I was listening to Randi Rhodes the other day about this and she had a very reasonable position on this:
Firstly she says this President has been WAAAY more transparent than Bush has and you need to give him credit instead of beating him up for not opening up the floodgates on any and everything that you think you need to see.
I agree.
Some things, like these briefings have ALWAYS been classified - Obama keeping the 50 page memo classified isn't this egregious 'reversal of his transparency promise' as folks would have the public believe.
Secondly THE REASON he even showed this AT ALL is that possibly he's trying to get congress WORK FOR A CHANGE ON SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL AND DO THEIR JOBS!?
He's saying:
"I have a job to do. This is what I have to work with, this is how I interpret it - only for use on folks overseas actively plotting and fighting against the us. And I do this under the congressional AUMF of 2001. Now, is it problematic in that it can be interpreted for something way more sinister? Probably . . . but I DO NOT 'make law'. You in congress do! And I need you the Public sufficiently aware and concerned that you will pressure your member of congress to do something about it. Like I have said: Make me do it. That is your job as citizens to participate in the political process that affects your lives! On this issue you the public and congress need to move - I won't always be President."
I paraphrase her point . . . but then again I agree.
Obama never just 'reacts' to stuff.
He 'makes moves', always with an endgame in mind.
He didn't HAVE TO release the document . . . but he did!
Take THAT for the HUGE indicator that it is . . . and stop blaming him for something he came in and found in his 'toolbox'!
WE need to make our members of congress AMEND the AUMF of 2001 to address drones and the lack of due process, as well as, ANY desired 'protections', EVEN WHEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF TREASON, that Americans should 'enjoy'.
Personally, like I've said before, and that is just my thought, a man like Al Waliki should have been treated just like the other combatants we take out daily.
How can you go into other folks countries kill THEIR citizens without due process, but then force the same military to expend massive amounts of manpower to 'extract' an American who is involved in killing the local and American/allied citizenry JUST THE SAME . . . so you can bring them to trial!??
I'm sorry but that 'preferential treatment' just because 'He's an American!' smacks of a sort of 'nationalistic bigotry' that could see us losing strategic foothold in the present middle eastern countries who host us like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
The message we're sending to the indigenous people, in whose lands we operate is this:
Your people are not as valuable to us as Americans are.
You want due process? It MUST BE applied to ALL POTENTIAL TARGETS OF DRONES AND NOT JUST AMERICANS then!
You either have that or . . . the status quod.
But then targeted and remote killings potentially could become illegal by extrapolation, and we start seeing an uptick in special forces deaths, and we are held back too, by a Carter Executive Order, that has not been rescinded, banning explicit assassinations . . . which would arguably be what our special forces would be doing when they engage or take-out the enemy.
The outcry, like I said, from the KIA's loved ones would be deafening, as we are already weary of all this conflict, that was poorly managed, but needs to be pursued a little longer to clean it up.
But then what about these folks that are still planning against us? Will they 'give us a break' because they no longer have to fear 'death from the skies'?
The close-knit communities they operate in will still be what they are. An assault will still have a higher fail rate than kill/capture rate and the attrition casualties of such actions will mount . . . and then we might STILL not be able to stop them from organizing and/or carrying out their next plot.
What do we do then?
This needs to be discussed further with less emotion and reactionary rhetoric from both sides, and ground it in the recognition of the type of warfare that is waged nowadays, with intelligence and logistic/geographic realities on the ground and in the Region. Then merge the facts and considerations with a vigorous and explicit examination of our national, international as well as the local laws in the arenas of conflict to come up with policy and tactics, that folks will be comfortable with AND that are effective at the national security obligations we MUST meet.
Can this lofty goal be achieved?
I don't know honestly . . . I tend to think that many, particularly on the Left, will NOT be happy with whatever 'changes' comes out of this renewed focus on the long-controversial aspect of our military/national defense policies.
But we have to try to do something.
Conflict with these radicals is a foregone conclusion, and in such 'exchanges' innocents are always part of the collateral damage.
The problem is that the radicals NEED the casualties of innocents to 'function' and they can't be held responsible by any court for what they do as they operate outside of any legal framework.
But we on the other hand ARE subject to such 'pressures'.
It would seem that these 'considerations', if molded by emotional reactions to the carnage of this ongoing conflict, will basically leave us 'sitting and waiting . . . reacting' to 'whatever They actually do', . . . because trying to prevent Them would cost too much in blood treasure, finances, politically and geopolitically, and could scuttle key alliances necessary for national and economic security of this country.
The thing is that is PRECISELY what the Terrorists want to happen.
Can we let that happen? Are we ok with that?
Yes we need to do something but . . . with all your fulminations, check in with the shifting, unfortunate reality of the situation from time to time when you advocate for policy.
I have no further suggestions besides what I have already offered . . . but I hope to see something result that is somewhat less odious to most.
(C) Dike Matthew 2/8/13
Firstly she says this President has been WAAAY more transparent than Bush has and you need to give him credit instead of beating him up for not opening up the floodgates on any and everything that you think you need to see.
I agree.
Some things, like these briefings have ALWAYS been classified - Obama keeping the 50 page memo classified isn't this egregious 'reversal of his transparency promise' as folks would have the public believe.
Secondly THE REASON he even showed this AT ALL is that possibly he's trying to get congress WORK FOR A CHANGE ON SOMETHING CONSEQUENTIAL AND DO THEIR JOBS!?
He's saying:
"I have a job to do. This is what I have to work with, this is how I interpret it - only for use on folks overseas actively plotting and fighting against the us. And I do this under the congressional AUMF of 2001. Now, is it problematic in that it can be interpreted for something way more sinister? Probably . . . but I DO NOT 'make law'. You in congress do! And I need you the Public sufficiently aware and concerned that you will pressure your member of congress to do something about it. Like I have said: Make me do it. That is your job as citizens to participate in the political process that affects your lives! On this issue you the public and congress need to move - I won't always be President."
I paraphrase her point . . . but then again I agree.
Obama never just 'reacts' to stuff.
He 'makes moves', always with an endgame in mind.
He didn't HAVE TO release the document . . . but he did!
Take THAT for the HUGE indicator that it is . . . and stop blaming him for something he came in and found in his 'toolbox'!
WE need to make our members of congress AMEND the AUMF of 2001 to address drones and the lack of due process, as well as, ANY desired 'protections', EVEN WHEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF TREASON, that Americans should 'enjoy'.
Personally, like I've said before, and that is just my thought, a man like Al Waliki should have been treated just like the other combatants we take out daily.
How can you go into other folks countries kill THEIR citizens without due process, but then force the same military to expend massive amounts of manpower to 'extract' an American who is involved in killing the local and American/allied citizenry JUST THE SAME . . . so you can bring them to trial!??
I'm sorry but that 'preferential treatment' just because 'He's an American!' smacks of a sort of 'nationalistic bigotry' that could see us losing strategic foothold in the present middle eastern countries who host us like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
The message we're sending to the indigenous people, in whose lands we operate is this:
Your people are not as valuable to us as Americans are.
You want due process? It MUST BE applied to ALL POTENTIAL TARGETS OF DRONES AND NOT JUST AMERICANS then!
You either have that or . . . the status quod.
But then targeted and remote killings potentially could become illegal by extrapolation, and we start seeing an uptick in special forces deaths, and we are held back too, by a Carter Executive Order, that has not been rescinded, banning explicit assassinations . . . which would arguably be what our special forces would be doing when they engage or take-out the enemy.
The outcry, like I said, from the KIA's loved ones would be deafening, as we are already weary of all this conflict, that was poorly managed, but needs to be pursued a little longer to clean it up.
But then what about these folks that are still planning against us? Will they 'give us a break' because they no longer have to fear 'death from the skies'?
The close-knit communities they operate in will still be what they are. An assault will still have a higher fail rate than kill/capture rate and the attrition casualties of such actions will mount . . . and then we might STILL not be able to stop them from organizing and/or carrying out their next plot.
What do we do then?
This needs to be discussed further with less emotion and reactionary rhetoric from both sides, and ground it in the recognition of the type of warfare that is waged nowadays, with intelligence and logistic/geographic realities on the ground and in the Region. Then merge the facts and considerations with a vigorous and explicit examination of our national, international as well as the local laws in the arenas of conflict to come up with policy and tactics, that folks will be comfortable with AND that are effective at the national security obligations we MUST meet.
Can this lofty goal be achieved?
I don't know honestly . . . I tend to think that many, particularly on the Left, will NOT be happy with whatever 'changes' comes out of this renewed focus on the long-controversial aspect of our military/national defense policies.
But we have to try to do something.
Conflict with these radicals is a foregone conclusion, and in such 'exchanges' innocents are always part of the collateral damage.
The problem is that the radicals NEED the casualties of innocents to 'function' and they can't be held responsible by any court for what they do as they operate outside of any legal framework.
But we on the other hand ARE subject to such 'pressures'.
It would seem that these 'considerations', if molded by emotional reactions to the carnage of this ongoing conflict, will basically leave us 'sitting and waiting . . . reacting' to 'whatever They actually do', . . . because trying to prevent Them would cost too much in blood treasure, finances, politically and geopolitically, and could scuttle key alliances necessary for national and economic security of this country.
The thing is that is PRECISELY what the Terrorists want to happen.
Can we let that happen? Are we ok with that?
Yes we need to do something but . . . with all your fulminations, check in with the shifting, unfortunate reality of the situation from time to time when you advocate for policy.
I have no further suggestions besides what I have already offered . . . but I hope to see something result that is somewhat less odious to most.
(C) Dike Matthew 2/8/13
No comments:
Post a Comment