paltry $550 none the less...

Further, after a "number of suspect visas" were issued by the Afghan Embassy in Ottawa and the Consulate in Toronto last year, I was informed only last Monday that I needed to come for an interview. "To Toronto?!?!? @$#*." As many of you know, I live on the West Coast, and not in Vancouver, so putting together a trip in short order isn't the most enjoyable thing. So, after 36hrs without sleep, a red-eye out of YVR, crazy Toronto traffic due to a closed Gardner, said "interview" - and I use the term loosely, a slightly weather delayed trip back to YVR with 6mo old twins serenading me the whole way home, and finally missing my scheduled Cat1 medical by 30mins upon my arrival, I have the Afghan Visa. That I was there only a few short months ago seemed to make little difference, but the Consul was a very pleasant fellow who I can now count as an ally in a high place. Almost worth the trip for that alone.

With luck, I'll be on KLM this time tomorrow evening enroute - if not, I'll refrain from posting for a while as I'm certain I'd break all of Joe's rules in one go....!


Anyway, this trip has a pretty interesting agenda, and one I'm very keen to undertake as it'll be the most comprehensive to date with a number of new subject areas, in addition to revisiting a few from past visits.

It's hard to believe this conflict is now in its tenth calendar year - astounding actually. Harder to believe is that we'll probably be going a twenty-five year retrospective before too long. I'll go into detail on that statement in a later email if that visa shows up, but make no mistake, "we" (and I will use "we" in reference to NATO/ISAF, the Coalition of the Willing, if not particularly Enthusiastic...) have no intention of leaving anytime soon. Or at least the Americans don't.

I know there are varying levels of understanding about this issue, with the vast majority having precious little reliable or concrete information with which to form an educated opinion in the first place. I will try in my posts to explain things thoroughly, but if there any questions or gaps in background that require filling, please let me know and I'll do my best to oblige.

As mentioned, this trip will be varied. There will be the usual helicopter related stories as they are a wonderful vehicle to get access to unique perspectives, and to cover a large scope of operations as they are intertwined with a great deal of the operations in this conflict. Additionally, I'm hoping to be on the ground with a couple of specialized units, but they are mission dependent and I'll only know about them the last minute. Either way, I'm very excited about these possibilities.

Similar to my first trip in 2008, and vitally in my opinion, I'm going to be spending some time well outside the military establishment on my own in Kabul where I have several friends and contacts, ranging from the US Embassy (Now the largest in the world edging Bagdad recently), to Afghans working either in Gov't or for various NGO's, and the US Dept of State with their counter-narcotics operations. I probably won't get to see them all, particularly as the logistical karma on this trip has been somewhat negative to this point, but regardless there will be plenty to ask and even more to listen to.

It'll be a full month, and time dependent, I'm also considering a trip North by car, but a considerable amount will need to go right in the first three weeks in order for that to happen. Keep you posted.

I welcome any and all questions, and in the inevitable absences from internet, Expat is a local Afghan resident who can provide a lot valuable insight on many of these issues.

So, in spite of temping fate somewhat with this advance posting, I hope to have an active, well articulated, and open thread to check in on and contribute to for the next month or two. I will nuke any posts that are off topic or combative
in nature. I simply ask that regardless of your base of knowledge or background on this issue, you be open to learning, as that is my mandate with going in the first place - were it not, there would be little point in putting myself through all this crap!

This is a hugely important issue, not only for Canada, but for the rest of the world too, as it is intricately connected to much of what we read about in the news on a nightly basis. The motivations and thinking behind it are deliberate, and to start to understand them is to educate oneself on a great many other subjects as well, given the intimate connections.

With luck, I'll throw up a few photos and something worth reading in a few days. If not, I'll be back online tomorrow night swearing up a storm!

stl

[Expat]

Hello stl,

There are now other ways into the country than through the UAE.

[TheCheez]

The CF and/or USAF aren't helping you get in on this go?

Hope you make it in at any rate, I like reading about your experiences.

[sky's the limit]

Hello stl,

There are now other ways into the country than through the UAE.

Thanks Ex,

I know, as per the PM, Turkey was booked solid at the time we had to finalize tickets, which would have been fine if the Afghan Consulate hadn't pulled the interview.... Oh well, it'll work out one way or another I suppose.

Back to packing.

stl

[Pirate Pilot]

Thanks for the information on your trip. Take care (maybe great care) watch out for yourself and others and perhaps send some stories and photos when you are able. Thanks again.

[bmc]

Fly safe STL. Looking forward to the posts.

[HS-748 2A]

STL ~ a couple questions:

Anyway, this trip has a pretty interesting agenda, and one I'm very keen to undertake as it'll be the most comprehensive to date with a number of new subject areas, in addition to revisiting a few from past visits.

Who sets the agenda?

Are you contracted by the C.A.F.?

Are you hired as a reporter / photographer or both?

I have never been quite clear on that.

Have a safe trip.

'48

[bizjets101]

http://www.angus-reid.com/issue/afghanistan/

Vancouver Sun Article

[sky's the limit]

Well,

Good news is, UAE visa has been issued, all is well documentation wise. Bad news is, it's bucketing down here and the ceiling is right at the point the good folks at PASCO need to get in here, or a little be lower... So, if they don't make it in, it's a 5hr trip wit two ferries to get down to YVR instead of a 25min flight.

HS748,

I set the agenda for the most part on these trips, with the intention of speaking to, seeing, and experiencing as broad a cross-section of military, civilian, and aid operations as I can, not to mention talking to locals as much as possible.

My first time over in 2008 it was totally self-funded and directed, I went simply to see what was going on there as the information provided here is generally terrible, extremely incomplete, and sometimes just false - shocking to hear, I know, but it's even worse than you think. That remains my personal agenda as nothing has changed on those fronts. What has changed is that I now set things up to get paid for these trips by selling articles and photos to a number of places in advance. This makes the $7000 price tag the first time around a much easier pill to swallow.

I do both aviation related photography and writing (as it is an excellent "in"), more mainstream political writing as well, and have been doing lectures, slide show presentations/discussions, and high school workshops for the past several years now. The reason for so many presentations and discussions is the editorial control that exists in almost all major publications these days - they simply won't print stories or OpEd's that conflict with their agendas, no matter how true, verifiable or accurate. I have several foreign reporter friends who are literally forgoing articles and such entirely and going directly to books as it is just not worth banging one's head against that wall for too long. It is a route I am now also considering carefully.

I hope that helps,

stl


PS, this is GOOD! The good folks at PASCO do a great job in this coastal wx, just one more time....

241500Z 10008KT 8SM -RA FEW003 FEW007 OVC022 06/05 A3010

[Expat]

You got to come to Bamyan, to see the other Af. The Bouddhas are also an inspiring sight. Ski season is just starting!

[2R]

Any pictures yet?

[flyinggreasemonkey]

My brother leaves for Kabul in a few days. He works for the company that has been contracted to install all the AV equipment (conference centre, cafeteria entertainment, etc) at the new embassy. He flies Ottawa to Heathrow to Dubai to Kabul. I'm trying to convince him to bring his XBox so he and some of the staff can play on the big high def screen.

[iflyforpie]

Best of luck STL. I really enjoy your perspectives on Afghanistan (and other stuff too) and am looking forward to the next installment...

[Prairie Chicken]

STL, I look forward to following your journey. I've read some books on the plight of the Afgans, and in particular that of the women, and will be interested to hear more accurate and untainted info. For some time I've been distressed with our media who seem to be following their own agendas (or their masters?) while not conducting any real investigative reporting. BadgerGirl alluded to similar concerns in her posts re the B200 accident at Maple Creek.

The fact that you're doing talks is news. Any chance of a cross-country tour sometime in the future?

Stay safe!

[Hedley]

almost all major publications these days - they simply won't print stories or OpEd's that conflict with their agendas, no matter how true, verifiable or accurate

This is what bugs me about the media. All the while that they are claiming to be "fair and balanced", and impartial and professional conduits of unbiased facts ...

I really don't like people telling me what to think. That's really offensive.

[zed]

Enjoy yourself STL. The normal be careful, and if you can't do that completely then at least be smart about the times when you aren't going to be. Things are always changing and some of the 'safer' areas may be getting worse... But I'm sure you understand since you've been there before. But I will be looking forward to reading/seeing your experiences.

[Beefitarian]

STL do you fly when you're there or just in Canada?

[. ._]

I really don't like people telling me what to think. That's really offensive.

Are you offended?

[sky's the limit]

Hi All,

Well, 40hrs later I'm in Dubai. The good news is I got Bizz Class YVR to Amsterdam, and the flight to Dubai was empty so I had a whole row to stretch out in. The bad news is the hotel I booked into is full and couldn't get me in when I arrived at 0730... 4.5hrs later, I got my "room" after a bit of complaining. Said "room" turns out to be a 1600sqft suite that has a meeting room, sitting room that's huge, a bunch of rooms I'm not sure what are for, and a 30ft hallway to my bathroom, bedroom, and further sitting room. Good grief. I've been in some nice places in my day, but this is a bit over the top.

This is what bugs me about the media. All the while that they are claiming to be "fair and balanced", and impartial and professional conduits of unbiased facts ...

I really don't like people telling me what to think. That's really offensive.

This is exactly why I take these trips whenever possible, to Afghanistan or elsewhere: as I've mentioned on here a great deal, the media has in my opinion, fully abdicated its responsibility to inform the public. While only the most naive would suggest it was ever fully doing so - there is simply too much riding on the relationships media has with Gov't or corporate entities - the 1991 invasion of Iraq signaled a paradigm shift in the relationship between that obligation to inform, and other, opposite factors such as government and corporate editorial controls (almost one in the same these days), leading to rampant fear mongering, and the over-simplification of almost everything.

The events of 9/11 only served to solidify this purposeful shift, and in the almost ten years since, the quality of reporting has steadily declined to the point where the general public really have little idea of what is truly happening, or more importantly, why. It is not the role of media to tell you what to think Hedely, it should be to give you accurate, balanced, and fair reporting with which you can draw informed conclusions (keeping in mind that no reporting can be unbiased as we all have our biases that dictate perspective - I ask why pretend we are unbiased at all then?). With all due respect, the vast majority of you can't possibly do that on the subject of our involvement in Afghanistan with the appalling quality of reportage coming through main stream media outlets regardless of political tilt. The scary part is, I often wonder how much further along I am despite my travels around that country and the access I've been given to both military and non-military sectors of it? Separating the wheat from the chaff is vital, but to paraphrase a quote I once read, that while the media seems exceptionally good at that task, they are interested in only printing the chaff.

For some time I've been distressed with our media who seem to be following their own agendas (or their masters?) while not conducting any real investigative reporting.

As you should be Prairie Chicken. To see it up close is very disconcerting indeed.

It is easy to sit back and watch any of the main stream reporters go about their business and roll ones eyes, write mocking OpEds for fringe papers or websites, and generally deride them for their bumbling performances and the greater train wreck that passes for correspondence anymore. Unfortunately that is neither constructive nor accurate in defining the location of the problem.

We have a real tendency these days to focus on the individuals involved in any given discussion/issue while ignoring the larger systems within which they work, or which govern their actions: the guy in Tucson who pulled the trigger must be a deranged crazy, Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Stephen Harper, Barrack Obama, the 9/11 hijackers, Anderson Cooper et al, or Jean Cretien to name but a few obvious and recent targets on both sides of the spectrum. Locate the blame on specific people or groups of people and et voila, you can carry on with business as usual.

While it is very easy to make some sort of sense of these issues by locating problems within individuals or small groups, it is a very dangerous path as it allows the "root of the problem" (to borrow a Bushism), to go unaddressed. Can we really believe that 9/11 was solely the result of 20 extremists planning an unprovoked atrocity in isolation? Can we really believe that killing Bin Laden, his lieutenants or scores of illiterate "terrorists" in Afghanistan or Pakistan is going to rid America of its security problems? That blaming Wall Street CEO's or bankers for the collapse of 2008 is the real - and only - reason for its occurrence? Of course most of us can, because it is the easy, neat and tidy, and simple thing to do - unfortunately it achieves little if the goal is to actually address these issues, but it does much to perpetuate them.

In a great many ways the system we work, live, play in, and fight for both literally and metaphorically is broken, very broken. There are signs of it everywhere we look, yet we ignore them and carry on as usual secure in the idea that the rationale behind it is sound. In many cases we as a whole simply do not have enough information to understand these issues or ask relevant questions to the right people, instead we leave it to the media to do it for us and the result is a self perpetuating problem.

Spending a month on the road in America over Christmas was an interesting example. Billboards, signs, street names, and advertising all state loud and clear you are in the "Land of the free," driving down "Freedom Street," on your way to the mall to buy anything you want.

But, pause for a moment and look around. Look at the massive surveillance systems in place, the checkpoints on interstates and country roads, the border fences and berms, the gated communities full of fear, enormous police presence, the requirement to show ID for simple purchases with a credit card, requirement to enter Zip codes into fuel pumps, the laws and rules that seem to so actively govern just about everything, and wonder how, in this "Land of the Free," people accept such a colossal amount of intrusive oversight and big-brother surveillance?

It takes but a few overheard coffee shop conversations to reveal how it is possible - the people of America (and by extension Canada) are the proverbial frog in the pot, the erosion of civil liberties, the reduction of reliable information, and the staggering increase in surveillance has been insidious, and the marketing of the idea of "freedom" so effective, that you will hear time and again how "Free" Americans are despite the overwhelming and contrary evidence. "Why would I go to anywhere else? This is the best country on Earth," was heard time and again in so many words. I hate to burst the bubble, but it's one of the most restrictive cultures I've ever spent time in, and I've been in many over the years.

At some point quite recently, post 9/11, the idea of questioning the establishment, your country and its policies, Israel, our leaders, along with a myriad of other taboo subjects, or pointing out that in reality there are indeed a great many reasons why we find ourselves embroiled in these utterly useless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that include us being culpable in the root cause (no, not fully culpable either, I should make that distinction as the tendency for polarization is so ingrained now that is seems to go there quickly, and almost automatically now), have resulted in hateful and divisive branding of those raising these concerns...

Branding where the questioning voices in recent society are labeled as sympathizers, apologists, liberals, lefties, anti-semites, academics, or my personal favourite, "against the troops." Bush famously quipped post 9/11, "You're either with us, or against us..." Really? Are there not infinite points between those two positions? Are there not ways to address the national insecurity of America which was highlighted when the planes impacted the buildings that don't end with two hopeless foreign wars prosecuted at great human and financial cost? Have we really come to a place where the average North American cannot distinguish between the wars we propagate as a society and the troops who fight in them, Israeli state policies and Jews, Muslims and terrorists, and most importantly, the relative value of the lives of "us" verus "them?" We have, and it leaves me terrified. I am not left, I am not right. In fact I take great issue with even the concept of partisan division of issues, ethics, and policy - but that's another thread entirely.

The use of language is an enormously powerful tool in the quiver of governments and media outlets in this redefinition of public discourse, and the attempt to control it. Defining terms like "terrorist," "slaughter," and "just" in the way we have over time, and refining it in the last decade is leading people down an obscure and ever narrowing path. A suicide bomber is a "terrorist," but the guy operating the drone half a world away or flying the F15 dropping laser guided ordinance is "just" in his actions? We talk about the deaths of civilians - scores of them -in Iraq and Afghanistan framed in the discussion of the "inaccuracies" of military ordinance - yet each person lost in the 9/11 attacks has been eulogized ad nauseam for a decade? Palestinians are "terrorists," Israelis are merely defending themselves? The Taliban are referred to as "AAF" in combat reports - Anti Afghan Forces in case you wondered - that they are Afghans who generally have considerably more support from the population than the puppet Karzai gov't could ever hope for seems not to get in the way... To have this discussion properly, there needs to be a reset of even the most basic of concepts and terminology, without it the point will be well and truly missed. The most important issue however is not to squash the discourse surrounding these issues by over simplifying them, or labeling those who question as "weak," or unpatriotic. It is a laughable concept, but one I would submit plays itself out here on Avcanada on a daily basis - and where does that usually lead our threads?

Anyway, this is a very brief, and very jet-lagged, introduction to the landscape from which I am working. It is of course much much more complex than the little bit so briefly touched on above, and there is ample reading on these ideas if you'd like. Before I actually arrive this time and get to work, I thought it would be interesting to share a little of where I am coming from - not so much of how I got there, as that would be a book length explanation, and I don't think any of us have the time for that at this point... (I'll be impressed if more than a few read this whole post). Suffice it to say, evaluating what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq is an enormously difficult task, but understanding the real motivations behind the mission, and using the proper language is paramount to making sense of what is unfolding in these countries among others. To understand those motivations there needs to be a certain comfort with the concepts that drive those making policy at high government and corporate levels, many of which are uncomfortable to think about.

So, I'll throw it back to you guys with a few questions if you feel like it:

Who are the Taliban?

Why did we go to Afghanistan in 2001?

Why are we still there?

Are the answers to the first two questions the same?

What is to gain through our presence there?

Are we effecting any real positive change?

Do you feel informed by the media or governments involved on the topic?

Do you see these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as connected to anything else that's going on in the world?


I'm going to get some sleep, early to the airport in the AM for the flight into Kandahar. Thanks for the well wishes, and I'll try to be in touch when I can, as always, I'm not quite sure of the internet situation at each place I end up until I get there.


stl

[iflyforpie]

Excellent post STL.



I will just add what my definition of a 'terrorist' is and what I think makes a terrorist different from a soldier.

The guy operating the jet with the laser guided bombs is wearing a uniform in the service of a country. While I might not agree with what he is doing any more than what a suicide bomber might be doing, he is fighting under a recognized flag, under orders from a central authority, and can be made responsible for his actions.

If he shoots up a village full of civilians, then his country will hold him accountable. Even if they do not, the media can quickly pinpoint the origin of the atrocity and use it to put pressure on that government or sway public opinion.

A terrorist has no uniform, no flag, no borders, and no rules of conduct regarding warfare. Terrorists are only limited by their resources in the amount of carnage they can create. A terrorist doesn't show restraint.



Now, the insurgency is something different still.

You can't really raise up a conventional uniformed army while under occupation, so guerrilla tactics are the only option. We've seen this many times before. The USA came to being under such a system. The French fought the German Occupation in WWII in a similar way. Arguably the Palestinians are doing the same thing. The difference is that it is on your own land (or land you used to have before the invasion), and the actions are against military targets.

The lines start to get blurry though if the insurgents start targeting civilian collaborators, settling old scores, or simply launch terror attacks. And again the lack of central control, identification, and accountability start to show themselves.

[Shiny Side Up]

Excellent post STL.

+1.

I'll take a stab at your questions, maybe give a feel for what your average Joe thinks (not knows, I'm not really sure how mucha guy can say he knows when it comes to this arena anymore).

Who are the Taliban?

This has actually been a bit of a pet research project of mine lately. We hear all about these guys, we're told they're bad, but aside from that they treat their women like cattle, we don't know much. Of all the mysteries of this whole thing, its the one I wonder about the most. What caused such a group to rise to power and why is their severe interpretation of Muslim law so key to them? Where does their support come from in the groups of people who live there. In the wake of the Soviets leaving the country, it seems they were the least supported of the mujahadeen groups - how did this change?

Why did we go to Afghanistan in 2001?

Why are we still there?

Something about being doomed to repeat history comes to mind here. We could go a long ways back. Its been key to the great game for a long time. Why did the Soviets go? Wikipedia really just gets the tip of the iceberg. An interesting start though, key in the relatively immediate past (living past for most of us) as to sources of today's problems.

Are the answers to the first two questions the same?

Doubtful, since most of us don't really know the reason for the first. If one was to believe the media it started out as the biggest manhunt in history. Are they still trying to find him? We're to believe essentially that in the process of looking we found all sorts of other bad things there that just wearing our white cowboy hats couldn't just ignore.

How much of that an average Joe believes varies. Unfortunately the only other source of information on the subject tends to be those labled as the conspiracy theorists, so there is no real reliable source. In truth many of us are looking for someone we can trust who's had boots on the ground there - but its hard to come by -for the straight dope.

What is to gain through our presence there?

A more revealing question might be Who.

Are we effecting any real positive change?

Completely unknown to the average Joe. One would like to think that the body bags that come back have had some purpose in the grand scheme of things. A CF Captain (now Major) and a good friend of mine when he was there put together an effort to get shoes to a school there. Everyone from my hometown donated, somewhere over a thousand pairs of shoes in childrens sizes were donated. Will those children grow up to remember the good deed of one Canadian soldier? I doubt it.

Do you feel informed by the media or governments involved on the topic?

No.

Do you see these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as connected to anything else that's going on in the world?

Of course. We're all stuck on the same planet after all. If there's one theme to it, there's trouble ahead for the average person, more so for some than others. Or if you were George Carlin, (and on a lighter note) you could just say a lot of entertainment.

[Spokes]

I'm not any kind of schollar or writer, and my world view tends to be fairly simple, but I'll take a crack at your ????'s

So, I'll throw it back to you guys with a few questions if you feel like it:

Who are the Taliban?
The Taliban was the name of the Government of Afghanistan in and prior to 2001. Al Quiada (no idea how to spell that) is a terrorist group that was allowed by the taliban to live/train in that country.

Why did we go to Afghanistan in 2001?
We specifically (Canada that is) are here because of the concept of an attack on one is an attack on all. Our ally was attacked, so then were we. A-Q terroists perpetraited an attack on America in 2001, and "Awakened a sleeping Giant".

Why are we still there?
Canada specifically is still there because it was recomended by John Mannley that we do so, and Harper agreed. The west is here to aid the local police and army keep this place secured without western help, and to keep Taliban and A_Q from re-emerging.

Are the answers to the first two questions the same?
Yes. The ultimate goal I suppose is that future attacks on the west not originate in this place.

What is to gain through our presence there?
A-Q has not been able to make any large scale attacks on the west orginating from here. I do realise that they are a growing concern in Yemen.

Are we effecting any real positive change?
Yes. I have seen signs of this first hand. I am here in Kandahar BTW in an ISR role.

Do you feel informed by the media or governments involved on the topic?
Not really.

Do you see these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as connected to anything else that's going on in the world?
Not lately, there are plenty of more pressing problems in the world I suppose.

Maybe somewhat over simplified- there you have it.

[Hedley]

I know it's ancient history, but if you're at all interested in Afganistan, it might be worthwhile learning about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War

"The part that I'll take to my grave with guilt is that ... I didn't stay the course and stay there and push and drive the other members of Congress nuts pushing for a mini-Marshall Plan," he said.

There's an old saying that most revolutions are lost after they are won. It would be a tragedy, IMHO, if the west simply abandoned Afganistan - again - and left it as a vacuum to be filled with whatever nasty crazies happened along. That didn't work too well, last time.

George Crile, author of Charlie Wilson's War, the book on which the film is based, wrote that the mujahideen's victory in Afghanistan ultimately opened a power vacuum for bin Laden: "By the end of 1993, in Afghanistan itself there were no roads, no schools, just a destroyed country -- and the United States was washing its hands of any responsibility. It was in this vacuum that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden would emerge as the dominant players. It is ironic that a man who had almost nothing to do with the victory over the Red Army, Osama bin Laden, would come to personify the power of the jihad."

[Dash-Ate]

America has more domestic crime, gangs, and domestic rampages than in any other country and they cannot stop it!! How will occupying another country on the other side of the globe "stop attacks". This is just war propaganda.
It's rubbish, there are millions of illegals who slipped into USA thought the mexico border. Anyone can get into the country. If someone wanted to do something they would have done it!!

In WW2 people watched news reels in movie theatres telling them how the "Japs and Huns" were the most barbaric animals ever. They believed it because it was "news".Yeah, as if. The days change but the tune stays the same.


Also can I say, never forget:

[TheCheez]

The use of language is an enormously powerful tool in the quiver of governments and media outlets in this redefinition of public discourse, and the attempt to control it. Defining terms like "terrorist," "slaughter," and "just" in the way we have over time, and refining it in the last decade is leading people down an obscure and ever narrowing path. A suicide bomber is a "terrorist," but the guy operating the drone half a world away or flying the F15 dropping laser guided ordinance is "just" in his actions? We talk about the deaths of civilians - scores of them -in Iraq and Afghanistan framed in the discussion of the "inaccuracies" of military ordinance - yet each person lost in the 9/11 attacks has been eulogized ad nauseam for a decade? Palestinians are "terrorists," Israelis are merely defending themselves? The Taliban are referred to as "AAF" in combat reports - Anti Afghan Forces in case you wondered - that they are Afghans who generally have considerably more support from the population than the puppet Karzai gov't could ever hope for seems not to get in the way... To have this discussion properly, there needs to be a reset of even the most basic of concepts and terminology, without it the point will be well and truly missed. The most important issue however is not to squash the discourse surrounding these issues by over simplifying them, or labeling those who question as "weak," or unpatriotic. It is a laughable concept, but one I would submit plays itself out here on Avcanada on a daily basis - and where does that usually lead our threads?

stl

Yes, a suicide bomber is a terrorist and the professional soldier is 'just' in carrying out his duties. If you believe him to not be 'just', and he is following legal orders from his government, then you're falling into war crime territory. If he is not following legal orders then it's a crime and he should be court martialled. To imply that the professional soldier and terrorist could be the same, but it's all in the language, I take personally as a grave insult. Honestly, I expected more from you and I hope this isn't the way your editorials are heading.