The Kill/Capture Program

Dave Grossman, the author of On Killing, commands a unique set of skills and experiences which add depth and credibility to his analysis of homicide in the context of warfighting. Grossman retired from the United States Army as a Lieutenant Colonel after serving for over 23 years. As an infantry officer, he first served as an Airborne Ranger and later taught psychology at the United States Military Academy. Dave Grossman received vast honors and gained international respect after publication of On Killing. He lectured at over 100 colleges and universities worldwide and trained educators and law enforcement personnel in all 50 states as well as over a dozen countries. However, LTC Grossman did not simply rest on his own laurels when penning his work. Instead he leveraged over 23 published narratives and conducted personal interviews of dozens more veterans with real combat experience. Beyond anecdotal evidence, Grossman drew from over seventy additional

War leads to oppression and leaves negative implications on all people and societies by impacting the poor, women, children, and nations as a whole. "War is a state of violent conflict between one or more groups" (Rasenberger 3). Rasenberger defines war as a state of conflict between one group within itself or several groups in combat with each other, what is not mentioned are the after-effects of war. War itself leads to many civilian and military deaths, an estimated 1.5-3.8 million people died during the Vietnam War and an approximate 500,000 people died in the Iraq war. The biggest tragedy of War is that it always results in fatality, but another key, negative, factor to understand is that after the War many adverse implications arise. Post-war ramifications in the nation fall upon the poor, women, and children, making them weaker and less motivated leading to the downfall of a society. Regardless if a nation wins or is defeated in war they have to deal with consequences of war and find solutions to the impacted people and society. It is essential to understand that there is never a true victor in war because regardless of the outcome, fatality and a fall of morale within society on both sides are inevitable. War has often been the solution to situations that required force or violence, but in recent times this has

In the selected portion of the book Most Dangerous, the author, Steve Sheinkin uses an anecdote and specific vocabulary to illustrate his goals of giving background information, suggesting the significance of his point, and building a mood for the reader. The entirety of the selected text given is an anecdote itself, one about how American soldiers measured success in the war in Vietnam. The story Sheinkin uses provides key background information to the reader about how Americans measured their efforts by explaining, in detail, what a kill ratio is and how the strategy works, and describes what actions the American soldiers took in counting their dead bodies. This understanding is important to the reader because not only were the actions taken

In the beginning of Lone Survivor, four men undertake a mission to take down the leader of the Taliban. They finally reach the mountain above where the village is located, and immediately spots the Taliban leader. Mike Murphy, their lutenaint, says to move up higher into the trees. While resting, they awake to the sound of goat bells, and take the three Taliban sheepherders as prisoners for the moment. They find a walkie talkie, and Mike, and his men, start arguing over the right thing to do, to kill the men, tie them up and let them die on their own, or to release them and move up. They argue as to whether or not to follow their rules of engagement, and not kill unless fired upon, or do just kill them. Finally, they decide to let them go, and follow the rules of engagement. “If we kill these kids, it’s International news. CNN doesn’t care about Rules of Engagement. SEALs kill kids. That’s the story. Forever. Let them go. Shut it down.” (Berg52)

Murder is a reprobate action that is an inevitable part of war. It forces humans into immoral acts, which can manifest in the forms such as shooting or close combat. The life of a soldier is ultimately decided from the killer, whether or not he follows through with his actions. In the short stories The Sniper by Liam O'Flaherty and Just Lather, That's All by Hernando Téllez, the killer must decide the fate of their victims under circumstantial constraints. The two story explore the difference between killing at a close proximity compared to killing at a distance, and how they affect the killer's final decision.

1. In President Obama’s speech at West Point, he announced that 30,000 additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan. He made this decision because he said it was vital to the United States’ national interest. The vital national interest at risk in President Obama’s address is the security and safety of the American people as well as the “security of our allies and the common security of the world.” By involving the military and increasing the troop strength, President Obama can achieve the objectives of his strategy. His objectives are to keep the Taliban from becoming powerful, prevent them from government rule, improve Afghanistan security forces and government so they can manage their own country and prevent Al Qaeda from

Assassinations and targeted killings have been topics vastly debated around the world throughout history. As a matter of fact, this matter can be discussed through the eyes of Michael Walzer from a just war theory perspective. This viewpoint can be used in order to explain just assassinations of political and military leaders as well as other individuals. For example, a person can be the victim of targeted killings if their death would result in less future violence or warfare. However, the individual must pose an imminent threat, capture is not feasible, and the operation is executed in observance of the applicable laws of war. Yet the burden of proof and responsibility resides with those in highest power since it is their duty to maintain order among everyone below them. As a result, only those in power can decide who is assassinated and for what reason. All arguments against this belief can be annihilated by the fact that targeted killing will lower the chances of further combatant and civilian casualties. Ultimately, just assassination or targeted killing are blameless if the outcome will create less vehemence.

Operation Anaconda was the first major joint combat operation against the war on terror that the US was committed to winning. This operation would test our military’s readiness for joint operations against a hardened and willing adversary. The primary mission was to kill/capture Taliban/Al Qaeda forces occupying towns and villages in the vicinity of Shahi Khot in order to gain control of the valley.1 The US needed the towns, villages, mountains, and more importantly, the intricate and hard to access caves cleared of enemy fighters. Units participating in the operation included elements of the 101st Airborne Division, 10th Mountain Division, Special Operations Forces (SOF), and Coalition forces from seven nations

Contemporarily the termination of Osama bin Laden’s reign of terror at the top al Qaeda is one of these actions. The United States sent a handpicked group of soldiers, the navy SEALs and the U.S. special operation force, into Pakistan, a country at war due to conflict of internal groups that rule the country. The attack happened at night, and it was an oversea operation that lasted minutes in which a three floor house was raided and bin Laden was killed. If killing is “bad” and it is against the law, then why was bin Laden killed? Certainly this was the necessary action that had to be taken. “The ends justify the means,” it would be for the greater good (Prince Machiavelli). This situation is an innuendo to a part in the movie in which Lau, the accountant for the mob groups in Gotham, flees to Hong Kong in order to escape the jurisdiction of the Gotham’s justice system.

But Bin Laden, the object of the military campaign in Afghanistan, remained at large.” Many promises were made by the government that this terrorist would be found in no time. However, instead of finding their enemy, the government ended up killing several civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq just to make it look like as if they were working hard on their mission. What is even harder to believe is the fact that nearly seven years after the World Trade Center attacks, millions of civilians have been killed, but Osama has yet to be found.

Empirical studies of targeted killings and civilian casualties in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism show that drone strikes may obtain either of the following two outcomes:

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

In an age when mankind has the ability to completely annihilate itself through nuclear combat, war can be a more terrifying and powerful thought than ever before. Unfortunately, because of the extent of the actions that the Taliban has committed against both America and its own followers, the United States’ war against terrorism seems to be a necessity. I do feel, however, as if there are many things that can be done by the American government in the near future to peacefully approach a more civil and politically involved Afghanistan. Although my feelings on a war against terrorism are mixed, I do feel that significant actions must be taken in order to restrict the spread of

Cronin argues that, "to reduce the potential for a catastrophic and disruptive event involving terrorism, to develop a clear plan for what to do and what not to do in response, the United States and its allies must reexamine the common patterns of how terrorism ends and focus their energies in that long-term strategic aim." He also presents six-part framework for how terrorism ends, which are decapitation, negotiation, success, failure, repression, and reorientation. The U.S. counterterrorism strategy emphasize on capturing and killing top leaders of the terrorist organization, which is not very effective way of dealing with terrorism. Cronin suggest to capture them and putting on the jail instead of killing. I believe his idea makes sense

According to Sean D. Murphy, U.S. anti-terrorist operations in Pakistan so far have taken the forms of drone strikes, “hot pursuits” into Pakistani territory in immediate response to raids from within Pakistan, and secret missions by special operations forces, such as the CIA, against militant targets located deeper in Pakistan . The numbers of incidents involving “hot pursuits” of the militant hideouts inside the Pakistani territory have been very few, so they have not attracted as much attention as other operations. There has only been one real recognized covert mission in Pakistan, which took place on September 3, 2008 in South Waziristan , an area under the control of the Taliban. This was the US’ first ground-based battle against the Taliban within Pakistani borders. This caused the death of many civilians and no “high-value” terrorist target. The Pakistani government strongly criticized this act and passed a resolution demanding American cooperation on covert operations, so the US did refrain from repeating such a mission; however, the American strikes using Unmanned Areal Vehicles, known as drones, have been going on since 2004 and have only increased since then under the Obama Administration.