Obama's quiet war machines

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/43356/obamas-quiet-war-machines

An American President authorises the bombing of a country with which it is not at war. The operation is undertaken not by the military but the CIA, and is concealed from Congress and the parliament of the country being bombed.

Pilotless drone air strikes are conducted on average once every three days, overseen from a base in California 8,000 miles from the target. Hundreds of innocent men women and children are killed in the assault.

The President is Barack Obama, the country is Pakistan, and the media scrutiny is almost invisible.

Now imagine this scale of operation had been undertaken by President Bush. There would be a fierce media debate about the legality and effectiveness of the policy. This column is not to argue the rights and wrongs, a case can be made each way, it is to question why so little attention has been paid to the issue.

President Obama gets away with it because his name is Barack, not George. He authorised more strikes inside Pakistan in his first nine months in the White House than George Bush did in his final three years. In 2010 the number doubled from 2009. Low estimates suggest civilians account for 30 per cent of fatalities. If Bush, who first authorised "targeting killing", was still in power, the statistics would be better known.

(...)

Missing Bush?

"President Obama gets away with it because his name is Barack, not George."

Sounds like someone with issues.

you do correctly quote the article, but your comments don't fit the quotes.

as sarcasm.

The whole idea that somehow Obama's actions are worse (go further) than Bush and the media is being less critical of him is complete hogwash.

Although, some of his policies are continuation of bush's and some are expansions and escalation of bush's.

Obama's use of drones in Pakistan and his actions in Yemen are worse than bush's.

in a country that wasn't a threat to us?

I said on the issue of the use of drones in Pakistan, Obama has expanded and escalated bush's policies, same in Afghanistan, same in Yemen. In this regard, Obama's policies in these countries is worse than bush's.

get out of Iraq so he can concentrate on Afghanistan (which HE called "AfPak" since he KNOWS (as we all know) that al Qaeda is largely in Pakistan now. You can't just ignore that Obama has kept his promise in bringing combat troops out of Iraq by last June. Bush wouldn't have done that.

Not by a long shot. He has unnecessarily expanded the war.

which is the choice we ALWAYS seem to be given.

Obama has escalated far more than he suggested in the campaign.

He was wrong, we were not given any better candidate, his policies are still wrong and are helping to radicalize the region.

there like he said he would. He's going after al Qaeda-he's not invading countries trying to "democratize" them. Wrong is wrong and right is right. Obama is right.

Obama is killing innocent people and radicalizing the population into hating the US. He is doing the same in Yemen. More chickens that will one day come back home to roost. Obama is not right, not by a long shot.

No-he ordered strikes on al Qaeda members. You don't know how many innocents got killed.

It is fine to kill innocents as long as we do it in the name of unnecessary fear.

Obama doesn't use the term "war on terror." Bush did. Obama doesn't come out and give fear-mongering speeches like Bush did. He gets the job done without fear-mongering.

Rebranding bush's war policies doesn't change the deaths and the effects.

And, what the fuck job has Obama gotten done in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We've spent more, killed more, lost more and the region is less stable. It is a failing strategy.

Interesting. Obama is dealing with Bush's mess, setting timelines, and getting it done. You can continue to use Bush's words if you want to, but Obama ain't Bush.

So maybe accusing others of using Bush propaganda isn't the best tactic for your position.

mafia bosses who order hits are just as guilty as the hit men.

of the Bush Administration - illegal war, torture, depriving constitutional rights, stealing billions, cheating, harboring criminals in his administration - President Obama has become part of the cover-up and now owns these injustices.

Right on.Combat operations have ended In Iraq.We are on track to pull all out troops out at end of 2011.

Now I don't support buildup In afghanstain.I have no love for the taliban but they didn't attack us on 9/11.Al Qaeda did.But we
remain on track to beguin pulling troops out this year.

Al Qaeda Is In pakinstain now.This Is where we need to be putting our efforts.Obama Is not bush.In fact his administration Is
about to put the first freeze on defense spending since 9/11.We play Into Republican hands If they can paint Democrats as weak
on defense and security.Remember Republicans will critize Obama for pulling out any from Iraq and aghanstain.

i have to assume you were fine with it then as well.

try and stay on topic. moreover, i didn't swallow that combat troop rebranding kool-aid bullshit.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_1a2c524a-179c-11e0-b2a7-0017a4a78c22.html

my post #8: "Obama is doing what he said he'd do during the campaign. He SAID he wanted to get out of Iraq so he can concentrate on Afghanistan (which HE called "AfPak" since he KNOWS (as we all know) that al Qaeda is largely in Pakistan now. You can't just ignore that Obama has kept his promise in bringing combat troops out of Iraq by last June. Bush wouldn't have done that."

They just don't call them that anymore. I'm sure their families are pleased.

During the campaign Obama talked about taking to war to where AlQ were...Pakistan. The Reps laughed while they continued to destroy Iraq.

Why is Afghan territory outside of Kabul a free operating zone for Taliban?

What you Afghan war proponents do not understand is that Afghani people are
under educated, tribal, mountainous and rural people who are intensely Islamic. That is why
Afghanistan has never been stabilized and controlled by any foreign power in history. And
United States won't be the first one.

The sooner Obama realizes the error of escalation and brings troops home, better off we
will all be. Pentagon is asking for $120 Billion for next years war operation, money which
we do not have and will have to borrow.

you know what Bush did in other countries?

The fact is that simply claiming the policies are worse than Bush doesn't cut it.

Bush illegally invaded Iraq, and then proceeded to ignore the war in Afghanistan for his entire two terms.

You can claim the escalation was a bad idea, but it was not something he sprang on people after he was elected. Adding troops to Afghanistan was a campaign-defined strategy.

He has also targeted a date to begin withdrawal from that country.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be as bad as bush's to be bad.

However, Obama has caused more deaths and attacks in Pakistan than bush did. He has escalated the war in Afghanistan, causing increasing deaths on both sides. In measure of US lives Afghanistan and innocent lives in Pakistan, Obama is worse. And, he's only two years in.

Well, the point of the OP is that they are worse, which is preposterous.

It isn't zero sum.

hogwash.

Having to deal with a problem created by Bush is not worse than Bush.

What do you think Bush would be doing at this point: something better?

He has chosen to escalate and expand. He has taken bush's bad policies and made them worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"He has taken bush's bad policies and made them worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Bush's policies created the mess. Your claim amounts to saying that Obama should have at least left Bush's policies in place because they were better.

My claim is Obama policies are not cleaning up the mess, but making it much messier. He should have ended bush's policies, not expand them.

"My claim is Obama policies are not cleaning up the mess, but making it much messier. He should have ended bush's policies, not expand them."

You can't claim Obama's Policies are worse than Bush's without acknowledging that Bush's were better than Obama's.

The whole premise of the claim that Obama's policies are worse than Bush's is ludicrous. He may not have reversed all of Bush's policies, but he has put in place policies to clean up the mess, not make things worse. It's not all going to be pretty, but the notion that somehow Afghanistan would be less messy by not dealing with it, as Bush did, is preposterous.

President Obama policy begins a withdrawal from Afghanistan in summer 2011. Worse than Bush?

yes, because killing people in Pakistan cannot make things worse :sarcasm:

and Obama's policies are continuing it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Pakistan when the White house was getting it's war on with Afganistan.....

since we aren't going to GTFO of Afghanistan we might as well take that theater seriously.

will never be conquered- EVER. Just look at history. But we will continue to flush money down the toilet over there, while ignoring the real needs of Americans.

we can't kill innocent civilians, which is an absolute necessity if their surviving family members are to one day grow up and fly a plane into a building, thereby giving future politicians the opportunity to pursue "preemptive strikes" and the further erosion of civil liberties.

what do you think that boy in the green shirt wants to do when he grows up? Play baseball, or kill Americans?


on edit- yes, i have posted this one image many times. But, it is a picture that we all must look at- it is the ugly face of war.

Maybe one of the keyboard warriors here who think this guy's kids' lives are worth sacrificing (you know, so Obama doesn't look weak in front of the Republicans) can explain it to him.

keyboard warriors. Americans have forgotten exactly how ugly a war really is, because we haven't fought one here in a long time. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are sure up to speed, though.

clucking of chickenhawks on a site like this. Were they so gung-ho when it was Bush bombing people?

I was anti-war when i was 15, I'm anti-war at 55. ;)

several years ago about the real cost of war. Americans tend to avoid them, but ALL should be forced to view them. The "glory" needs to be taken out of warfare.

No, there was no fierce media debate then, nor is there one now, because this has been going on for over 20 years now.

This isn't news.

Further, just because America has a long and bad habit of killing innocent people across the world does not make it right or un-newsworthy.

It may not be right, but repeating common knowledge is not news, or information.

Bush get away with it also.

But I'm sure many will find a way to justify it because he is charismatic and has a D next to his name.

How many terrorists do we create when we bomb civilians?

Could it be drones? I cannot really detect any wings.

I saw drones when I was visiting Cochise County AZ a couple of years ago. If they are at a certain height you can't actually see the wings. That was designed to make them less detectable.