Drone Strikes

[buttslinger]

I think most Americans think of the USA as the country Jesus would dream up if he could, while the rest of the World sees the US as the Roman Empire. As far as foreign policy goes, I's rather have Caesar at the helm over Jesus. ALL of the western world condemns nuclear war, but we're all glad to have those ICBMs simmering in their silos in North Dakota. If there's gonna be a fight, we wanna win. I think most Americans went along with the Iraq war at first, because we figured if there is one thing Bush might be good at, it's stealing oil from the A-rabs and maybe bringing gasoline prices down to a dollar a gallon. Little did we know, even the republicans, Bush fucked up everything he touched. So now Obama has to fight terrorism ....not with no money.....but with a kajillion dollar debt. And that's a major factor in everything, keeping a brave face on not helping Syria, getting out of Afghanistan, forgiving illegals from invading our country, Drones are financed from the money we're going to have after Hilary has been in office for a few years, we're broke now. And while everything counts, I'd say at this time money is a huge factor in our overseas policies, and China is the emerging threat, not Iran, not North Korea. You'll never hear Obama badmouth money, the major question in American politics is whether money is wasted on senior citizens, or billion dollar battleships. Every so often a bigtime anchor on a national news network will say we need to spend a lot more time reporting the news from around the world. But the idea always gets shot down. The world is a bringdown, man.

[fivekatz]

I can't disagree with much of the sentiments of the fast few points, the USA is imperial nation combined of States with various, sometimes conflict laws. While this fall short of the total unique identities of the countries in Europe, yes US states have different laws, customs and even politics.

The US history is a clear picture of the imperialism of Europe finding the perfect location (the North American continent) to engage in mass genocide then taking those lands from the natives and then stripping the wealth from the land. The fact that Europeans parted from the imperial powers that landed and created their own empire is more than a footnote in history IMHO.

The US went from isolationist to imperialists as the frontier of North America was conquered and the Europeans were about to destroy their hold on the planet by engaging in not one but two costly wars (WWI and WWWII) that were wars for imperial supremacy and in the end two great empires were created the USSR and the USA.

The US in the post WWII era saw the conventional physical occupation colonialism to be obsolete. It played too much into the hands of the USSR, so while Europeans were slow to give over ultimate governance to native peoples, the demand was such that in the place of the colony either came a US or USSR puppet.

The current US policies at least as they apply to the Middle East are not done in a vacuum but are in the synergistic interests of NATO.

Most Americans went along with the second Iraq War out of mass culture fear. 9-11 was a game changer that allowed the ruling class to hypnotize the masses and actual misinform and scare them. Over 50% of America thought that Iraq has attacked us on 9-11, and over 50% of US citizens thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Why the Blair government join the Bush-Cheney train aside from the intoxication of being at the table of power I do not know.

I know on matters of international terrorism while American citizens feeling regarding how to deal with it a really all over the board, consistently Americans believe in the fact that terrorists do not get a nation state seat at the table.

The US debt is of little consequence in US policy, when the policy issues matter and make sense to a majority of those who govern. Debt aside if the US thought it could build a puppet democracy is Syria, the amount of resources and force that would hit that country would be nothing short of awesome. But the returns are in from citizen revolts as far back as the rise of Homeni in the late 70's, to Libya and Egypt and internal revolts do not tend to work in favor of the Western Governments or the corporations and plutocrats they serve.

IMHO the drones are used because not only is that sort of targeted attack more cost effective in terms of blood and treasure, it provides the US with a much more nimble foreign policy than a commitment of conventional force.

It is with no pride that I say that the strength of the military-industrial complex is such in the USA that regardless of our deficit if the President is so inclined to engage force at any level he chooses, the USA will do so. It isn't taxpayer money that dominants US foreign policy, it is plutocrat money.

Just my take

[Stavros]

One of the curiosities of history is that the word Empire has become the word used to describe power from one state over many, when the original word, Imperium means the exercise of power or authority, usually over people, so that in a very strict sense, the state of Texas is an Imperium -when early states were formed to rule from a place, usually a city, over people, those people often spoke different languages and had distinct cultural differences -France, Britain and Germany are obvious examples where language has become a 'unifying' force that once was a symbol of a new power: to this day there are some people who resent French, and it is still possible to become a British citizen without speaking a word of English, if Welsh (or Cymraeg) is the natural language.

Fivekatz I think you need to go back to the fall-out from the Reagan Presidency when a small group of hardline Conservatives were dismayed at the ease with which their Champion negotiated away the USA's arsenal of missiles with Gorbachev. One of the central propositions of these conservatives, who helped to shape the agenda for the Presidency of GW Bush, was that foreign policy should not compromise, that it should be aggressive, and that a new agenda for the Middle East could be opened in which dictatorship would be replaced by US-sponsored democracy: this would not only maintain the USA as the premier party in international diplomacy and negotiation, it would in the long term reduce the hostility to Israel. Iraq was seen as the weak link in the chain of Middle Eastern dictatorships, largely due to the unfinished business of Desert Storm, and also because regime change elsewhere was either deemed unnecessary because the regime was pro-American -eg, Egypt; or the unpredictable outcome was too radical to control -Saudi Arabia. The assault on Saddam Hussein was also to be a demonstration to Iran that dictatorship doesn't last and it was assumed that the 'democratic revolution' in Iraq would be an inspiration to the rest of the region. Iran's offer of a rapprochement with the US in 2001 was rejected because Conservatives don't compromise with such regimes, even reformist ones.

Tony Blair supported the USA's agenda but was keen to get involved in Iraq out of a belief that he could modify the worst excesses of US policy in Iraq from the inside, whereas the British element in the Coalition Government was treated with contempt, much as the US military regarded the British military occupation and 'government' of Basra as an abject failure.

What the purpose of NATO has become I don't understand: it was formed so that the states of Western Europe would have a military alliance with the USA to combat the strategic 'threat' of (or as a military balance to) the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe. It is now operating in Afghanistan on a completely different agenda.

There doesn't seem to be much response to the claim that the USA is murdering people accused of preparing attacks on the USA without the presentation of any evidence or the arraignment of the accused in court. Drones might look like an efficient military option, but politically -and all conflict is an extension of, if not compensation for politics -it looks like the USA has abandoned the rule of law. What happens when the USA is attacked by a missile fired from a drone?

[buttslinger]

I understand drones, it's the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War I don't understand. Driving around in circles waiting to hit am IED. Killing 100,000 civilians. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. Bush should have sent everything we had into Pakistan, killed Osama Bin Laden, and every American would have backed him up, even if he would be flirting with WW III. Cheney would be President now.

When the Nazis encountered a "terrorist" on the Eastern front they would line up ten villagers and shoot them. But it had no effect. They didn't know that Stalin had been doing the same thing for years.

There is no policy for terrorists. Morons taking their shoes off in airports. If the terrorists see us doing something, they'll shift their POLICY to adjust. Rules are for suckers.

9-11 happened because Clinton dropped a cruise missile on Bin Laden's camp and just missed him. The problem wasn't that we tried to kill him, the problem was we missed.

If we really want to defeat terrorists we should develop an electric car. Before the republicans get back in charge.

Violence is as American as cherry pie. Killing each other is practically a sport here. The USA is #1 because of the Atom Bomb. Murder is against the law, we gotta execute all the murderers.

[Ben]

Officials: US drone kills 4 militants in Pakistan:

http://news.yahoo.com/officials-us-d...062415816.html

Two drone strikes kill seven in southern Yemen-local official:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95006I20130601

[yodajazz]

I understand drones, it's the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War I don't understand. Driving around in circles waiting to hit am IED. Killing 100,000 civilians. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. Bush should have sent everything we had into Pakistan, killed Osama Bin Laden, and every American would have backed him up, even if he would be flirting with WW III. Cheney would be President now.

When the Nazis encountered a "terrorist" on the Eastern front they would line up ten villagers and shoot them. But it had no effect. They didn't know that Stalin had been doing the same thing for years.

There is no policy for terrorists. Morons taking their shoes off in airports. If the terrorists see us doing something, they'll shift their POLICY to adjust. Rules are for suckers.

9-11 happened because Clinton dropped a cruise missile on Bin Laden's camp and just missed him. The problem wasn't that we tried to kill him, the problem was we missed.

If we really want to defeat terrorists we should develop an electric car. Before the republicans get back in charge.

Violence is as American as cherry pie. Killing each other is practically a sport here. The USA is #1 because of the Atom Bomb. Murder is against the law, we gotta execute all the murderers.

Killing Bin Laden in 1999 would have not stopped 9/11. Bin Laden was never formally charged with anything directly related to it. He also denied that he had anything to do with it. Here's an article that goes into greater depth, although several things mentioned, are very well known.

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-0...d-not-plan-911

There are things in this article, I can modify. For example, Dick Chaney did say that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. However when questioned about this statement at the end of the interview, when he was asked about it, he said that he meant to say Saddam Hussein.

One thing not mentioned in the article, is that Bin Laden's Fatwah, only authorized the killing of military personnel. This would be in accordance to the conduct of war authorized in the Koran.

[yodajazz]

I had not heard that Obama, made a speech signaling a change in guidelines for the use of drones, as well as the conduct of "the war on terror" on May 23rd, until just a few days ago. Although, the cynical, say he did not say anything at all, his guidelines do narrow the definitions of cases were they will be used. Anyone out there have opinions on this?

[Stavros]

I had not heard that Obama, made a speech signaling a change in guidelines for the use of drones, as well as the conduct of "the war on terror" on May 23rd, until just a few days ago. Although, the cynical, say he did not say anything at all, his guidelines do narrow the definitions of cases were they will be used. Anyone out there have opinions on this?

If you will permit me to make some annotated comments on the speech, published in the New York Times in full here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us...anted=all&_r=0

In the key passages on drones, Obama stresses the military necessity of the action in dealing with 'terrorists' plotting against the USA where host government is either incompetent or complicit, and claims civilian casualties may have been exaggerated:
America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.
Now, this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes — both here at home and abroad — understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There’s a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties and nongovernmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option.


Thus, having previously routed endorsements for drone strikes through Congress 'in camera', he now intends the process to be more transparent:


Going forward, I’ve asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested — the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch — avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. But despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight.

I think the fundamental problem is that the Drones may be creating a reaction where none existed before. Obama argues the core of al-Qaeda has been trashed but that small, do-it-yourself groups have sprung up in Yemen, Somalia and so on, so that 'the threat' has not gone away, and that the USA can best counter these threats by helping under-performing, backward economies and societies progress, etc, the age-old argument that economic development fosters democracy, peace and goodwill to all men. That may be why some think the speech is bland.

But is the core problem the potential that drone strikes have to maintain, or even create a new loathing of the USA? The USA may be pulling out of Afghanistan, and reducing its visible presence to people in that region who want them gone, but the Taliban have not gone away, Afghanistan is up for grabs; the use of Drones in Syria is not inconceivable, and with the perpetuation of that conflict as a proxy confrontation with Iran and its allies, this is a problem that may drag the USA into controversial actions which cannot be 'solved' through Congressional oversight.

[yodajazz]

If you will permit me to make some annotated comments on the speech, published in the New York Times in full here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us...anted=all&_r=0

In the key passages on drones, Obama stresses the military necessity of the action in dealing with 'terrorists' plotting against the USA where host government is either incompetent or complicit, and claims civilian casualties may have been exaggerated:
America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.
Now, this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes — both here at home and abroad — understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There’s a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties and nongovernmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option.


Thus, having previously routed endorsements for drone strikes through Congress 'in camera', he now intends the process to be more transparent:


Going forward, I’ve asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested — the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch — avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. But despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight.

I think the fundamental problem is that the Drones may be creating a reaction where none existed before. Obama argues the core of al-Qaeda has been trashed but that small, do-it-yourself groups have sprung up in Yemen, Somalia and so on, so that 'the threat' has not gone away, and that the USA can best counter these threats by helping under-performing, backward economies and societies progress, etc, the age-old argument that economic development fosters democracy, peace and goodwill to all men. That may be why some think the speech is bland.

But is the core problem the potential that drone strikes have to maintain, or even create a new loathing of the USA? The USA may be pulling out of Afghanistan, and reducing its visible presence to people in that region who want them gone, but the Taliban have not gone away, Afghanistan is up for grabs; the use of Drones in Syria is not inconceivable, and with the perpetuation of that conflict as a proxy confrontation with Iran and its allies, this is a problem that may drag the USA into controversial actions which cannot be 'solved' through Congressional oversight.

I agree with your comments. I have long seen drone use as being easily subverted, through civillian causualties figures being manipulated. We have no proof either way. The US could easily be fed false information, and eliminate someone else's enemies other than our own, and on and on. The good thing is that at least we see the consequences are being considered. I see the threat of them gaining power, is not really that great of a threat to us. Once any outsiders gain power, they get tempted by all that wealth and power have to offer. They also have administrate serious local issues. I could name many examples in history, but I'll use one, who most people don't think of: The Prophet Muhammad, himself, last phase of life was that of an administrator, not a spiritual mystic, or warrior.

In the event some true war bent, radical group does start to collect real war weapons, they will coming against our real strength. however the reality is that those weapons are mostly for keeping them in power against their own people. The real threat is not Islam. Muslims are still fighting over who was the rightful successor to the Prophet, (it will be 1481 years on June 8th). Sunnis have not central authority. How would they run the US, or the world?

[Stavros]

I agree with your comments. I have long seen drone use as being easily subverted, through civillian causualties figures being manipulated. We have no proof either way. The US could easily be fed false information, and eliminate someone else's enemies other than our own, and on and on. The good thing is that at least we see the consequences are being considered. I see the threat of them gaining power, is not really that great of a threat to us. Once any outsiders gain power, they get tempted by all that wealth and power have to offer. They also have administrate serious local issues. I could name many examples in history, but I'll use one, who most people don't think of: The Prophet Muhammad, himself, last phase of life was that of an administrator, not a spiritual mystic, or warrior.

In the event some true war bent, radical group does start to collect real war weapons, they will coming against our real strength. however the reality is that those weapons are mostly for keeping them in power against their own people. The real threat is not Islam. Muslims are still fighting over who was the rightful successor to the Prophet, (it will be 1481 years on June 8th). Sunnis have not central authority. How would they run the US, or the world?

Obama in his speech does not mention the Desert Storm/Gulf War following which US troops remained in Saudi Arabia -this was the spark that ignited Osama bi Laden as proof that the Saudi royal family and their 'Wahabi' interpretation of Islam were not fit to rule and was the core reason for al-Qaeda's attacks on the US in the Middle East, Africa and beyond: the goal was not to destroy the US but make its alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel too costly, and ultimately re-shape the whole of the Middle East by creating a 'Caliphate' in place of the modern states system. With British and US forces out of Iraq, and Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the raison d'etre for the al-Qaeda project in attacking the US/Britain no longer has its resonance, as was shown in London a few weeks ago by the man with bloodstained hands ranting on about British troops killing people 'in our lands'. If anything, murderous though it is, attacking people in the US and Britain, or France, through 'local action' is a soft option which only proves that it can be done to shock people, like shouting 'Fuck' in church or defacing the Lincoln Memorial with expletives. The real consequence of drones will come when many other state have them and use them, they could cause more havoc than nuclear weapons, which have rarely been used.