Actual whistleblowers have been getting relatively light sentences.
Dumping half a million documents you haven't read isn't whistle-blowing. Any actual uncovering of wrongdoing that happens through such a process is purely coincidental.
I understand that that is your point, Bill, but the argument you just made to support it doesn't hold up.
The civil war and ethnic cleansing continued to expand for months, perhaps a year of more, after the surge was begun. The Baghdad Security Plan was supposed to stop the ethnic cleansing, but it continued right under our noses, and now, Baghdad has no more mixed neighborhoods. It's difficult for me to believe that a program which was so ineffective at its stated objectives can be credited with the end of the civil war, especially when much-more credible alternatives (the accomplishment of the ethnic cleansing, the announcement of the withdrawal) can explain that outcome.
Well, JT, you started off misusing the phrase "moral relativism," and I stopped reading after that.
Seriously. Look the term up. I know it's one of those super-awesome, smart-sounding words you learned during the Bush administration, but you have to actually be able to use it correctly in a sentence if you want anyone to pay attention to what you have to say.
people from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, to the horn of Africa (who next?)
Even this phrasing grossly overstates the situation. The vast majority of the people in the Islamic world are not living in any such situation. Not in Egypt or any other part of North Africa, not in Iran, not in any of the Southeast Asian Muslim countries, not in in any of the Gulf states or Saudi Arabia, not in any part of Southwest Asia except one small country.
There are three or four countries in which anyone fears "death from above." Trying to bootstrap that into a statement about the entire Muslim world is far off-base.
The idea that people in sensitive intelligence positions are not allowed to have affairs is not illogical. It is long-established practice, and for good reason: because people have been blackmailed in "honeypot" operations before.
And Patraeus was Director of the CIA. He would have, and perhaps did, fire people under him for having affairs. For him to stay on after being caught having one of his own would have destroyed morale, and his ability to effectively run the agency.
You're right about the first part, but not the second.
The Anbar Awakening - their rejection of the foreign jihadists who had been their allies, and their turn to the US - certainly did help put a lid on al Qaeda, who had provoked the civil war.
But by that point, the effort to provoke a civil war had already succeeded. It had become a self-sustaining thing, and did not require al Qaeda continually stoking the flames.
This theory assumes that Patraeus, and the US, were in control of everything happening in Iraq, and that's clearly not the case. Iraq got very much out of American control - ask "President" Ahmed Chalabi.
Foreign al Qaeda operatives deliberately conducted a campaign of anti-Shiite atrocities, like the Golden Mosque bombing, for the purpose of provoking a sectarian civil war, because they knew that doing so would make Iraq ungovernable for the occupying Americans. That conflict wasn't something beneficial for the occupiers.
There is no "wide ranging assassination plan." The total number of strikes across the entire world is a tiny fraction of the amount of fighting that goes in in Afghanistan in a month.
The degree of angst and attention focused on the targeted air strikes is completely out of proportion to their scope and significance. Just to put things in perspective: the Taliban killed more civilians just in Afghanistan last year than the total number of civilians and militants killed in all of the drone strikes ever conducted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, since they began over a decade ago.
To Pashtuns, it is just another foreign occupation force to replace the NATO foreign occupation force.
Well, to some Pashtuns. As you said, to other Pashtuns, it is a legitimate government that they support.
Why is it that Pashtuns - and only those Pashtuns who agree with you, not those other "bad" Pashtuns - are the ones who get to decide of a government is legitimate? The Uzbeks, the Hazara, the Tajiks - they don't count?
even though most of our “patrolling” has zero or negative effects on stability and security
Do you actually know the first thing about anything happening in Afghanistan?
Do you think you even need to in order to make such a sweeping statement?
I had it with people who think they answer complicated questions by checking their guts ten years ago.
While you're grading me for my observation about the positive effects of withdrawal in Iraq, I hope you're keeping in mind that said withdrawal was carried out extremely slowly precisely to avoid the chaos that everyone agreed was in the offering if we'd pulled out quickly, and that some - not me, but I suspect you - were certain was going to take place anyway, and used as "evidence" that a slow withdrawal was pointless.
The situation in Iraq circa 2007-2008 was similar to this.
The most important factor that will determine whether the ANA can hold the line, or even whether it will continue to have to hold the line against a Taliban insurgency, is Afghan politics.
When the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, it served to weaken the support the insurgents enjoyed even within their own communities; split the insurgency as half of them transitioned into democratic politics, and increased popular support for the government, which was no longer seen as merely a foreign cat's paw. The military result was that the Iraqi government forces gained military dominance over the insurgents. The political results was that the two sides were able to achieve a deal to end the fighting.
All of which is to say, the military challenge facing the ANA is not a constant value, with the subtraction of American capability being the only change to the equation as the withdrawal continues.
The next time you buy a car, go to the dealership and offer them $1000 for a new Accord. Then they'll have to sell it to you for $2000, because that's totally how bargaining works.
Your description of LBJ's methods of dealing with Congress are profoundly inaccurate. He was a ball-buster on an individual level when he need to get a couple of votes, but he was also a master at feeling out the sense of Congress and tuning his proposals and actions to what was actually possible. This notion that he would come in with something utterly impossible and then "tell" the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House of Representatives to pass it bears no resemblance whatsoever to actual history.
Clearly, Obama does not have progressive instincts, and prefers to rule from the center.
Clearly, the college professor with a blog isn't familiar with the constraints that actual responsibility to work well with others in order to succeed at one's endeavors places on someone. The notion that a President's habits in office are an unaltered reflection of his preferences betrays a poor understanding of how out system of government works.
Ruling from the center means taking his base for granted while reaching out to relatively conservative constituencies.
The people you describe as "relatively conservative constituencies" represent a much larger segment of the Democratic base than do the allegedly spurned progressives. The people you are describing as "his base" could fit in one of Richard Trumka's thighs.
This tactic is why we don’t have a single-payer health insurance plan.
Oh fer chrissakes. I thought you were a bit more sophisticated than this. You think tactics are the reason we don't have a single-payer health system?
The US plan, of training up a 400,000-man army and security force that could successfully repress the neo-Taliban, is probably unrealistic. But with a December 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of US troops, The plan is going to be sorely tested over the next few months.
I find reason for optimism in Iraq. The announced, sustained, gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is, in and of itself, a powerful tool for promoting political reconciliation. It lets the insurgents know that they don't have to drive us out, and lets the government know that they can't depend on American "security welfare." It splits the insurgents, leading half of more of them to choose electoral politics over violence. It makes the local government more credible and legitimate in the eyes of the populace, and allows local politics to be about something other than a pro/anti-government civil war. Think of all of the oh-so-confident predictions, from both right and far-left, about Iraq collapsing, the government falling, the society turning back into a 2006-style charnel house, and being taken over by gangs of terrorists once we left. Not so much, as it turned out.
It is probably unrealistic that the US could stand up a force capable of suppressing the Taliban while staying in the country, but doing so on our way out the door might well work.
Still waiting for the Wiser People to state what “US interests” are involved and at risk over there.
None. Our involvement is altruistic. We want to see people who are oppressed by dictatorship live in freedom.
Insisting that national interest is the only legitimate driver of foreign policy is inhumane and imperialistic. Henry Kissinger might ask this question.
both candidates support the scuttling of Habeas Corpus (i.e.: NDAA)
This is false. If Obama supports indefinite detention powers so much, why hasn't he used them even once during his presidency?
President Obama opposed the inclusion of the indefinite detention provisions in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, and used the threat of a veto power to get the watered down so that he could continue to handle terrorism suspects as he has always done - by putting them into the civilian criminal justice system.
Congress, unhappy with his opposition to indefinite detention, attempted to compel him to start using it, by writing some "shall" language into the NDAA, which would have required him to put terrorism suspects into military detention - that is, to reverse what has always been his policy. Because of the White House's efforts, this requirement was removed.
The NDAA is the annual bill that authorizes the existence of the Department of Defense, and spends money on the military. It is written by Congress, and every year, they put some things in that the White House doesn't want. Remember those destroyers that the Pentagon didn't want, but that the Republican Congress kept funding, because they were built in Trent Lott's district? The President always eats something he doesn't want in the annual defense bill.
Actually, Obama has not asserted any such power to unilaterally assassinate anyone.
Unlike Bush, who did claim that power under his theories of executive power, Obama has specifically cited legislation passed by Congress - the September 2001 AUMF - as the source of the authority to wage that war. Nor has he asserted the power of "assassination of any individual," but of those who belong to the enemy force cited in Congress's authorization.
Whether you support using force against al Qaeda or not, Obama's use of that force has nothing to do with the Unitary Executive, nor with unilateral executive power at all, but with the execution of powers granted by the legislative branch.
The phrase "bestowed citizenship on thousands of Saudi and Pakistani Sunnis" doesn't quite convey the scope of what the monarch did.
The population of Bahrain increased by over 1/3 between 2008 and 2009. A country that had under 800,000 citizens added over a quarter million in one year.
It's probably most accurate to say that there has been significant social change in North Africa, but relatively little, so far, in Southwest Asia.
The two have always only been kinda sorta the same region, but not entirely. Perhaps these events will result in them becoming even more distinct as regions.
On the anti-Shiite bombings in Iraq: is it your impression that this mainly an Iraqi Sunni phenomenon, and not primarily the work of foreign jihadists (as the similar bombings circa 2005 were?)
Or perhaps it would be better to ask, do you see them as more Iraqi Sunni than those during the American occupation? Since there are clearly elements of both at work in both situations.
Do you think al Qaeda is still working to foment a sectarian civil war in Iraq?
Anyone who thinks the future is gong to be a replay of the past, especially any ‘golden past’ is deluded.
No, JamesL, it is the people who think "This time is different!" who are deluded. It is always the people who think "This time is different!" who are deluded.
I hear leftists proclaiming in very wistful tones that this recession is the final crisis of capitalism in every single recession. They are always wrong, and they will always be wrong. It is as deluded to believe that "This time is different" when you are hoping for permanent economic decline, as when you are hoping that housing prices will rise eternally.
These policies would be exactly the same percentage of "enough" if they had been explicitly promoted as climate-change policies.
Well, probably not...some of them probably wouldn't have been implemented if they had been explicitly sold as climate change policies.
The point is, concluding that President Obama doesn't realize the urgency of the problem because he didn't talk about it during the debates places far too much emphasis on rhetoric, and far too little on action.
PS - can we expect an "It isn't enough. It isn't nearly enough," comment in your next piece lauding the Chinese for their investments in alternative energy?
even Obama doesn’t seem to realize the severity and urgency of the problem (or else he does and feels his hands are tied).
Obama has been taking very serious action against climate change ever since he came into office - he's just been doing so quietly. For instance, he's sold his gigantic fuel efficiency standards improvements as a way to lower energy costs for Americans, his aggressive (and targeted) EPA actions on coal plants as a clean air issue, and his massive investments in alternative energy as stimulus and long-term economic development.
The United States has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other nation on earth since Obama came into office (the much-vaunted Chinese, sometimes held out as a model of alternative energy production, have massively increased theirs by building large numbers of coal plants, while we've been shutting ours down).
He just hasn't been talking about these actions in climate-related terms, because it's too easy to make environmental protection look destructive to the economy during periods of economic decline (a point that featured prominently in the concept of Sustainable Development that came out of the Rio conference).
When the economy picks back up, the Democrats will begin explicitly, instead of quietly, pushing climate change as an issue again - and they'll be able to point to the successes of the wind and solar sectors and of other green policies implemented under this administration to make their case.
America's relationship with Israel is based on absolutely no national security benefits for us. The USA gains nothing from having this relationship. In fact, it costs us quite a bit, in money, and in our relations with other governments and societies. For paying these costs, we get back nothing.
The fondness that the United States has towards Israel is purely sentimental. We see them as "the only democracy in the Middle East," "a plucky group of idealists, besieged on all sides," and "People like us, unlike the other societies in that part of the world." We defend and aid Israel purely because we feel like it.
Over the last few years, however, Israel has become increasingly undemocratic, illiberal, belligerent, and ugly in its relations with the U.S. and its allies. We've also become increasingly close to democratic Turkey over the last few years (a real ally, one whose young men have fought and died beside our own, unlike Israel's) while Israel has trashed their once-strong relationship with that NATO ally. Meanwhile, with the Arab Spring, we've seen indigenous democracies crop up in that part of the world, some of which (Libya and Tunisia) seem much more liberal, democratic, and decent than Israel. And now their government is insinuating itself into our elections, trashing our President, and trying to drag us into a war.
This is not wise behavior for a country whose relationship with us depends upon the warm feelings generated by the perception that they are more decent and more like us than their hostile neighbors.
Engaging in wars of choice, profiting from sweatshops and other forms of slavery, overthrow of elected governments, rapacious corporations whose avarice knows no bounds, raping justice every day, etc.
Do you imagine any of this to be unique to the west?
The Jews living in Israel today would be safer and happier if every Jew who immigrated there since the founding of Zionism had moved to the United States instead.
So would we Americans, for that matter.
Maybe it's just my American-ness speaking, but ethnicity-based states creep me out.
Carter did show that "moral courage" while he was in office.
His staunch refusal to bow to mere political considerations made him one of the least effective Presidents of the modern era.
It is not a moral shortcoming to accept half a loaf - especially when your own belly will be full either way, and you're job is secure bread for those that have none.
We now know that the two candidates are in agreement on the use of drones.
This phrasing makes me doubt Emmerich's entire project. That the strikes are carried out by pilotless aircraft is the least relevant detail possible in determining their legality, significance, and morality.
One could say that Barack Obama and George W. Bush "are in agreement on the use of aircraft carriers," because Bush used them to support the invasion of Iraq, and Obama used them to support the UN protective mission in Libya - but those were two very different episodes, taking place under very different legal circumstances, involving very different types of missions. To conclude from this that the two share any meaningful views on any policies whatsoever would be foolish.
The issue is not "drones." UAVs are used for as wide a variety of missions as piloted aircraft. Providing close air support for ground forces in Afghanistan is not the same thing as targeting al Qaeda leadership in Yemen, which is not the same thing as targeting al Shabbab in Somalia, which is not the same thing as targeting Taliban and Haqqani commanders in Pakistan, which is not the same as targeting tanks and artillery guns in Libya. And yet, all of these different missions are getting lumped under the same heading, because the aircraft being used are remote-controlled.
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm going to need a bit more than your opinion that there is "pretty clear evidence" of anything before I believe it. Because, you see, you accept "a conclusion that confirms my predetermined talking points" as evidence.
You wish me to offer counter-proofs of what, exactly? Nobody has offered any evidence or proof of anything. Emmerich himself is asking for evidence - he doesn't even claim to know anything (which makes him a far better-informed, honest observer than you).
But no doubt, you just skimmed right over that part.
Sure seems to me that we do not have enough wealth and power to make everyone else on the plant kneel down and say “Uncle,” and hand over the keys to their kingdoms…
What this is supposed to have to do with drone strikes in such lush, resource ladens "kingdoms" as Waziristan, Yemen, and Somalia eludes me.
Targeting people because they are attending funerals or rushing to provide aid would be a war crime.
On the other hand, sometimes legitimate targets attend funerals or rush to the site of a air strike, and there is nothing in international law against striking these targets when they are doing so.
The anti-U.S. commentary on this, including by Mr. Emmerson, assumes that the former is the case, even as he implicitly acknowledges that he does not have adequate information to make such a determination.
The United States "pulled out" in a big war after 1991.
And then Afghanistan turned into a paradise, no civilians died there, and nothing bad happened to the United States.
Your recommendation, allegedly based on humanitarian grounds, is to call for a reprisal of the decade from the Soviet withdrawal to 9/11. I think a Plan B might be in order.
After all of the things Israel has done, for Morsi to jump up and make a show of denouncing these air strikes - firing at people in the act of shooting off rockets and mortars into towns - is, in internet terms, trolling.
I think there is an easier explanation: people, not just those in the Christian right, tend to adopt positions that the other members of their political coalition support, on issues that are not of top importance to them.
Thus, Christian rightists who don't really have strong feelings or fully-formed beliefs about taxation and the welfare tend to adopt the position of those movement conservatives who do have strong beliefs on those questions. After all, those nice people who agree with them about abortion and prayer in public schools 1) really seem to know what they're talking about, and 2) have the same values I do about religious issues.
now enshrined as a Presidential, or shall we say, Kingly Right
False. The Obama administration, unlike the Bush administration, cited the AUMF Congress passed in 2001 as the legal authority under which such air strikes are authorized. They explicitly renounced the Bush-era doctrine that they were legal under executive authority.
And surely, as everybody knows by now, these drone strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somali, Libya (& countries/regions unknown?) are killing more “civilians” (Old&Young Men&Women Boys&Girls Infants) than the “targeted militants” (whoever they might be in varying contexts around the world?).
Not even the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the anti-drone outfit Professor Cole links to, makes this claim. Even their highest estimates of civilian casualties put them around 25-33% of total deaths.
Can we please discuss these issues with a due respect for the established facts?
Perhaps, JT, because the base at Guantanamo dates from a period when Cuba was not a hostile country, and was willing to sign a deal for us to have a base there.
And why, if the goal is to relocate away from a country that oppresses its citizens and kills them when they protest, would we want to go to Iran, a horrific human rights abuser vastly worse than Bahrain?
There's a problem with #2: If it doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, it can’t be closer to having a bomb.
The initial stages of both a civilian energy program and a military weapons program are exactly the same, at least in terms of developing the capacity to enrich uranium and then doing so. It it only relatively late in the game that the activities of the two diverge. If the steps necessary to develop an energy program are a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i, then the steps necessary for a weapons program are a, b, c, d, E, F, G, and H. Moving from a through d does, indeed, bring you closer to Capital H, even if you don't have a weapons program, distinguishable from an every program, until you get to e/E.
This is erratic, self-destructive behavior by the Israeli government. They are doing themselves tremendous damage, isolating themselves like this in the world community.
Israel has always been...um...let's say "vigorous in the pursuit of its own security," but they were always rational about it.
This government's policies have been increasingly irrational. They already alienated their best friend in the region, Turkey, with this blockade, and now they're going to do the same with Europe.
There is a huge difference between how border guards are supposed to treat people, and how the police are supposed to treat people in the country.
If these were police on the beat treating random people walking down the street this way, that would be a police state. Then again, if we were required to have an up-to-date passport ready for inspection when we walked down the street, that would be a police state, too, yet I doubt anyone thinks that checking passports at the border is indicative of a police state.
I can see how you could come away with that impression, but the selection of questions makes a lot more sense if you know something about the guards' purpose and tactics. The "stupid" questions, like "which stores?" are not being asked because the police are interested in that information, but because they want to see if the subject is lying - if he contradicts his story when he's asked the same question a second time, or if he can't come up with an answer to an obvious question, or if he reacts in a suspicious way.
I'm sorry, but questioning people from other countries when they cross your border is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The "how dare you ask me where I'm going response" to a border guard, as you are entering his country, is top-notch dickery.
just wait till they do come back with a response, like 9-11, for instance.
Kindly remind me, which of the 9/11 attackers came from countries the United States was waging a war against?
Be specific. You do seem terribly impressed by your understanding of the causes of terrorism, so no doubt you have the answer right at your fingertips.
I wonder, when a white supremacist or anti-abortion radical commits an act of terrorism, do you blame their victims then, too?
You are, of course, correct; the decimation of al Qaeda has probably saved many more lives in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia than in the United States.
And the Americans in Iraq are not there in civilian capacity are they? Actually, they are now.
In citing the “humanitarian perspective” you are only including us, you forget the vast majority of affected folks — those from the country. Why is that?
Because it cuts to the heart of the argument against fighting al Qaeda: that the United States shouldn't defend itself, and that terrorist attacks are something we've got coming to us.
Even the highest estimates are remarkably low for a modern war, comparable to the total number of civilians killed by the UN mission in Libya in six months (which is also remarkably low for a modern war).
The Bureau's median estimate to be correct, it would take approximately three decades for the air campaign over Pakistan to kill as many civilians as the 9/11 attacks - which reminds me, how many civilians are al Qaeda killing these days?
I know that the civilians killed by al Qaeda have an annoying tendency to be white and American, but I must insist that their lives still have value, and that the ability of the drone missions to prevent additional deaths should be taken into account when considering their impact from a humanitarian perspective.
You have no idea how amusing it is to see you repeatedly describe others as a "true believer." Physician, heal thyself.
Anyway, for all of your theorizing, there is nothing in the one link you provided (did you know that there is not Wiki entry behind your first link) that indicates anything other than what I said: that bin Laden and the US were both fighting the same enemy, and were supporting the same mujahadeen.
I also have no idea who my heroes are supposed to be. Dick Cheney and John Bolton, no doubt. My very best buds, you know.
You have a simplistic, Manichean view of the world. It would behoove you to develop the capacity to view things with more depth than "my side vs. the bad people."
I haven't the foggiest idea what you're babbling about, JT, although I do recognize the same 50-cent words you like to sprinkle about to try to class up your comments.
Honest people don't gin up precious little phrases to hide truths. If you describe the shooting of a 14-year-old girl for being uppity, or the refusal to educate girls at all, as merely "how a different culture treats women," you are being willfully dishonest. You are using Orwellian phrasing to hide the truth.
That sort of behavior, as opposed to calling out that sort of behavior, is the mark of someone who is a little too certain of his own righteousness.
It should be noted that Bin Laden’s group was one of the CIA-backed groups fighting the Communists during the 1980′s
This is false. Bin Laden organized his "group" - first a fundraising circle, and later actual fighters - specifically to provide a "purer" alternative system for resisting the Soviets, because he did not believe in working with the United States. I'm sure the Reagan-era CIA would have loved to back him, but bin Laden was having none of it. He got into the game for the specific purpose of not working with the CIA, and providing a way for other mujahadeen to do the same.
This is cowardice, intellectual cowardice, of the same variety that one sees in torture apologists who use phrases like "rough prisoners up a little" or "run the air conditioning."
The sensible, rational, well-informed high government officials in the White House have already established that the war in Afghanistan is going to end, and provided a timeline.
And they did this back in 2009, when the war in Afghanistan was still popular, and the powerless, ignorant, naive "activists" like Medea Benajamin have managed to alter that policy by exactly zero.
In addition, there is now an Al-qaeda in Iraq — there wasn’t before we invaded, Iran is enjoying an enhanced strategic position, and Afghanistan is a security black hole. Things are not going swimmingly well
Why are you talking about Iraq, in response to a comment about drone strikes against targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia?
Hey, Joe: You’re the one tossing out the red herring that the “theory” of terrorism is revenge for US killing of their village mates or nationals.
Would it really be too much to ask you to read the story before telling me I'm creating a red herring?
Benjamin: ‘We also got a first-hand sense of how counterproductive the drones are by hearing of the desire for revenge from people who have lost loved ones.’
Seriously: try to get your facts right, instead of always, always, always leading with your emotions. It's a good way to avoid stupid mistakes.
There is no evidence for the "cause and effect" you, and Benjamin, postulate. In fact, the evidence is strongly in the other direction. Not only is there no correlation between the countries the US goes to war with and the countries that terrorists come from; there is a strong negative correlation. On the other hand, there is a strong positive correlation between the non-democratic Muslim countries that are US allies and the countries anti-American terrorists come from.
You say "It takes time for things to fester." Well, we invaded Iraq over twenty years ago, a decade before 9/11, and imposed sanctions throughout that decade. Where are the Iraqi terrorists? We invaded Afghanistan over a decade ago now. Where are the Afghan terrorist attacks? The time has been there, and the evidence is in.
Now, on the question of state-to-state relations (not the issue Benjamin brought up), there is a stronger case..
‘We also got a first-hand sense of how counterproductive the drones are by hearing of the desire for revenge from people who have lost loved ones.’
This is a bogus argument. Virtually none of the terrorists who have carried out attacks against the United States come from countries against whom the United States has waged war. The 9/11 hijackers, for instance, were from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Yemen. The attack was organized by a Kuwaiti, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, under the orders of a Saudi, Osama bin Laden. These are all countries that are American allies, and we have never gone to war against them.
If the theory that terrorist is caused by people seeking revenge for people killed in wars was true, al Qaeda would consist of Iraqis, Afghans, and Iranians - three nationalities that are completely, or almost completely, absent from al Qaeda's ranks, but who come from countries that have seen American military force used against them.
The original concept of "blowback" focused on the danger produced by support for oppressive, undemocratic governments, not military action, and the evidence seems to indicate that this theory was correct.
There are also children - a much larger number of them - who are alive because al Qaeda has been degraded so much that their ability to wantonly, deliberately slaughter innocent civilians is a small fraction of what it used to be.
I think the Americans turned to drone warfare because the American general public was getting tired of hearing of the losses of Americans.
The drone strikes have been carried out in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Was there some period when there were large American ground forces in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, taking heavy losses?
they get to kill lots & lots of innocent people.
There have been vastly fewer innocent people killed in drone strikes than in ordinary military operations in Afghanistan. Why is it that people who purport to be so concerned about civilian casualties are so focused on a much smaller cause of such deaths? Perhaps the answer is that 70% of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are the fault of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other anti-government forces, and that's just not the story these people want to tell.
Given the number of innocents killed in the course of the drone strikes I would suggest some one file some murder charges against the American government & the drone operators. They charge soliders with killing “innocent” people on the ground, why not others?
Because the accidental killing of civilians in military operations targeting actual combatants is not murder, and is not legally prosecutable under any national or international law. The soldiers who have been charged with murder were deliberately killing civilians for sport, not accidently hitting the wrong people.
Has anyone heard a single thing from conservatives that contradicts this? At all?
Well, there was a brief period when they pretended to support democracy in the Arab world, from about 2003-2007. Remember the purple fingers at the State of the Union speech?
Frankly, I like it better this way. The transparent dishonesty was nauseating.
And where there was such violence, it was very small scale - protests featuring a few hundred people. The coverage in the American media makes it sound as if these protests were on the same scale as the Arab Spring protests.
You have to assume that opposition to intervention is the Russian and Chinese default. Libya was an extremely unusual situation. Russian and Chinese opposition to intervention in Syria is just a reversion to the norm.
Yeah, the military does not set policy. Tell that to the Vietnamese.
How about we tell it to the Libyans, who were rescued from massacre by their dictator because President Obama overruled the advice he was getting from the Pentagon?
Tell that to the taxpayers who cough up a lung paying for F-35s that will never see combat any more than the F-22 has.
Funny thing about the F-22: the project was cut off by this President, again against the advice coming out of the Pentagon. Just like the missile defense bases in Eastern Europe. Just like the Future Combat Systems program. Just like the abandonment of the Iraqi bases. For an agency that sets national policy, they sure seem to be getting stiff-armed a lot lately. You know, it's almost as if the Vietnam War ended four decades ago, and this isn't Groundhog Day.
And who “sets policy” in Notagainistan
Of course the military sets daily policy in a war zone. That isn't the question.
All of that said, of course the uniformed military has a great deal of influence over policy, but it is not wise to overstate how much influence, to the detriment of recognizing the agency of the political leadership. Elections have consequences.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
Maybe ‘Rule of Law’ Americans can...
And yet another once-meaningful term becomes a mere decoration.
What "coerced confession?"
How is this different from every other plea bargain?
Actual whistleblowers have been getting relatively light sentences.
Dumping half a million documents you haven't read isn't whistle-blowing. Any actual uncovering of wrongdoing that happens through such a process is purely coincidental.
Interesting how the situation stabilized…
...while the Americans executed a gradual, not immediate, withdrawal.
That's how your sentence ends, right?
I understand that that is your point, Bill, but the argument you just made to support it doesn't hold up.
The civil war and ethnic cleansing continued to expand for months, perhaps a year of more, after the surge was begun. The Baghdad Security Plan was supposed to stop the ethnic cleansing, but it continued right under our noses, and now, Baghdad has no more mixed neighborhoods. It's difficult for me to believe that a program which was so ineffective at its stated objectives can be credited with the end of the civil war, especially when much-more credible alternatives (the accomplishment of the ethnic cleansing, the announcement of the withdrawal) can explain that outcome.
To people around the world, this says that the US does not respect the rule of law.
I could not make up a more perfect example of someone on the internet projecting his personal opinions onto everyone else.
Yes, Brian, people in tents in Yemen are saying, "You know what I really hate about the drone strikes? Their implications for the rule of law."
Well, JT, you started off misusing the phrase "moral relativism," and I stopped reading after that.
Seriously. Look the term up. I know it's one of those super-awesome, smart-sounding words you learned during the Bush administration, but you have to actually be able to use it correctly in a sentence if you want anyone to pay attention to what you have to say.
people from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, to the horn of Africa (who next?)
Even this phrasing grossly overstates the situation. The vast majority of the people in the Islamic world are not living in any such situation. Not in Egypt or any other part of North Africa, not in Iran, not in any of the Southeast Asian Muslim countries, not in in any of the Gulf states or Saudi Arabia, not in any part of Southwest Asia except one small country.
There are three or four countries in which anyone fears "death from above." Trying to bootstrap that into a statement about the entire Muslim world is far off-base.
Dmol,
"DID see the invasion as just" is probably a better way to put that, because the invasion took place eleven years ago.
Polls do show everything you say. They also show that Afghans want the occupation to end. Most Afghans don't like us or the Taliban.
New, improved comment! Now with functional link!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_J._Lonetree
The idea that people in sensitive intelligence positions are not allowed to have affairs is not illogical. It is long-established practice, and for good reason: because people have been blackmailed in "honeypot" operations before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_J._Lonetree&sa=U&ei=UdKfUNq0AcyN0QH_xoDQBA&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGEOU-SXKDyzj37h0vr467IbSMafw
And Patraeus was Director of the CIA. He would have, and perhaps did, fire people under him for having affairs. For him to stay on after being caught having one of his own would have destroyed morale, and his ability to effectively run the agency.
You're right about the first part, but not the second.
The Anbar Awakening - their rejection of the foreign jihadists who had been their allies, and their turn to the US - certainly did help put a lid on al Qaeda, who had provoked the civil war.
But by that point, the effort to provoke a civil war had already succeeded. It had become a self-sustaining thing, and did not require al Qaeda continually stoking the flames.
This theory assumes that Patraeus, and the US, were in control of everything happening in Iraq, and that's clearly not the case. Iraq got very much out of American control - ask "President" Ahmed Chalabi.
Foreign al Qaeda operatives deliberately conducted a campaign of anti-Shiite atrocities, like the Golden Mosque bombing, for the purpose of provoking a sectarian civil war, because they knew that doing so would make Iraq ungovernable for the occupying Americans. That conflict wasn't something beneficial for the occupiers.
There is no "wide ranging assassination plan." The total number of strikes across the entire world is a tiny fraction of the amount of fighting that goes in in Afghanistan in a month.
The degree of angst and attention focused on the targeted air strikes is completely out of proportion to their scope and significance. Just to put things in perspective: the Taliban killed more civilians just in Afghanistan last year than the total number of civilians and militants killed in all of the drone strikes ever conducted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, since they began over a decade ago.
None of the Kennedy brothers were head of the CIA.
To Pashtuns, it is just another foreign occupation force to replace the NATO foreign occupation force.
Well, to some Pashtuns. As you said, to other Pashtuns, it is a legitimate government that they support.
Why is it that Pashtuns - and only those Pashtuns who agree with you, not those other "bad" Pashtuns - are the ones who get to decide of a government is legitimate? The Uzbeks, the Hazara, the Tajiks - they don't count?
In this case, it's not a metaphor, but the front lines in the shooting war.
It is very much a question whether the ANA will have enough capability to avoid being defeated in the field by the Taliban.
even though most of our “patrolling” has zero or negative effects on stability and security
Do you actually know the first thing about anything happening in Afghanistan?
Do you think you even need to in order to make such a sweeping statement?
I had it with people who think they answer complicated questions by checking their guts ten years ago.
While you're grading me for my observation about the positive effects of withdrawal in Iraq, I hope you're keeping in mind that said withdrawal was carried out extremely slowly precisely to avoid the chaos that everyone agreed was in the offering if we'd pulled out quickly, and that some - not me, but I suspect you - were certain was going to take place anyway, and used as "evidence" that a slow withdrawal was pointless.
The situation in Iraq circa 2007-2008 was similar to this.
The most important factor that will determine whether the ANA can hold the line, or even whether it will continue to have to hold the line against a Taliban insurgency, is Afghan politics.
When the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, it served to weaken the support the insurgents enjoyed even within their own communities; split the insurgency as half of them transitioned into democratic politics, and increased popular support for the government, which was no longer seen as merely a foreign cat's paw. The military result was that the Iraqi government forces gained military dominance over the insurgents. The political results was that the two sides were able to achieve a deal to end the fighting.
All of which is to say, the military challenge facing the ANA is not a constant value, with the subtraction of American capability being the only change to the equation as the withdrawal continues.
Juan,
The next time you buy a car, go to the dealership and offer them $1000 for a new Accord. Then they'll have to sell it to you for $2000, because that's totally how bargaining works.
Your description of LBJ's methods of dealing with Congress are profoundly inaccurate. He was a ball-buster on an individual level when he need to get a couple of votes, but he was also a master at feeling out the sense of Congress and tuning his proposals and actions to what was actually possible. This notion that he would come in with something utterly impossible and then "tell" the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House of Representatives to pass it bears no resemblance whatsoever to actual history.
Just so I follow your logic; Obama is a jellyfish, progressives are his base, but he spurns them all the time.
Sure. That makes sense.
Clearly, Obama does not have progressive instincts, and prefers to rule from the center.
Clearly, the college professor with a blog isn't familiar with the constraints that actual responsibility to work well with others in order to succeed at one's endeavors places on someone. The notion that a President's habits in office are an unaltered reflection of his preferences betrays a poor understanding of how out system of government works.
Ruling from the center means taking his base for granted while reaching out to relatively conservative constituencies.
The people you describe as "relatively conservative constituencies" represent a much larger segment of the Democratic base than do the allegedly spurned progressives. The people you are describing as "his base" could fit in one of Richard Trumka's thighs.
This tactic is why we don’t have a single-payer health insurance plan.
Oh fer chrissakes. I thought you were a bit more sophisticated than this. You think tactics are the reason we don't have a single-payer health system?
The only thing that’s changed is that the USA has declared the Northern Alliance (plus the Popalzai Tribe) as the national government.?
Well, no. It is at least as significant that the Pakistani government has stopped backing the Taliban.
It is at least as significant that significant parts of the Pashtun community have split off from the Taliban and support the government.
There are things that happen in this world other than the actions of the United States.
The US plan, of training up a 400,000-man army and security force that could successfully repress the neo-Taliban, is probably unrealistic. But with a December 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of US troops, The plan is going to be sorely tested over the next few months.
I find reason for optimism in Iraq. The announced, sustained, gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is, in and of itself, a powerful tool for promoting political reconciliation. It lets the insurgents know that they don't have to drive us out, and lets the government know that they can't depend on American "security welfare." It splits the insurgents, leading half of more of them to choose electoral politics over violence. It makes the local government more credible and legitimate in the eyes of the populace, and allows local politics to be about something other than a pro/anti-government civil war. Think of all of the oh-so-confident predictions, from both right and far-left, about Iraq collapsing, the government falling, the society turning back into a 2006-style charnel house, and being taken over by gangs of terrorists once we left. Not so much, as it turned out.
It is probably unrealistic that the US could stand up a force capable of suppressing the Taliban while staying in the country, but doing so on our way out the door might well work.
Here's hoping.
Still waiting for the Wiser People to state what “US interests” are involved and at risk over there.
None. Our involvement is altruistic. We want to see people who are oppressed by dictatorship live in freedom.
Insisting that national interest is the only legitimate driver of foreign policy is inhumane and imperialistic. Henry Kissinger might ask this question.
Assad's dictatorship, like China's, is nominally socialist.
both candidates support the scuttling of Habeas Corpus (i.e.: NDAA)
This is false. If Obama supports indefinite detention powers so much, why hasn't he used them even once during his presidency?
President Obama opposed the inclusion of the indefinite detention provisions in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, and used the threat of a veto power to get the watered down so that he could continue to handle terrorism suspects as he has always done - by putting them into the civilian criminal justice system.
Congress, unhappy with his opposition to indefinite detention, attempted to compel him to start using it, by writing some "shall" language into the NDAA, which would have required him to put terrorism suspects into military detention - that is, to reverse what has always been his policy. Because of the White House's efforts, this requirement was removed.
The NDAA is the annual bill that authorizes the existence of the Department of Defense, and spends money on the military. It is written by Congress, and every year, they put some things in that the White House doesn't want. Remember those destroyers that the Pentagon didn't want, but that the Republican Congress kept funding, because they were built in Trent Lott's district? The President always eats something he doesn't want in the annual defense bill.
Actually, Obama has not asserted any such power to unilaterally assassinate anyone.
Unlike Bush, who did claim that power under his theories of executive power, Obama has specifically cited legislation passed by Congress - the September 2001 AUMF - as the source of the authority to wage that war. Nor has he asserted the power of "assassination of any individual," but of those who belong to the enemy force cited in Congress's authorization.
Whether you support using force against al Qaeda or not, Obama's use of that force has nothing to do with the Unitary Executive, nor with unilateral executive power at all, but with the execution of powers granted by the legislative branch.
The phrase "bestowed citizenship on thousands of Saudi and Pakistani Sunnis" doesn't quite convey the scope of what the monarch did.
The population of Bahrain increased by over 1/3 between 2008 and 2009. A country that had under 800,000 citizens added over a quarter million in one year.
It's probably most accurate to say that there has been significant social change in North Africa, but relatively little, so far, in Southwest Asia.
The two have always only been kinda sorta the same region, but not entirely. Perhaps these events will result in them becoming even more distinct as regions.
Interesting.
Remember that Mubarak lost control of his military, but they went in the other direction.
I don't know, Sigil. At least here the US, the media seems pretty good at ignoring Syria completely. That's unbiased, is a sense.
So really, professor, when you think about it, you can't really blame Assad for bombing the civilian areas of cities.
No fair! Saudi Arabia does not get to be Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Arabia of solar.
- joe, the Saudi Arabia of geopolitical whining
It is time for Western Governments to think seriously about how to get the Salafi Warrior Genie back in the bottle.
1. What makes you think that they could?
2. What makes you think they haven't been trying?
On the anti-Shiite bombings in Iraq: is it your impression that this mainly an Iraqi Sunni phenomenon, and not primarily the work of foreign jihadists (as the similar bombings circa 2005 were?)
Or perhaps it would be better to ask, do you see them as more Iraqi Sunni than those during the American occupation? Since there are clearly elements of both at work in both situations.
Do you think al Qaeda is still working to foment a sectarian civil war in Iraq?
Anyone who thinks the future is gong to be a replay of the past, especially any ‘golden past’ is deluded.
No, JamesL, it is the people who think "This time is different!" who are deluded. It is always the people who think "This time is different!" who are deluded.
I hear leftists proclaiming in very wistful tones that this recession is the final crisis of capitalism in every single recession. They are always wrong, and they will always be wrong. It is as deluded to believe that "This time is different" when you are hoping for permanent economic decline, as when you are hoping that housing prices will rise eternally.
I think the data would speak for itself in such a setting as most Americans still respect the discipline and processes utilized in scientific studies.
I'll take two of whatever he's having, with a beer chaser.
These policies would be exactly the same percentage of "enough" if they had been explicitly promoted as climate-change policies.
Well, probably not...some of them probably wouldn't have been implemented if they had been explicitly sold as climate change policies.
The point is, concluding that President Obama doesn't realize the urgency of the problem because he didn't talk about it during the debates places far too much emphasis on rhetoric, and far too little on action.
PS - can we expect an "It isn't enough. It isn't nearly enough," comment in your next piece lauding the Chinese for their investments in alternative energy?
even Obama doesn’t seem to realize the severity and urgency of the problem (or else he does and feels his hands are tied).
Obama has been taking very serious action against climate change ever since he came into office - he's just been doing so quietly. For instance, he's sold his gigantic fuel efficiency standards improvements as a way to lower energy costs for Americans, his aggressive (and targeted) EPA actions on coal plants as a clean air issue, and his massive investments in alternative energy as stimulus and long-term economic development.
The United States has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other nation on earth since Obama came into office (the much-vaunted Chinese, sometimes held out as a model of alternative energy production, have massively increased theirs by building large numbers of coal plants, while we've been shutting ours down).
He just hasn't been talking about these actions in climate-related terms, because it's too easy to make environmental protection look destructive to the economy during periods of economic decline (a point that featured prominently in the concept of Sustainable Development that came out of the Rio conference).
When the economy picks back up, the Democrats will begin explicitly, instead of quietly, pushing climate change as an issue again - and they'll be able to point to the successes of the wind and solar sectors and of other green policies implemented under this administration to make their case.
America's relationship with Israel is based on absolutely no national security benefits for us. The USA gains nothing from having this relationship. In fact, it costs us quite a bit, in money, and in our relations with other governments and societies. For paying these costs, we get back nothing.
The fondness that the United States has towards Israel is purely sentimental. We see them as "the only democracy in the Middle East," "a plucky group of idealists, besieged on all sides," and "People like us, unlike the other societies in that part of the world." We defend and aid Israel purely because we feel like it.
Over the last few years, however, Israel has become increasingly undemocratic, illiberal, belligerent, and ugly in its relations with the U.S. and its allies. We've also become increasingly close to democratic Turkey over the last few years (a real ally, one whose young men have fought and died beside our own, unlike Israel's) while Israel has trashed their once-strong relationship with that NATO ally. Meanwhile, with the Arab Spring, we've seen indigenous democracies crop up in that part of the world, some of which (Libya and Tunisia) seem much more liberal, democratic, and decent than Israel. And now their government is insinuating itself into our elections, trashing our President, and trying to drag us into a war.
This is not wise behavior for a country whose relationship with us depends upon the warm feelings generated by the perception that they are more decent and more like us than their hostile neighbors.
Engaging in wars of choice, profiting from sweatshops and other forms of slavery, overthrow of elected governments, rapacious corporations whose avarice knows no bounds, raping justice every day, etc.
Do you imagine any of this to be unique to the west?
Have you never heard of China, for instance?
The Jews living in Israel today would be safer and happier if every Jew who immigrated there since the founding of Zionism had moved to the United States instead.
So would we Americans, for that matter.
Maybe it's just my American-ness speaking, but ethnicity-based states creep me out.
Carter did show that "moral courage" while he was in office.
His staunch refusal to bow to mere political considerations made him one of the least effective Presidents of the modern era.
It is not a moral shortcoming to accept half a loaf - especially when your own belly will be full either way, and you're job is secure bread for those that have none.
We now know that the two candidates are in agreement on the use of drones.
This phrasing makes me doubt Emmerich's entire project. That the strikes are carried out by pilotless aircraft is the least relevant detail possible in determining their legality, significance, and morality.
One could say that Barack Obama and George W. Bush "are in agreement on the use of aircraft carriers," because Bush used them to support the invasion of Iraq, and Obama used them to support the UN protective mission in Libya - but those were two very different episodes, taking place under very different legal circumstances, involving very different types of missions. To conclude from this that the two share any meaningful views on any policies whatsoever would be foolish.
The issue is not "drones." UAVs are used for as wide a variety of missions as piloted aircraft. Providing close air support for ground forces in Afghanistan is not the same thing as targeting al Qaeda leadership in Yemen, which is not the same thing as targeting al Shabbab in Somalia, which is not the same thing as targeting Taliban and Haqqani commanders in Pakistan, which is not the same as targeting tanks and artillery guns in Libya. And yet, all of these different missions are getting lumped under the same heading, because the aircraft being used are remote-controlled.
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm going to need a bit more than your opinion that there is "pretty clear evidence" of anything before I believe it. Because, you see, you accept "a conclusion that confirms my predetermined talking points" as evidence.
You wish me to offer counter-proofs of what, exactly? Nobody has offered any evidence or proof of anything. Emmerich himself is asking for evidence - he doesn't even claim to know anything (which makes him a far better-informed, honest observer than you).
But no doubt, you just skimmed right over that part.
Sure seems to me that we do not have enough wealth and power to make everyone else on the plant kneel down and say “Uncle,” and hand over the keys to their kingdoms…
What this is supposed to have to do with drone strikes in such lush, resource ladens "kingdoms" as Waziristan, Yemen, and Somalia eludes me.
Targeting people because they are attending funerals or rushing to provide aid would be a war crime.
On the other hand, sometimes legitimate targets attend funerals or rush to the site of a air strike, and there is nothing in international law against striking these targets when they are doing so.
The anti-U.S. commentary on this, including by Mr. Emmerson, assumes that the former is the case, even as he implicitly acknowledges that he does not have adequate information to make such a determination.
The United States "pulled out" in a big war after 1991.
And then Afghanistan turned into a paradise, no civilians died there, and nothing bad happened to the United States.
Your recommendation, allegedly based on humanitarian grounds, is to call for a reprisal of the decade from the Soviet withdrawal to 9/11. I think a Plan B might be in order.
After all of the things Israel has done, for Morsi to jump up and make a show of denouncing these air strikes - firing at people in the act of shooting off rockets and mortars into towns - is, in internet terms, trolling.
I think there is an easier explanation: people, not just those in the Christian right, tend to adopt positions that the other members of their political coalition support, on issues that are not of top importance to them.
Thus, Christian rightists who don't really have strong feelings or fully-formed beliefs about taxation and the welfare tend to adopt the position of those movement conservatives who do have strong beliefs on those questions. After all, those nice people who agree with them about abortion and prayer in public schools 1) really seem to know what they're talking about, and 2) have the same values I do about religious issues.
now enshrined as a Presidential, or shall we say, Kingly Right
False. The Obama administration, unlike the Bush administration, cited the AUMF Congress passed in 2001 as the legal authority under which such air strikes are authorized. They explicitly renounced the Bush-era doctrine that they were legal under executive authority.
And surely, as everybody knows by now, these drone strikes in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somali, Libya (& countries/regions unknown?) are killing more “civilians” (Old&Young Men&Women Boys&Girls Infants) than the “targeted militants” (whoever they might be in varying contexts around the world?).
Not even the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the anti-drone outfit Professor Cole links to, makes this claim. Even their highest estimates of civilian casualties put them around 25-33% of total deaths.
Can we please discuss these issues with a due respect for the established facts?
Uh, yeah, Bruno. They Kuwaitis would never let us having basing rights in their country.
Oh, wait: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Kuwait&sa=U&ei=aFmIUJTSLJLD0AHJxoCgAw&ved=0CBcQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEE4NMbqt-OxPFMxJCWZlgO_FnaZA
Perhaps, JT, because the base at Guantanamo dates from a period when Cuba was not a hostile country, and was willing to sign a deal for us to have a base there.
And why, if the goal is to relocate away from a country that oppresses its citizens and kills them when they protest, would we want to go to Iran, a horrific human rights abuser vastly worse than Bahrain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_student_protests,_July_1999
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/iran
Iran is about as much of a democracy as Cuba.
A mere whisper from the White House that it might consider relocating NSA Bahrain to some other Persian Gulf port
Any nominations?
In theory, relocating the naval base to a more-democratic Gulf port makes all kinds of sense. In practice, what are we talking about?
Iraq?
While that may, indeed, be the subtext of Romney and the neocons' rhetoric, that doesn't get the blood off Hezbollah's hands.
Sometimes, two bad guys can get into a fight.
There's a problem with #2: If it doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, it can’t be closer to having a bomb.
The initial stages of both a civilian energy program and a military weapons program are exactly the same, at least in terms of developing the capacity to enrich uranium and then doing so. It it only relatively late in the game that the activities of the two diverge. If the steps necessary to develop an energy program are a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i, then the steps necessary for a weapons program are a, b, c, d, E, F, G, and H. Moving from a through d does, indeed, bring you closer to Capital H, even if you don't have a weapons program, distinguishable from an every program, until you get to e/E.
That is to say, it is detrimental to Israel to have unfriendly relations with Turkey. It is detrimental to them to alienate the Europeans.
There are other factors in the world beside the United States.
Nothing will come of this because of their absolute chokehold on American politics.
Viewing everything as though the United States is the only thing that matters is a mistake.
This is erratic, self-destructive behavior by the Israeli government. They are doing themselves tremendous damage, isolating themselves like this in the world community.
Israel has always been...um...let's say "vigorous in the pursuit of its own security," but they were always rational about it.
This government's policies have been increasingly irrational. They already alienated their best friend in the region, Turkey, with this blockade, and now they're going to do the same with Europe.
Here we go again.
"It was Hezbollah!"
"No, it was al Qaeda!"
India's arsenal isn't just aimed at deterring Pakistan, but also China.
Meh.
It doesn't exactly take a secret black ops to make something bad happen in the Middle East.
Now that you mention it, how does a guy who gets arrested by border security and put in a cell not have the recording equipment taken away from him?
There is a huge difference between how border guards are supposed to treat people, and how the police are supposed to treat people in the country.
If these were police on the beat treating random people walking down the street this way, that would be a police state. Then again, if we were required to have an up-to-date passport ready for inspection when we walked down the street, that would be a police state, too, yet I doubt anyone thinks that checking passports at the border is indicative of a police state.
I can see how you could come away with that impression, but the selection of questions makes a lot more sense if you know something about the guards' purpose and tactics. The "stupid" questions, like "which stores?" are not being asked because the police are interested in that information, but because they want to see if the subject is lying - if he contradicts his story when he's asked the same question a second time, or if he can't come up with an answer to an obvious question, or if he reacts in a suspicious way.
I'm sorry, but questioning people from other countries when they cross your border is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The "how dare you ask me where I'm going response" to a border guard, as you are entering his country, is top-notch dickery.
Kyzl,
See Bernard's comment below for a good example. It was that mindset I was attempting to illuminate.
just wait till they do come back with a response, like 9-11, for instance.
Kindly remind me, which of the 9/11 attackers came from countries the United States was waging a war against?
Be specific. You do seem terribly impressed by your understanding of the causes of terrorism, so no doubt you have the answer right at your fingertips.
I wonder, when a white supremacist or anti-abortion radical commits an act of terrorism, do you blame their victims then, too?
You are, of course, correct; the decimation of al Qaeda has probably saved many more lives in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia than in the United States.
And the Americans in Iraq are not there in civilian capacity are they? Actually, they are now.
In citing the “humanitarian perspective” you are only including us, you forget the vast majority of affected folks — those from the country. Why is that?
Because it cuts to the heart of the argument against fighting al Qaeda: that the United States shouldn't defend itself, and that terrorist attacks are something we've got coming to us.
In the war between al Qaeda and the United States, the United States is the aggressor?
Would you care to walk that back? Maybe take another shot at it?
Even the highest estimates are remarkably low for a modern war, comparable to the total number of civilians killed by the UN mission in Libya in six months (which is also remarkably low for a modern war).
The Bureau's median estimate to be correct, it would take approximately three decades for the air campaign over Pakistan to kill as many civilians as the 9/11 attacks - which reminds me, how many civilians are al Qaeda killing these days?
I know that the civilians killed by al Qaeda have an annoying tendency to be white and American, but I must insist that their lives still have value, and that the ability of the drone missions to prevent additional deaths should be taken into account when considering their impact from a humanitarian perspective.
I noticed that, too. The demand that the U.S. government release their estimates, so that the Bureau can check its work, is quite disingenuous.
You have no idea how amusing it is to see you repeatedly describe others as a "true believer." Physician, heal thyself.
Anyway, for all of your theorizing, there is nothing in the one link you provided (did you know that there is not Wiki entry behind your first link) that indicates anything other than what I said: that bin Laden and the US were both fighting the same enemy, and were supporting the same mujahadeen.
I also have no idea who my heroes are supposed to be. Dick Cheney and John Bolton, no doubt. My very best buds, you know.
You have a simplistic, Manichean view of the world. It would behoove you to develop the capacity to view things with more depth than "my side vs. the bad people."
I haven't the foggiest idea what you're babbling about, JT, although I do recognize the same 50-cent words you like to sprinkle about to try to class up your comments.
Honest people don't gin up precious little phrases to hide truths. If you describe the shooting of a 14-year-old girl for being uppity, or the refusal to educate girls at all, as merely "how a different culture treats women," you are being willfully dishonest. You are using Orwellian phrasing to hide the truth.
That sort of behavior, as opposed to calling out that sort of behavior, is the mark of someone who is a little too certain of his own righteousness.
It should be noted that Bin Laden’s group was one of the CIA-backed groups fighting the Communists during the 1980′s
This is false. Bin Laden organized his "group" - first a fundraising circle, and later actual fighters - specifically to provide a "purer" alternative system for resisting the Soviets, because he did not believe in working with the United States. I'm sure the Reagan-era CIA would have loved to back him, but bin Laden was having none of it. He got into the game for the specific purpose of not working with the CIA, and providing a way for other mujahadeen to do the same.
how a different culture treats women
This is cowardice, intellectual cowardice, of the same variety that one sees in torture apologists who use phrases like "rough prisoners up a little" or "run the air conditioning."
Brian,
The sensible, rational, well-informed high government officials in the White House have already established that the war in Afghanistan is going to end, and provided a timeline.
And they did this back in 2009, when the war in Afghanistan was still popular, and the powerless, ignorant, naive "activists" like Medea Benajamin have managed to alter that policy by exactly zero.
In addition, there is now an Al-qaeda in Iraq — there wasn’t before we invaded, Iran is enjoying an enhanced strategic position, and Afghanistan is a security black hole. Things are not going swimmingly well
Why are you talking about Iraq, in response to a comment about drone strikes against targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia?
Which goes to show the vast difference between the mission in Afghanistan, and the campaign targeting al Qaeda.
YOU are the one who needs to drive all discourse into a simplistic disputation, consistent with how you believe the world works or ought to.
Says the guy who worked "Killing wogs for fun" into his comment.
You are a parody. People are going to start thinking I'm paying you to make me look good.
JT,
Hey, Joe: You’re the one tossing out the red herring that the “theory” of terrorism is revenge for US killing of their village mates or nationals.
Would it really be too much to ask you to read the story before telling me I'm creating a red herring?
Benjamin: ‘We also got a first-hand sense of how counterproductive the drones are by hearing of the desire for revenge from people who have lost loved ones.’
Seriously: try to get your facts right, instead of always, always, always leading with your emotions. It's a good way to avoid stupid mistakes.
Kyzal,
There is no evidence for the "cause and effect" you, and Benjamin, postulate. In fact, the evidence is strongly in the other direction. Not only is there no correlation between the countries the US goes to war with and the countries that terrorists come from; there is a strong negative correlation. On the other hand, there is a strong positive correlation between the non-democratic Muslim countries that are US allies and the countries anti-American terrorists come from.
You say "It takes time for things to fester." Well, we invaded Iraq over twenty years ago, a decade before 9/11, and imposed sanctions throughout that decade. Where are the Iraqi terrorists? We invaded Afghanistan over a decade ago now. Where are the Afghan terrorist attacks? The time has been there, and the evidence is in.
Now, on the question of state-to-state relations (not the issue Benjamin brought up), there is a stronger case..
‘We also got a first-hand sense of how counterproductive the drones are by hearing of the desire for revenge from people who have lost loved ones.’
This is a bogus argument. Virtually none of the terrorists who have carried out attacks against the United States come from countries against whom the United States has waged war. The 9/11 hijackers, for instance, were from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Yemen. The attack was organized by a Kuwaiti, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, under the orders of a Saudi, Osama bin Laden. These are all countries that are American allies, and we have never gone to war against them.
If the theory that terrorist is caused by people seeking revenge for people killed in wars was true, al Qaeda would consist of Iraqis, Afghans, and Iranians - three nationalities that are completely, or almost completely, absent from al Qaeda's ranks, but who come from countries that have seen American military force used against them.
The original concept of "blowback" focused on the danger produced by support for oppressive, undemocratic governments, not military action, and the evidence seems to indicate that this theory was correct.
There are also children - a much larger number of them - who are alive because al Qaeda has been degraded so much that their ability to wantonly, deliberately slaughter innocent civilians is a small fraction of what it used to be.
And Mr. Obama is responsible for their lives.
I think the Americans turned to drone warfare because the American general public was getting tired of hearing of the losses of Americans.
The drone strikes have been carried out in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Was there some period when there were large American ground forces in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, taking heavy losses?
they get to kill lots & lots of innocent people.
There have been vastly fewer innocent people killed in drone strikes than in ordinary military operations in Afghanistan. Why is it that people who purport to be so concerned about civilian casualties are so focused on a much smaller cause of such deaths? Perhaps the answer is that 70% of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are the fault of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other anti-government forces, and that's just not the story these people want to tell.
Given the number of innocents killed in the course of the drone strikes I would suggest some one file some murder charges against the American government & the drone operators. They charge soliders with killing “innocent” people on the ground, why not others?
Because the accidental killing of civilians in military operations targeting actual combatants is not murder, and is not legally prosecutable under any national or international law. The soldiers who have been charged with murder were deliberately killing civilians for sport, not accidently hitting the wrong people.
Has anyone heard a single thing from conservatives that contradicts this? At all?
Well, there was a brief period when they pretended to support democracy in the Arab world, from about 2003-2007. Remember the purple fingers at the State of the Union speech?
Frankly, I like it better this way. The transparent dishonesty was nauseating.
Actually, the first statement that come from the Libyan government blamed Gadhaffi dead-enders.
Good thing you aren't politicizing this event. Nobody wants to see it politicized...oh, wait, I just read the second half of your comment.
Biden didn't say he voted against the wars. He said he voted against funding them "on a credit card," which he did, repeatedly.
And where there was such violence, it was very small scale - protests featuring a few hundred people. The coverage in the American media makes it sound as if these protests were on the same scale as the Arab Spring protests.
What's with the scare quotes around rebels?
The contempt for the Libyan people that comes from allegedly leftist voices continues to amaze me.
Yes, yes, we know - if the American ambassador wasn't wearing such a short skirt...
Rule of thumb: never listen to somebody who answers every question with the same answer. Talk about reading off note cards...
Democrats voted in equal numbers to cut the funding.
Democrats didn't turn around and blame the State Department for not having enough security. It takes two actions to by a hypocrite.
Also the funding for the 16 member team (contractors) was thru defense budget
So?
...except that we know that the film was, indeed, the motivating factor behind the other embassy attacks on the same day.
If they begin waging a war, it would be legal to use military force against them under international law.
Although it's also worth noting that there are large holes in the Geneva Conventions protections when it comes to rebellions within a country.
You have to assume that opposition to intervention is the Russian and Chinese default. Libya was an extremely unusual situation. Russian and Chinese opposition to intervention in Syria is just a reversion to the norm.
Under the Geneva Convention, insurgents are not civilians. They are combatants.
Yeah, the military does not set policy. Tell that to the Vietnamese.
How about we tell it to the Libyans, who were rescued from massacre by their dictator because President Obama overruled the advice he was getting from the Pentagon?
Tell that to the taxpayers who cough up a lung paying for F-35s that will never see combat any more than the F-22 has.
Funny thing about the F-22: the project was cut off by this President, again against the advice coming out of the Pentagon. Just like the missile defense bases in Eastern Europe. Just like the Future Combat Systems program. Just like the abandonment of the Iraqi bases. For an agency that sets national policy, they sure seem to be getting stiff-armed a lot lately. You know, it's almost as if the Vietnam War ended four decades ago, and this isn't Groundhog Day.
And who “sets policy” in Notagainistan
Of course the military sets daily policy in a war zone. That isn't the question.
All of that said, of course the uniformed military has a great deal of influence over policy, but it is not wise to overstate how much influence, to the detriment of recognizing the agency of the political leadership. Elections have consequences.