Originally Posted by Sky Captain
Even though our strategic interests may be different and we do not enjoy the same kind of relationship shared with, let's say Great Britain, it's clear that this might wind up being an example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
In big broad terms (assuming the people the Russians are after are people we'd want to neutralize also) this is little different in philosophy than the idea of our renditions of select prisoners to countries with no prohibitions on torture in order to benefit from the fact that our national morality prevents our doing the things that may be important to winning.
I'm not saying the US and Russia colluded on this or are at all cooperating here, but if the US can't do all of the sometimes dirty but necessary things to fight this war because of left wingers and freedom of the press and leakers and government oversight and etc. the world should take note of the effect this news (not to mention the actions of the Russian hit teams themselves) produces in the enemy's ranks.
And there may be absolutely no more news of this to hit the news. Secret hit teams don't advertise and their victims aren't likely to talk.
No press. No leaks. No protests. No oversights. But the insurgents will have another reason to look over their shoulders now. And who's to say that the interests of the Russians won't sometimes complement the interests of the Coalition forces?
Or vice versa.
Sometimes it's nice to have a bad-assed buddy when you're in a battle. Think, 'good cop/bad cop.'
Top