I truly understand why folks are generally so up in arms about this . . .
Drones!
Yes I know: The particularly emoting collateral damage, due to the fact that these folks deliberately immerse themselves among innocents at all times.
A little history here . . .
The thing is Bush cannibalized, due to a rather racist executive order(similar to the thinking that put the Japanese into internment camps), almost all our 'Middle Eastern' or 'foreign Brown Assets' because after 9/11 the administration felt that 'they could not be trusted'. Even specialists that spoke the language found themselves 'sidelined'. It's 'funny' that these folks have been embedded in these villages and governments and societies for decades, allowing for 'taking out' of certain figures quietly or with little to no collateral damage, or even capture over the years . . . and suddenly the administration felt they couldn't trust them!?
Also Gestapo-like political retribution did still more damage . . .
Valerie Plame's 'demise' further contributed to our growing 'blindness' in the region as well, and her company, with offices in Iran, had become an accepted entity within the country and provided personnel directly to the government who worked in so many industries within Iran . . . like their Nuclear Facilities. She used to 'keep an eye on the Iranians for us' through her company 'Brewster Jennings Associates', within an actionable distance to do something should it become necessary. Assets/employees possibly were killed or disappeared because of what Cheney did.
That is just one example. There are other examples in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places/people that we 'burned' - the assets ended up dead or disappeared.
So our deep cover capability was self-mutilated by a racist, and stupid administration(They also ignored the data they got from the 'hated' Clinton folks by the way for similar dumb ass reasons.).
But we still have to fight these guys.
As said earlier, they are immersed in tight-knit communities that make an assault by ground forces doomed to failure in terms of capturing their target because they'd be seen 'miles' before they get close and we'd suffer massive losses to boot.
So what's left?
Remote targeting pioneered by Bush I and Clinton, ramped up by Dubbya and proliferated somewhat uncomfortably so by Obama.
Drones.
The thing is this: Try telling a family of a dead soldier that you could have used a drone and their son or daughter would still be alive . . . but you didn't due to 'messy politics'??
The use of drones under the conditions I describe is inevitable and the increase in their use is also the same: inevitable
The problem is these folks are very effective at operating and planning lethal attacks on soldiers and allied cities around the world, while embedded with innocents, who because of their long cultural or tribal ties with these militants, protect and/or look out for them, without actually being involved in terrorism plots themselves.
Ideally we'd love to 'extract' them with ground forces . . . but you can't 'get close' to such tight knit community in their back yard like that.
What's left?
Drones.
So now we have this dilemma where there aren't any good choices - just bad and worse.
1) Do 'essentially nothing' being wedded to only ground assaults because you want to be mindful of the collateral damage, while suffering heavy casualties and STILL may not acquire your quarry in enough time to stop a threat . . . or at all. And you basically brace for the carnage of another 9/11 or subway bombing you weren't able to prevent . . .
Or . . .
2) You watch and watch and watch looking for a moment when they're alone or have very few folks around them, take them out remotely, with no risk to your soldiers, you stop the threat to cities and soldiers in the region . . . but have to deal with bad press of dead children and women and other innocents, whose only crime is that they lived a little too close, or that they came by at the wrong time to visit an uncle or brother . . . but no Americans and allied citizens were harmed because the proposed plot has been essentially thwarted.
Get them before they get you while minimizing your 'exposure' is the mantra . . . and the Terrorist and Us are BOTH doing it:
The militants submerge within 'innocents' because one they know that they have inferior military forces and don't want to be 'wiped out' in one fell swoop, and two they KNOW that our 'concern' for collateral damage and the loss of non-combatant life, will cause us to 'pause', as well as force us to change tactics, giving them extra time to plot and carry out their attacks against their sworn enemies.
We do it by increasingly relying on technology so that the face to face contact, thus risk of harm to our troops is minimized as much as possible. The ultimate of this is the Drone.
It comes down to what is our objective and what are we willing to accept.
How do we value life.
There are no good choices Folks . . . but action MUST be taken militarily, physically to stop these folks.
Drones can be used but they need much better oversight and little more stringent set of rules as to when the ok is given for their use.
The collateral damage for us, and the terrorists know this, is a serious geopolitical boondoggle, that can fracture and fray global alliances.
So we must be mindful as much as possible . . . but stopping it altogether?
I don't see it as a practical solution or even a viable one politically.
Idealism is a good guide . . . but when the rubber hits the road don't expect the wax on the sides not to get splashed with dirty water, puke, shit and frankly carrion as you move along . . .
Now there is this fierce debate and a lot of justified 'concern' . . . and some, in my opinion, over the top fear mongering on the Left concerning the use of these drones to kill Americans.
The argument centered and blew up, frankly, over the killing of Three US Citizens (Al Waliki is the best known of the three) who were arguably working with Al Qaida to kill US forces and plan attacks against the homeland and allied installations and cities across the globe.
A White Paper surfaced, which you may read here, that basically summarizes the Administration's justification for giving the kill order on these Americans.
Some argue, a little blindly I might add, that since they were Americans they should have been brought back to stand trial.
"We don't kill Americans like that! What's to stop them from doing that to anyone?"
A valid question to be sure and some on the Left say that the White Paper does not necessarily exclude the Administration for doing the same at home . . .
Here's the problem I have with this whole White Paper drone 'scare': Over and over again the Paper states that it is for use when encountering Americans OUTSIDE of the United States on and off the field of 'active' engagement, who are found to be working with Al Qaida and their affiliated groups.
Let me repeat: The memo does NOT address or give license to the government to 'drone strike you in your bed while you sleep' as some liberal pundits have fretted.
It is only for outside.
There must be substantial intelligence to support the charge that you are working with The Enemy
Capture must be impossible in light of logistics and can't be executed in a timely fashion to thwart credible, impending threat, in which they are the lynchpin of the operation.
It also gives license to anytime termination if this person has worked with the enemy before and has not shown any signs of turning away.
The Paper states and makes the point that it has been given that permission due to the Congressional 'Authorization For Use of Military Force' against Terrorists.
The legality and scope of the AUMF with respect to drone policy is a good debate to have . . . BUT Bush II and The Obama Administration's have been operating under the auspices of this authorization for more than a decade now.
There has only 'recently' been a 'problem', that our sensationalist Press has picked up(the Left has always been against it) because American Folks, who were arguably traitors were felled 'with the rest'.
The logical question that must be asked is: Are Americans caught doing these acts, Terrorists . . . or aren't they?
I say Yes!
And frankly here's the rub: we take out al Qaida non-American members with drones all the time . . . why should an American who is basically doing THE SAME THING these non-American folks are doing, be given any sort of 'special deference'??
Because they're 'Americans'??
Such a weird crop of patriotic bigotry that is, that you'd consider the life of an American doing evil, better than those doing the same, but not 'blessed' with a US passport or birth papers . . . plotting and killing their own, just like the other extremists do to their people too!
An American that does what Al Waliki was doing deserves as much 'quarter' as we've given countless Al Qaida and Taliban captured and/or dead combatants and leaders.
No less, No More.
That said . . . Should the drone program have more oversight?
Hell yes!!
But to stop using them altogether like some have called for?
Not likely
Like I said earlier and this bears repeating: You try telling the loved ones of a dead marine that dies in what might turn out to be a fruitless campaign to capture a baddie, because a drone was not allowed, their son or daughter might still be alive if we used a drone . . . but didn't because the politics was too messy and noisy.
Even if that 'baddie' was an American . . . You KNOW what the family will say.
(C) Dike Matthew 2-7-13
Drones!
Yes I know: The particularly emoting collateral damage, due to the fact that these folks deliberately immerse themselves among innocents at all times.
A little history here . . .
The thing is Bush cannibalized, due to a rather racist executive order(similar to the thinking that put the Japanese into internment camps), almost all our 'Middle Eastern' or 'foreign Brown Assets' because after 9/11 the administration felt that 'they could not be trusted'. Even specialists that spoke the language found themselves 'sidelined'. It's 'funny' that these folks have been embedded in these villages and governments and societies for decades, allowing for 'taking out' of certain figures quietly or with little to no collateral damage, or even capture over the years . . . and suddenly the administration felt they couldn't trust them!?
Also Gestapo-like political retribution did still more damage . . .
Valerie Plame's 'demise' further contributed to our growing 'blindness' in the region as well, and her company, with offices in Iran, had become an accepted entity within the country and provided personnel directly to the government who worked in so many industries within Iran . . . like their Nuclear Facilities. She used to 'keep an eye on the Iranians for us' through her company 'Brewster Jennings Associates', within an actionable distance to do something should it become necessary. Assets/employees possibly were killed or disappeared because of what Cheney did.
That is just one example. There are other examples in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places/people that we 'burned' - the assets ended up dead or disappeared.
So our deep cover capability was self-mutilated by a racist, and stupid administration(They also ignored the data they got from the 'hated' Clinton folks by the way for similar dumb ass reasons.).
But we still have to fight these guys.
As said earlier, they are immersed in tight-knit communities that make an assault by ground forces doomed to failure in terms of capturing their target because they'd be seen 'miles' before they get close and we'd suffer massive losses to boot.
So what's left?
Remote targeting pioneered by Bush I and Clinton, ramped up by Dubbya and proliferated somewhat uncomfortably so by Obama.
Drones.
The thing is this: Try telling a family of a dead soldier that you could have used a drone and their son or daughter would still be alive . . . but you didn't due to 'messy politics'??
The use of drones under the conditions I describe is inevitable and the increase in their use is also the same: inevitable
The problem is these folks are very effective at operating and planning lethal attacks on soldiers and allied cities around the world, while embedded with innocents, who because of their long cultural or tribal ties with these militants, protect and/or look out for them, without actually being involved in terrorism plots themselves.
Ideally we'd love to 'extract' them with ground forces . . . but you can't 'get close' to such tight knit community in their back yard like that.
What's left?
Drones.
So now we have this dilemma where there aren't any good choices - just bad and worse.
1) Do 'essentially nothing' being wedded to only ground assaults because you want to be mindful of the collateral damage, while suffering heavy casualties and STILL may not acquire your quarry in enough time to stop a threat . . . or at all. And you basically brace for the carnage of another 9/11 or subway bombing you weren't able to prevent . . .
Or . . .
2) You watch and watch and watch looking for a moment when they're alone or have very few folks around them, take them out remotely, with no risk to your soldiers, you stop the threat to cities and soldiers in the region . . . but have to deal with bad press of dead children and women and other innocents, whose only crime is that they lived a little too close, or that they came by at the wrong time to visit an uncle or brother . . . but no Americans and allied citizens were harmed because the proposed plot has been essentially thwarted.
Get them before they get you while minimizing your 'exposure' is the mantra . . . and the Terrorist and Us are BOTH doing it:
The militants submerge within 'innocents' because one they know that they have inferior military forces and don't want to be 'wiped out' in one fell swoop, and two they KNOW that our 'concern' for collateral damage and the loss of non-combatant life, will cause us to 'pause', as well as force us to change tactics, giving them extra time to plot and carry out their attacks against their sworn enemies.
We do it by increasingly relying on technology so that the face to face contact, thus risk of harm to our troops is minimized as much as possible. The ultimate of this is the Drone.
It comes down to what is our objective and what are we willing to accept.
How do we value life.
There are no good choices Folks . . . but action MUST be taken militarily, physically to stop these folks.
Drones can be used but they need much better oversight and little more stringent set of rules as to when the ok is given for their use.
The collateral damage for us, and the terrorists know this, is a serious geopolitical boondoggle, that can fracture and fray global alliances.
So we must be mindful as much as possible . . . but stopping it altogether?
I don't see it as a practical solution or even a viable one politically.
Idealism is a good guide . . . but when the rubber hits the road don't expect the wax on the sides not to get splashed with dirty water, puke, shit and frankly carrion as you move along . . .
To Kill or Not to Kill 'Americans'
Now there is this fierce debate and a lot of justified 'concern' . . . and some, in my opinion, over the top fear mongering on the Left concerning the use of these drones to kill Americans.
The argument centered and blew up, frankly, over the killing of Three US Citizens (Al Waliki is the best known of the three) who were arguably working with Al Qaida to kill US forces and plan attacks against the homeland and allied installations and cities across the globe.
A White Paper surfaced, which you may read here, that basically summarizes the Administration's justification for giving the kill order on these Americans.
Some argue, a little blindly I might add, that since they were Americans they should have been brought back to stand trial.
"We don't kill Americans like that! What's to stop them from doing that to anyone?"
A valid question to be sure and some on the Left say that the White Paper does not necessarily exclude the Administration for doing the same at home . . .
Here's the problem I have with this whole White Paper drone 'scare': Over and over again the Paper states that it is for use when encountering Americans OUTSIDE of the United States on and off the field of 'active' engagement, who are found to be working with Al Qaida and their affiliated groups.
Let me repeat: The memo does NOT address or give license to the government to 'drone strike you in your bed while you sleep' as some liberal pundits have fretted.
It is only for outside.
There must be substantial intelligence to support the charge that you are working with The Enemy
Capture must be impossible in light of logistics and can't be executed in a timely fashion to thwart credible, impending threat, in which they are the lynchpin of the operation.
It also gives license to anytime termination if this person has worked with the enemy before and has not shown any signs of turning away.
The Paper states and makes the point that it has been given that permission due to the Congressional 'Authorization For Use of Military Force' against Terrorists.
The legality and scope of the AUMF with respect to drone policy is a good debate to have . . . BUT Bush II and The Obama Administration's have been operating under the auspices of this authorization for more than a decade now.
There has only 'recently' been a 'problem', that our sensationalist Press has picked up(the Left has always been against it) because American Folks, who were arguably traitors were felled 'with the rest'.
The logical question that must be asked is: Are Americans caught doing these acts, Terrorists . . . or aren't they?
I say Yes!
And frankly here's the rub: we take out al Qaida non-American members with drones all the time . . . why should an American who is basically doing THE SAME THING these non-American folks are doing, be given any sort of 'special deference'??
Because they're 'Americans'??
Such a weird crop of patriotic bigotry that is, that you'd consider the life of an American doing evil, better than those doing the same, but not 'blessed' with a US passport or birth papers . . . plotting and killing their own, just like the other extremists do to their people too!
An American that does what Al Waliki was doing deserves as much 'quarter' as we've given countless Al Qaida and Taliban captured and/or dead combatants and leaders.
No less, No More.
That said . . . Should the drone program have more oversight?
Hell yes!!
But to stop using them altogether like some have called for?
Not likely
Like I said earlier and this bears repeating: You try telling the loved ones of a dead marine that dies in what might turn out to be a fruitless campaign to capture a baddie, because a drone was not allowed, their son or daughter might still be alive if we used a drone . . . but didn't because the politics was too messy and noisy.
Even if that 'baddie' was an American . . . You KNOW what the family will say.
(C) Dike Matthew 2-7-13
No comments:
Post a Comment