Black Ops 2 An Unintentional Pakistani Perspective on The War on Terror

[Arif_Sohaib]

Story-wise, Black Ops 2 is THE best Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare and has probably the best villain in video game history.


SPOILERS:
I loved how helpless the American soldiers on the USS Obama looked when the drones attacked, it should give western gamers the smallest hint of how Pakistanis and Yemenis and other people feel when they are attacked by drones. Then the best part, American-made drones attack China and the US can't do anything against those because it is under attack by the same drones and China is the one yelling 'do more'. This is exactly what America does to Pakistan, the terrorists are controlled by people like Raul Menendez, we have no control over them and they are attacking us even more then they could ever hope to do with the US and we still get blamed. Yes, Zia ul Haq(and the ISI and CIA, see "Charlie Wilson's War") were responsible for originally making them, yes our army did have contacts with them later and they used them the same way the US uses drones(political and legal ambiguity) but now Pakistan does not control them and is at threat from them while also being or at least feeling under threat from the US and India(just like the US is in the game with both the Cordis Die and the SDC).

I am saying it is unintentional because the Lahore(again with the Arabic instead of Urdu, English or Punjabi) mission makes it clear they don't know anything about Pakistan and the ISI other than what they hear in American news.

 

[mavkiel]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

 

[razer17]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

I think that's a little unfair. The government can't do much about the massive organised terrorist organisations that exist in some of the countries, and that have links in basically in every country. It is true that the US and other western nations have had a pretty big hand in arming some of these terror cells in the first place, so it's not entirely the governments fault.

Thing is, some of these countries are so entrenched in beliefs that changing anything takes an age. It's a vicious circle in a way. Westerners like us bomb and fight people in these countries, that scares the youngsters into joining the terrorist groups because they see the US as the enemy, and then that creates more terrorist for the US and others to justify more bombing.



I really don't know what could be done to stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drone bombings aren't the right way, though. We're not at war with these countries per se, just certain elements within them. It seems the west kills more civilians than terrorists. Whilst civilian casualties are tragic but understandable in actual country v country warfare, it's not right to endanger the lives of civilians for the purposes of the war on terror.

All that being said, something needs to be done about the Taliban etc. I just don't know what. you certainly can't defeat such a deeply entrenched mindset over night. You can't reason with terrorists.

 

[Chadaface]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

So..according to you the death of innocents,including women and children through the use of Predator strikes is completely acceptable?
Can't yanks see how bad this policy is? How its leading to worse things,the deaths of innocents in Pakistan due to the use of UCAVs inspires even more people to fight for the Taliban against both the Coalition and Pakistan.It increases the resentment that Pakistanis have for the U.S and doesn't lead to anything good.

Honestly I don't care how a 2-bit Cash Cow like CoD represents Pakistan,I am actually kinda grateful that they didn't say anything about our nukes.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

President Perwez Musharraff tried. There were anti-Taliban lashkers fighting alongside the Pakistani army against the Taliban. These were tribal people with no loyalty to any country, only their tribe. They were the reason there is a region called FATA(Federally Administrated Tribal Areas) was made during colonial times in Pakistan. In colonial times the British governors had no authority over this area, only the Governer-General, through political agents, had some control over that area. After independence, they treated Pakistan the same way.
Musharraff almost got this area under control but the US didn't want that because he insisted on doing things his way and not as a slave to them, they called him a dictator. They supported Benizer Bhutto against him. Any Pakistani who knows anything about that area will tell you that she would not have been able to control that area, or even parts of NWFP and Balochistan. And when she died, we all knew a much much worse leader would come to lead her political party, Asif Ali Zardari. The US would have known about her incompetence and the threat to her life, yet they supported her and then her husband when she died. Their party is the biggest in the country, they bought those votes they couldn't get by appealing to appealing to the sentiments of people by exploiting Banizer's death and we all knew there was no question of who would win the election, how incompetent he would be and that the US would have complete free reign here and any all protests by the government would just be for show.

If Musharraff was allowed to lead, this war would be over by now. He knew the tribal traditions and customs and how much importance those people give to them. He knew how to talk to them and argue with them without offending them. Neither the US nor the current Pakistani government know how to do that. He even had a good plan to educate them by ordering Madarsas to register themselves with the government and to actually provide proper education. The current government abandoned that plan and the Madarsas can teach whatever they want now without any government control.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

So..according to you the death of innocents,including women and children through the use of Predator strikes is completely acceptable?
Can't yanks see how bad this policy is? How its leading to worse things,the deaths of innocents in Pakistan due to the use of UCAVs inspires even more people to fight for the Taliban against both the Coalition and Pakistan.It increases the resentment that Pakistanis have for the U.S and doesn't lead to anything good.

Honestly I don't care how a 2-bit Cash Cow like CoD represents Pakistan,I am actually kinda grateful that they didn't say anything about our nukes.

Very much unintentionally, this game is actually showing the Pakistani viewpoint by putting the US in our situation in the last few missions.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Can't yanks see how bad this policy is?

Any Yank who cares enough to pay attention can see how bad it is. But our wonderful 'objective' news outlets do everything in their power to convince us the people killed in those strikes are [HEADING=2]"militants".[/HEADING] And President Obama assures us they're necessary to KEEP US SAFE[sup]TM[/sup]. It's also very difficult for anyone to criticize the war-time policies of a president belonging to the Democratic Party, unless it's to call them weak. The Democratic brand is associated with moderate foreign policy. If Democrats call him out for being too aggressive, it's bad for the party because it looks like they're not being consistent to their message. And Republicans can't call him out because endless bloodshed is more-or-less their platform. The result is an arms-race between Democrats and Republicans. Obama is free to escalate without criticism from moderates, which helps him win over undecided hawks. Republicans must escalate EVEN MORE to maintain their strong-on-defense brand against the comparison.

Just look at the extreme military budget increases proposed by U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He has to escalate, escalate, escalate to maintain the image of strength compared to the Democratic Party.

I am actually kinda grateful that they didn't say anything about our nukes.

LOL I can believe it.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

So..according to you the death of innocents,including women and children through the use of Predator strikes is completely acceptable?
Can't yanks see how bad this policy is? How its leading to worse things,the deaths of innocents in Pakistan due to the use of UCAVs inspires even more people to fight for the Taliban against both the Coalition and Pakistan.It increases the resentment that Pakistanis have for the U.S and doesn't lead to anything good.

Honestly I don't care how a 2-bit Cash Cow like CoD represents Pakistan,I am actually kinda grateful that they didn't say anything about our nukes.

At least we try very hard to avoid collateral damage. Our enemies go out of their way to cause more and intentionally target civilians and children.

It's horrible that innocents have to pay the price for the crimes of others but it's sadly inevitable especially when those being targeted intentionally hide among them. It's on their hands just as much, if not more.

It is completely illogical to say it's bad because it incites more against us. They were insane civilian killing maniacs before that started. Long before. Effective attack drones is a new thing.

The point is, evil people cannot be allowed to spread their evil and intentionally kill innocent non combatants. It had been going on a long time until now. After awhile, enough is enough of standing around and waiting it out.

For perspective, think on this. I've read reports that suggest less than 1 million civilians have died as the result of war since about 2001. Most suggest at the far low end of that, around 160,000-320,000. World War II lasted just 6 years. Less than half the duration of the current conflict, yet between 37,000,000 and 54,600,000 civilians died. Upwards of 70 million people total if you count military casualties.

Point is, if War was fought like it used to be, there would be very little left of that part of the world now.

Seems to me humanity will be better off in the long run having small scale combat operations and drone strikes, over Total War.

It's all horrible but it's a sad fact of the world today.

 

[sageoftruth]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

I think that's a little unfair. The government can't do much about the massive organised terrorist organisations that exist in some of the countries, and that have links in basically in every country. It is true that the US and other western nations have had a pretty big hand in arming some of these terror cells in the first place, so it's not entirely the governments fault.

Thing is, some of these countries are so entrenched in beliefs that changing anything takes an age. It's a vicious circle in a way. Westerners like us bomb and fight people in these countries, that scares the youngsters into joining the terrorist groups because they see the US as the enemy, and then that creates more terrorist for the US and others to justify more bombing.



I really don't know what could be done to stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drone bombings aren't the right way, though. We're not at war with these countries per se, just certain elements within them. It seems the west kills more civilians than terrorists. Whilst civilian casualties are tragic but understandable in actual country v country warfare, it's not right to endanger the lives of civilians for the purposes of the war on terror.

All that being said, something needs to be done about the Taliban etc. I just don't know what. you certainly can't defeat such a deeply entrenched mindset over night. You can't reason with terrorists.

I'm no expert, but an article on the Escapist once stated that drones are precision instruments that often snipe rather than bomb, leading to minimal collateral damage, especially compared to the disastrous air strikes that have now been rendered obsolete thanks to drones.

What's more is, according to the article, drone attacks are more calculated. Because drones can hover high above everyone's field of vision and stay there, people can stop and think, or even have entire meetings with foreign relations people before the shot is actually fired. On the other hand, old fashioned air strikes used to require someone to fly by and unleash hell with no thought other than hitting the target as accurately as possible in the mere seconds he has to do it. Overall, I think drones have actually been good for reducing civilian casualties.

Still, I do agree that 1) Drones could be a disaster if they fell into enemy hands and
2) Even if civilian casualties are reduced, the unstoppability of drone attacks may convince insurgents to focus all their attention on attacking the US directly since their forces can't repel drone attacks.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

At least we try very hard to avoid collateral damage. Our enemies go out of their way to cause more and intentionally target civilians and children.

It's horrible that innocents have to pay the price for the crimes of others but it's sadly inevitable especially when those being targeted intentionally hide among them. It's on their hands just as much, if not more.

It is completely illogical to say it's bad because it incites more against us. They were insane civilian killing maniacs before that started. Long before. Effective attack drones is a new thing.

The point is, evil people cannot be allowed to spread their evil and intentionally kill innocent non combatants. It had been going on a long time until now. After awhile, enough is enough of standing around and waiting it out.

For perspective, think on this. I've read reports that suggest less than 1 million civilians have died as the result of war since about 2001. Most suggest at the far low end of that, around 160,000-320,000. World War II lasted just 6 years. Less than half the duration of the current conflict, yet between 37,000,000 and 54,600,000 civilians died. Upwards of 70 million people total if you count military casualties.

Point is, if War was fought like it used to be, there would be very little left of that part of the world now.

Seems to me humanity will be better off in the long run having small scale combat operations and drone strikes, over Total War.

It's all horrible but it's a sad fact of the world today.

This is just a list of rationalizations. The morality of an act shouldn't be measured relative to WWII. Punching you in the face isn't as bad as WWII, but that doesn't mean it's OK. You create a false dichotomy by asking us to choose between drone strikes and WWII. There is not that choice.

The idea that the U.S. "try very hard to avoid collateral damage" is media fantasy. Drone strikes in particular seek out civilian gatherings such as funerals in the hopes of catching accused militants along with the rest of the dead. Once a strike has been carried out, rescuers are routinely targeted in follow-up strikes. Political enemies are also targeted for extra-judicial assassination, sometimes resulting in the deaths of their families.

What we do is rationalize why killing civilians is OK when we do it, ignore civilian deaths to whatever extent possible, and cling to laughable pretensions to avoiding civilian deaths like a fig-leaf. Above all else, we don't need to rely on the context of what other people do in deciding the rightness of our actions. We must do what is right to the best of our ability regardless of what other people do.

I'm no expert, but an article on the Escapist once stated that drones are precision instruments that often snipe rather than bomb, leading to minimal collateral damage, especially compared to the disastrous air strikes that have now been rendered obsolete thanks to drones.

What's more is, according to the article, drone attacks are more calculated. Because drones can hover high above everyone's field of vision and stay there, people can stop and think, or even have entire meetings with foreign relations people before the shot is actually fired. On the other hand, old fashioned air strikes used to require someone to fly by and unleash hell with no thought other than hitting the target as accurately as possible in the mere seconds he has to do it. Overall, I think drones have actually been good for reducing civilian casualties.

Still, I do agree that 1) Drones could be a disaster if they fell into enemy hands and
2) Even if civilian casualties are reduced, the unstoppability of drone attacks may convince insurgents to focus all their attention on attacking the US directly since their forces can't repel drone attacks.

While drones may be less destructive than some alternatives, nonetheless the responsibility for the deaths they cause is ours. Despite the shameless lies of U.S. officials, many civilians are killed in drone strikes on a regular basis. Beware of false dichotomies. 'Drone strikes versus carpet bombing' was never the choice before us.

 

[BoogieManFL]

You misunde

At least we try very hard to avoid collateral damage. Our enemies go out of their way to cause more and intentionally target civilians and children.

It's horrible that innocents have to pay the price for the crimes of others but it's sadly inevitable especially when those being targeted intentionally hide among them. It's on their hands just as much, if not more.

It is completely illogical to say it's bad because it incites more against us. They were insane civilian killing maniacs before that started. Long before. Effective attack drones is a new thing.

The point is, evil people cannot be allowed to spread their evil and intentionally kill innocent non combatants. It had been going on a long time until now. After awhile, enough is enough of standing around and waiting it out.

For perspective, think on this. I've read reports that suggest less than 1 million civilians have died as the result of war since about 2001. Most suggest at the far low end of that, around 160,000-320,000. World War II lasted just 6 years. Less than half the duration of the current conflict, yet between 37,000,000 and 54,600,000 civilians died. Upwards of 70 million people total if you count military casualties.

Point is, if War was fought like it used to be, there would be very little left of that part of the world now.

Seems to me humanity will be better off in the long run having small scale combat operations and drone strikes, over Total War.

It's all horrible but it's a sad fact of the world today.

This is just a list of rationalizations. The morality of an act shouldn't be measured relative to WWII. Punching you in the face isn't as bad as WWII, but that doesn't mean it's OK. You create a false dichotomy by asking us to choose between drone strikes and WWII. There is not that choice.

The idea that the U.S. "try very hard to avoid collateral damage" is media fantasy. Drone strikes in particular seek out civilian gatherings such as funerals in the hopes of catching accused militants along with the rest of the dead. Once a strike has been carried out, rescuers are routinely targeted in follow-up strikes. Political enemies are also targeted for extra-judicial assassination, sometimes resulting in the deaths of their families.

What we do is rationalize why killing civilians is OK when we do it, ignore civilian deaths to whatever extent possible, and cling to laughable pretensions to avoiding civilian deaths like a fig-leaf. Above all else, we don't need to rely on the context of what other people do in deciding the rightness of our actions. We must do what is right to the best of our ability regardless of what other people do.

You misunderstand. I merely mentioned it for perspective not as rationalization. So your points to that end are unwarranted.

What people consider as horrible today, would have been "a good day" in WW2 since people were dying in droves - that was the overall point. Things in general are continuing to get better. It's not less horrible, but it's still better than mass war. The US could completely eradicate almost all sources of terror easily and quickly if WW2 methods of indiscriminate fire were still used today.

Besides, unless I've personally seen concrete proof that US controlled drone strikes deliberately target civilians just to get 1 badguy, I'll take that as rumor and not fact.


If it were true, then we're faced with the difficult thought of the lesser of two evils. Letting the badguy go, to plot to kill many more to save some others. Or end it there with some collateral damage. I then think, even if they were family, I wouldn't want to be around
someone who I knew was a terrorist. People who deny rights to certain sexes and people, who arrange the mass killings of civilians unless I myself was as corrupted as them. In which case I'd deserve it just the same.


Ultimately, I detest posts like this because people who think one way will probably never be convinced to agree with someone who thinks differently. You can't rationalize or use logic to explain right or wrong in a war so easily. War itself is the ultimate breakdown of society and communication. So trying to use reason to analyze the unreasonable it is largely a waste of time.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Neat. I hadn't thought of it like that. I just saw it as, "Don't make everything in your army controlled by computers." The moment Menedez said, "Your army is broken," I thought, 'You're forgetting about boots on the ground buddy. Can't 'break' those."
I must point out that I had something different happen in my game than yours. In mine, China saved the USS Obama and helped out in the final mission. I apparently made different choices than you.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You misunderstand. I merely mentioned it for perspective not as rationalization. So your points to that end are unwarranted.

The call for perspective was a rationalization. And not everything I said was directed at you specifically. I apologize for not being clear.

What people consider as horrible today, would have been "a good day" in WW2 since people were dying in droves - that was the overall point. Things in general are continuing to get better. It's not less horrible, but it's still better than mass war. The US could completely eradicate almost all sources of terror easily and quickly if WW2 methods of indiscriminate fire were still used today.

Yay America for not turning the surface of Asia to glass. Please imagine what this sounds like to a Pakistani. Would this make you feel better?

Plus, I think it is extremely unlikely that even total commitment would "eradicate almost all sources of terror". That statement rests on assumptions about the origins of terrorism and how to effectively combat it. As long as there are two people alive there will be terror.

Besides, unless I've personally seen concrete proof that US controlled drone strikes deliberately target civilians just to get 1 badguy, I'll take that as rumor and not fact.

Change that to "one person potentially connected to 1 badguy" or "just kind of fits the profile for 1 badguy" and you're closer to the mark. Your incredulity is warranted, but credible reporting from respected sources will have to suffice:

[link]http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obama_again_bombs_mourners/[/link]
[link]http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/[/link]

If it were true, then we're faced with the difficult thought of the lesser of two evils. Letting the badguy go, to plot to kill many more to save some others. Or end it there with some collateral damage.

I think that is very much in dispute. I do not accept that as the choice we are facing. The way we frame the issue is important. It can lead us to believe we are being more objective then we really are.

I then think, even if they were family, I wouldn't want to be around
someone who I knew was a terrorist. People who deny rights to certain sexes and people, who arrange the mass killings of civilians unless I myself was as corrupted as them. In which case I'd deserve it just the same.

No, you wouldn't. And whether or not any individual on the receiving end of a drone strike is actually a terrorist or in any way related to one is very much a matter of perspective, not to mention disputed material fact.

Ultimately, I detest posts like this because people who think one way will probably never be convinced to agree with someone who thinks differently. You can't rationalize or use logic to explain right or wrong in a war so easily. War itself is the ultimate breakdown of society and communication. So trying to use reason to analyze the unreasonable it is largely a waste of time.

Whether you realize it or not, you are playing on-again-off-again. First you take a stance on issues and later say the issues are beyond comprehension. I also suspect you may have interpreted my protestations against certain policies as condemnation of all U.S. security efforts. That is not the case. Finally, your arguments rest on substantial assertions about the nature of this conflict, and I don't think you're even aware of it.

The trouble with any centrist position is that it is a position, though one that often goes unexamined. If yellow is right and blue is wrong then green is more wrong then yellow. Sometimes, in some ways, the moderate is the jackbooted zealot of his time and place.

Bloodshed is most certainly unreasonable, but it is very much within our power to comprehend and explain. In any case, the bombs falling on Asia are ours. It falls to us to differentiate right from wrong, however inferior we may be to the task.

 

[BoogieManFL]

It's still just the words of some journalist or other third party. It doesn't make it fact. And it's worth considering some people who support terrorists have a lot of money. Money to bribe with and make things happen. Drones are a threat they can't effectively defend against using conventional means available to them. If I were them, I'd try my best to attack the use of such a weapon and saying they are being used to kill civilians, deliberately, would be a way to go about doing such. Propaganda, in a way. These people will kill schoolchidren and civilians, in large number, deliberately. For all we know they could have their own men grab a rocket launcher and wait for rescuers themselves and fire it off, and then blame it on American drones. It is possible and people like that are very capable of it.

Drone strikes are probably expensive and I struggle to believe random or innocent rescuers are targeted deliberately. The bad reaction such an act would get is considerable, not to mention the time and the drone/munitions that could be used on more significant threats. There would have to be significant call for it, I'd think.

That's what I have to hope is the case, because there is nothing I, or just about anyone else, can do about it.

 

[Silver Patriot]

Then the best part, American-made drones attack China and the US can't do anything against those because it is under attack by the same drones and China is the one yelling 'do more'.

China never yelled at me to "do more." In fact, a call between the President of the US and China (During Cordis Die) had him thanking us for our continued support in this time of crisis.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

It's still just the words of some journalist or other third party. It doesn't make it fact.

It is far more than "just the words of some journalist". I am somewhat doubtful you treat claims by anonymous Obama administration officials with this level of suspicion. But fine. Can you describe the kind of evidence you would accept?

And it's worth considering some people who support terrorists have a lot of money. Money to bribe with and make things happen. Drones are a threat they can't effectively defend against using conventional means available to them. If I were them, I'd try my best to attack the use of such a weapon and saying they are being used to kill civilians, deliberately, would be a way to go about doing such.

Are you implying that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism accepted a bribe to concoct false investigations? I'm sure you don't really think that.

Propaganda, in a way. These people will kill schoolchidren and civilians, in large number, deliberately. For all we know they could have their own men grab a rocket launcher and wait for rescuers themselves and fire it off, and then blame it on American drones. It is possible and people like that are very capable of it.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. -Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not calling you a monster, it's not meant to be so literal. I am saying I think you should examine who is peddling the propaganda, and who is killing the schoolchildren. I'm not saying other people aren't wrong, but I am saying that doesn't make a particular American policy right. While some of the scenarios you lay out may be technically possible, they are not supported by any facts or evidence.

I also believe there is a recurring theme in your writing, one in which the victims of drone attacks are repeatedly described as terrorists or characterized with a will to commit acts of murder and savagery. True or not, the assumptions here are numerous and substantial. Just who are "these people"?

Drone strikes are probably expensive and I struggle to believe random or innocent rescuers are targeted deliberately. The bad reaction such an act would get is considerable,

"Considerable" is putting it lightly.

not to mention the time and the drone/munitions that could be used on more significant threats. There would have to be significant call for it, I'd think.

Why would you think that? Honest question. What about world history, or American history since 9/11/2001, makes you think the scenario I'm laying out is implausible? Is it really so unusual?

That's what I have to hope is the case, because there is nothing I, or just about anyone else, can do about it.

It does feel that way sometimes. You can get out and vote. You can write your congressman. Just spreading awareness makes a big difference. It seems like nothing will ever change, and then suddenly two states legalize pot. =0

I actually sympathize with you a lot, even if I don't sound like it. I remember when I thought an American could never do anything wrong. Turns out we're human like everybody else =/.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I can tell this thread is gonna go well.