Slashdot Mirror
The Price of Military Tech Assistance In Movies
derekmead writes "Last week at Camp David, President Obama met up with fellow NATO leaders to discuss the road ahead in Afghanistan. Although no one there used the language of defeat, the implicit message was clear: the war has gone nowhere in the past few years and it's time to start packing up. Meanwhile, what raked in $25.5 million at the box office? Battleship. And who provided director Peter Berg with the war technology that beats the aliens? The U.S. military. He's not the only one: the past few years have seen an explosion of high-profile cooperation between the armed forces and the movie industry. If the most powerful armed force in history isn't winning in reality, it certainly is on the big screen. And like so many problematic aspects of late capitalism, the military-Hollywood complex has a grimly understandable logic."
The USA spends close to a million dollars per soldier per year. The enemy has to spend maybe 5% of that per "enemy combatant" at most. Probably a lot less. To field a force that would be numerically equal to our forces would cost them maybe $50 million. They'd need a lot more than that to defeat us in battles, because our side is better armed. But this is not about battles. There have been very few battles. In this kind of war, the resistance avoids direct confrontations and chooses to strike where and when its forces can do the most damage to the stronger side -- or just make them look ineffective. Most of the American forces are busy trying to protect every place where the enemy might strike. It's extremely inefficient. So the Taliban only needs a small fraction of our forces to keep the Americans busy -- and going broke.
Basically, this kind of war is not winnable in a traditional sense. The resistance can carry on with a small number of soldiers and on a shoestring budget almost indefinitely.
That's not to say that guerilla forces can't be defeated. They can be, if the populace cooperates with the central government to deny them aid, deny them new soldiers and help ferret them out -- and if the resistance doesn't have cooperative govenrments across the border.
That's not the situation in Afghanistan, so it's highly questionable whether we can win at any cost.
This is bullshit. In real drone strikes, there is no guarantee that only "terrorists" are the victims. All the press reporting in the US takes the military at their word, and casualties are never identified as "collateral damage", i.e. innocent bystanders.
It's a real war, and there are always non-combatants who are killed and injured. Pretending this never happens may be good to keep support up at home, but it is a damned lie. Honesty is a better policy in the long run.
One of the reasons that Pakistan is not letting NATO resupply convoys go through it's territory is because of the toll taken by drone strikes. It is a huge issue with the Pakistan population. By not admitting to any civilian casualties in the US press, there can be no meaningful debate about how our policy is effecting US standing in the Middle East.
Personally, I think that the Pakistan government is not worth spit as an ally, and they are directly supporting our enemies. We would be better off if we cut most military aid because of their backstabbing behavior. Even so, the practical, ethical and political effects of our use of drones should be much more publicly debated, rather then being swept under the rub by what is effectively military propaganda.
Why is Snark Required?
Your facts are not in order.
Pakistan is blockading NATO due to an air strike that kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border outpost. The Pakistanis reportedly made the unfortunate "mistake" of firing at US and Afghan commandos which they sometimes do when they forget which side they are supporting. Pakistan is demanding an apology for the incident, and is also using it as an excuse to try to jack up the transit fee from $200 to $5,000 per truck.
The overwhelming majority of non-combatants being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by road-side bombs placed by . . . guess who. . . the Taliban. The Taliban also visit murder and massacre on the various tribes and villages. Unlike NATO, the Taliban deliberately targets innocent non-combatants.
As to drone strikes . . .
Pakistan Says Drone Strikes Have Been Effective
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I think that scene in Iron Man was demonstrating his optical tracking system, letting him rapidly designate as targets the people who were pointing guns at other people's heads. With a human in the driver's seat, the indicators would be pretty obvious.
All the press reporting in the US takes the military at their word, and casualties are never identified as "collateral damage", i.e. innocent bystanders.
That's becuase in the real world, people like you don't understand the definition of "collateral damage" nor do they seem to understand that war is hell; and certainly not fair.
If you are within a certain proximity of someone you are legally considered a sympathiser and therefore, a legitimate kill. A massive number of legitimate kills are later claimed to be "innocent civilians." In all of these conflicts, where possible, they leave the bodies by take all the weapons. They then claim "innocent civilians" were murdered and small minded idiots everywhere believe them. Now then, that is not say to innocent people don't die. A lot of innocent people have died and will continue to die in any and all future conflicts. They have died in every war known to mankind. But this is also why the military's numbers never match everyone else's numbers. The truth is, the truth is somewhere in between.
I can't tell you how many documentaries I've watched or how many armed forces I've spoken too who all tell the same stories. Someone starts shooting at them. They take out the enemy - frequently with optics; thusly confirming it was a combatant. When they arrive their weapons are gone and all the locals insist they were "innocent civilians" who never harmed anyone. The military's count is correct. Then bleeding heart idiots come in and interview people and find the bodies had no weapons. They declare the military murdered people. Their count is incorrect and woefully over-inflated; even if they have good intentions.
Bigger problems come from the use of bombs. All too frequently, there actually are "innocent civilians", who were forced under threat of murder to stay with the bad guys. They are there in case they are attacked, such that THEY can murder them and claim the military is murdering "innocent civilians". Of course, should a bomb be dropped, or if they are attacked, "innocent civilians" are killed. The problem is, the military dropped the bomb, but they didn't kill them. Also, when attacked, frequently the "innocent civilians" are actually killed by scum - or they are forced to pick up weapons and are killed by the military.
The deal is, its never anywhere as cut and dry as so many ignorant, bleeding heart suckers like to depict. The fact is, the "innocent civilians" counts are factually, way, way, way over blown. Secondly, that number does not clearly indicate who actually killed them or what the situation was. The fact is, once they pick up a weapon or become part of their entourage, they are no longer "innocent" - legally. And all this ignores the fact that in many cases, the "innocent civilian" deaths are frequently lower than before the top fell. Which means, according to a lot of these agencies, "innocent civilians" deaths are okay so long as the US military is not involved.
Long story short, while we know the military's count is too low, its far, far, far more accurate than most accounts of "innocent civilian"" deaths - by far. The truth is, the actual numbers are somewhere in between - and likely closer to the military's than you think.