Comments on: Killing more efficiently: America’s violin-sized missiles

By: rex minor

rex minor — Fri, 14 May 2010 23:51:51 +0000

I guess like the US the shoe bomber and the nigerian were equally considering the low costs for their now failed operations.

By: Analyst

Analyst — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:54:16 +0000

The only purpose that this article could possible serve would be to generate comments. Or to show that such a smart man as P.W. Singer http://www.pwsinger.com/biography.html he must be towing a party line, PC, or just someone that is promoting himself for some kind of personal gain. Perhaps he’s confused because he was founding Director of the Project on U.S. Policy towards the Islamic World in the Saban Center at Brookings. Mr. Singer please don’t confuse Islam with terrorism! Or maybe, just another wind bag that wouldn’t know the truth if it flew up your nose. Making your own truths and closing your eyes to real truth will ultimately kill us.

First: The US is attempting to fight with honor by attempting to kill only certain people (discriminate killing). Not by indiscriminate IED or suicide killings, which very often kill innocent people.
Second: Lower cost is always better. If the terrorist killed had lived, how much would he have cost the US, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in damage, healthcare, and other cost involved? Only a terrorist would call this “cruel and cowardly”, again words like these coming from a people that kills innocent civilians. But they do not consider them innocent because they are not of their religion.
Third: I agree, there is no such thing as a painless war (been there, done that). But, killing terrorist on the ground is the whole idea. We try to prevent the innocent civilians from dying and kill the terrorist. So they don’t kill us while we are helping the innocent civilians or kill the innocent civilians, which they do willfully and often.
Fourth: Of course we have more than doubled the unmanned airstrikes in Pakistan compared to Kosovo. The air campaign in Kosovo only lasted a few months; the war in Afghanistan has been going on for 9 years. The known airstrikes on Pakistan since approximately 2007.
Fifth: The unmanned airstrikes do not result in war because we have Pakistan’s permission.
Sixth: Pakistan is our ally. They have lost many brave soldiers battling the terrorist in their country. If you think that patrolling and controlling the Northwest region of Pakistan is simple, it makes me curious why President Obama would have you serve as coordinator of the Obama-08 campaign’s defense policy task force.

By: foo

foo — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:09:21 +0000

perhaps the writer would prefer that we bring back carpet bombings.

The entire reason for limitation of collateral damage is to win the media war. Perhaps the writer is aware of this and wants civilian casualties.

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 03 May 2010 02:31:44 +0000

Do you guys know when the neighbor’s house is a crack house? same way folks there know when the terrorists are having meetings next door. Those terrorists hide where they are welcomed,,,,,

By: Bob Browser

Bob Browser — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:51:16 +0000

Interesting, however, should the war makers and shakers ultimately arrive at the perfect killing machine, the cost and its potential fiscal earning capability shall be the defining notation, not its efficency. You know, if it don’t pay…

By: rajesh

rajesh — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:15:06 +0000

so what is the point. Pakistan is a terrorist country, it supports, promotes and uses terrorism both within and out of the country. What do you expect US to do, Suck their thumbs like the indian govt. is doing?

By: mike

mike — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:02:28 +0000

AS usual the left wing press is quick to condemn the USA for a dirty war but says nothing about using IED or suicide bombers, setting off bombs and killing civilians and then hiding amongst them, placing bombs is places of worship I suppose that is fighting with honour,