Your attempt to provide your own interpretation of what I wrote to fit your preconceived Narrative, Mr. McPhee, is so transparently obvious that it barely warrants a response. Please read what I wrote, after first removing your ideological lenses, and you will note that I did not suggest the Leftist, terrorist, guerrilla movements were "equivalent" to the governments in each country.
I did note that the actions of those governments cannot be properly understood without mentioning these movements. Such movements committed some pretty horrible atrocities themselves. I obviously was not justifying all actions of the governments in question, but To omit any mention of these movements is to tell only half of the story. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
As far as he goes, Mr. Grandin presents a reasonably accurate account of events in South America, including Operation Condor, the 1954 US-instigated coup in Guatemala, and the effort to implement more efficient security organs in various countries that were experiencing Leftist terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, Mr. Grandin's piece is noteworthy as much for what he omits as for what he includes in his litany of US involvement.
Mr. Grandin completely omits any mention of the extremely dangerous and vicious Leftist movements that existed at the time and later--The Montoneros in Argentina, the Tupamaros in Uruguay, the Movimiento Izquirdista Revolutionario (MIR) in Chile, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarios de Colombia (FARC) in Colombia, and later the Sendero Luminoso in Peru are good examples. These Leftists movements were willing to attack and kill their perceived opponents every bit as much as the governments were. Without mentioning these movements, Mr. Grandin tells only half of the story.
Finally, by his statement, "The CIA-backed coup by General Pinochet and his military led to the death of Chile's democratically-elected President Salvador Allende," Mr. Grandin seeks to perpetuate the enduring Leftist myth that the US was behind the 1973 coup.
As was brought out in Senator Frank Church's 1975 Senate hearings on the CIA's intelligence activities, the CIA did provide $8 million over a three-year period to various opposition groups in Chile to keep them going, including labor unions, the anti-Allende newspaper El Mercurio (which Allende was attempting to shut down by having the nationalized banks withhold credit for newsprint), and others. I assume that many readers of this forum would not favor a government attempt to close down an opposition newspaper. Nevertheless, the U.S. provided neither funding nor assistance in the planning and execution of the coup itself. Although Embassy officials had evidence that something was afoot, they were not privy to the timing and actual plan itself. As far as Allende's death, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that he committed suicide in the Presidential palace, using the rifle given him by Fidel Castro.
Anyone who has served in Chile and studied the 1973 coup would find it laughable to hear someone insist that the Chilean military would need assistance from the U.S. The Chilean military was (and is) a very professional military, and was perfectly capable of planning and executing the coup on its own. That the United States was glad to see Allende overthrown is undeniable. It does not follow, however, that the United States engineered the action that led to his overthrow.
There is a big difference between women covering their head while attending Christian church services and urging "Christian girls to wear a head scarf in this conservative Muslim country."
In the first instance, it is a matter of honoring the Christian heritage of those sects that require a woman to cover her head while attending services. In the second, it is a matter of pandering to the majority Muslim culture in order to avoid such egregious behavior as being called a "harlot" by some ignoramus who deserves a shoe in the face.
"This would be such a great time for the House of Sabah to unilaterally institute a Constitutional Monarchy patterned after Great Britain. If only the Western oligarchs would support that."
In the unlikely event that the House of Sabah were to unilaterally institute a constitutional monarchy, what makes you think the Western powers would not support it? They certainly assisted change in Libya, and they have gone along with fundamental changes in Tunisia and Egypt. What is your evidence that they would not accept and support change in Kuwait?
Urdu is sometimes considered synonymous with Pakistan because it was made the national language. Before the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, however, none of the major groups that inhabited the area that would become Pakistan spoke Urdu. They spoke Baluchi, Punjabi, Pashto, and Sindhi.
Urdu was imported to Pakistan after independence with the migration to Sindh, and particularly to Karachi, of the Urdu-speaking Mojahirs from Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Hyderabad, and Bihar. In 1948, Karachi was declared Pakistan's capital, and by 1951, Sindhis had become a minority in that city, with a 57 percent majority of the population being Urdu-speaking Mojahirs.
Lord Palmerston is quoted as saying: "Nations have no permanent friends or enemies, they only have permanent interests."
This is, in fact, a wise observation. When it is in the US interest to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as friends, then it is wise to do so, just as it was wise to support Mubarak's Egypt as a friend of US interests. When it is no longer in the US interest to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, it will be equally wise to relinquish their friendship, just as it was wise to relinquish Mubarak's Egypt when it no longer was in the US interest to support it. This is an element of international relations that ideologues of both the Left and the Right have a hard time coming to grips with.
"I assume that our residual forces in Afghanistan post-2014 will work for Eric Prince."
Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim as stated in the above-cited quote? Otherwise, one can only conclude that you are making wildly unsubstantiated claims.
"When did you start taking Dick Cheney at his word?"
My question exactly, Joe. Why get wrapped around the axle over what Cheney says? There are more important things about which one should be concerned, unless one's focus is solely on looking at the past.
"Did you pay no attention to the growing conflict between Israel and Turkey over Gaza? The neocons hate everyone who criticizes Israel in any way, and try to isolate and destroy them."
The Neocons are not in charge of US foreign policy. The Obama Administration is. In fact, the United States, under both the Bush and Obama Administrations, has consistently favored Turkey's admission into the European Union.
"It is not he business of the Americans to tell the Europeans whether Turkey should be a member of the EU or not. Most of the European opinions are against the adhesion of Turkey. It has not much to do with Turkey being a Muslim country, but more with the fact that Turkey is still an emerging country when it comes to the economy."
The Americans are not telling the Europeans whether or not Turkey should be a member of the European Union. The United States supports the inclusion of Turkey in the EU, but realizes that it is up to the Europeans to decide that issue for themselves.
In fact, the EU reluctance to admit Turkey into the European Union has a lot to do with Turkey being a Muslim country. Europeans don't like to admit it because it is considered politically incorrect, but there is a strong bias against admitting Turkey for that reason. Of course, Turkey's economic condition and the migration of labor from Turkey to Northern EU countries that would occur if Turkey became a member contributes to the EU position as well.
"Indeed. Nixon had his own reasons for the China tri: The longstanding Cold War required another implementation of the “divide and rule” policy! China friend USSR foe."
Nixon's opening to China was not a case of "divide and rule." Far from it. In fact, both the Chinese and the US saw the Soviet Union as a threat, and both saw it in their interest to establish a friendly relationship. China, particularly Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai, was as eager to have the relationship as was the US.
Is that why the US is involved in counter-terrorism in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia? To control Middle East Oil? Is the US in control of Iraqi oil? Is there a huge reserve of oil under the sands of Yemen that most of us are unaware exists? It would be interesting to see the intelligence to which you are privy to determine how you reach your conclusion that the US effort in the above-cited areas is a ploy to control Middle East oil.
Iran's Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, registered a cautious welcome to VP Biden's suggestion of direct talks, but with the stipulation that the US tone down its rhetoric. Now we have Ahmadinejad weighing in as well. The Iranian leadership at times appears to be divided over several issues, so it is hard to tell if anyone making any statement is doing so at the behest of, and representing the thinking of, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose decisions are the only ones that count.
What is clear is that all three--Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and Salehi--appear to be in synch on this issue at this particular time. That has not always been the case, and it may not always be the case in the future. Reading the Iranian leadership is very much like the old Kremlinologists trying to read the Soviet leadership by parsing statements and seeing who appeared on the reviewing stand for the annual Mayday parade.
"But the key issues are legal and moral. The drone policy might be moral if more lives were saved by killing bad guys than innocents were killed by drones. But it is dumb to think the authorities could or would accomplish that."
Many more lives have been saved by disrupting the bad guys' plans and operations to attack the US and vital US interests, which would have resulted in many deaths, than the civilian loss of life resulting from targeted drone attacks on Al-Qaeda commanders and operatives planning and directing those attacks.
"American interests in the Middle East include propping up monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states, thuggish regimes in Mubarak Egypt and Israel or any government that the US finds useful. These are all American interests and warrant a violent American response if threatened."
Are you referring to the "violent American response" that was ignited by the removal of the "regime in Mubarak Egypt"? What was that "violent American response"? Did we target Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt with drones and missiles? Oh, wait, we are attempting to work with President Morsi and his government. So what does the author mean by the above-cited quote?
"thuggish regimes in Mubarak Egypt...or any government that the US finds useful. These are all American interests and warrant a violent American response if threatened."
Your hyperbole undermines any useful point you were trying to make. What, pray tell, was the "violent American response" to the deposing of Mubarak in Egypt, to which you refer above as an example that warranted such a response?
My reference was specifically to American facilities, Embassies, citizens, and other core vital interests. I certainly was not referring to regimes that may have been friendly to the US, as several have been deposed without the "violent American response" that exists in your imagination.
The US citizens in question are Unlawful Enemy Combatants planning and executing attacks against the United States and US interests as members of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces. They are at war with the US, not criminals, and they do not have the right to "judicial review," and due process any more than a German commander or soldier in World War II fighting against US forces, who also happened to hold US citizenship, had a right to judicial review and due process in US courts. That the Al-Qaeda (or AQAP, AQIM, etc.) Unlawful Enemy Combatant happens to be a US citizen does not grant him the right of "due process" or "judicial review" any more than the German combatant's citizenship status in World War II.
The term "immediate threat" is applicable as the Administration defines it, as commanders and operatives of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces are, as the White Paper states, constantly planning attacks against the US and its interests. It is impossible to have knowledge of every individual, planned operation against the US in absolute real time. The President's chief responsibility is protection of the United States and its citizens, and, thus, the definition of "immediate threat" is rational and justified.
I do agree that the Cambodia analogy is flawed. The US bombing of Cambodia was not a violation of Cambodia's neutrality, however, because since 1965, with North Vietnam running supplies through Cambodia to the South via the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Cambodia had no neutrality to violate. North Vietnam had already rendered Cambodia's neutrality inoperative. Where the argument is flawed is that Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are not claiming neutrality (as did Cambodia) in this fight. (Pakistan's protests are obviously for public consumption, as they are privately working with us.)
"Alternately, in response to a posting on this subject earlier from someone with a Special Forces background, many of these missions could be done by them. It’d be less economically effective, but not by a whole lot; there’d be the potential of “.5″ casualties (or some factor that could be quantified); and it’d be technically less effective in terms of 24-hr surveillance over time, etc."
Ironically, your statement cited above contains within it the very reasons why Special Forces could not accomplish the job with anywhere near the precision, cost-effectiveness, and saved lives of drones. These operatives of Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations and forces are operating in extremely rugged territory. Drones operate on "real-time" intelligence; Special Ops Forces would be operating on intelligence that is less than "real-time." There is also the problem of another possible "Blackhawk Down" incident, something none of us would want. Finally, drones have resulted in far fewer civilian casualties than any "boots on the ground" encounter would have. Imagine a fire-fight with terrorists embedded in the civilian population of a town or village.
With the use of drones we are demonstrating that we take targeting terrorists, with the fewest possible civilian casualties, very seriously.
"It might be said that the use of any weapons system that denies the possibility of hand-to-hand combat is less than heroic. Gone are the days when fighters are able to confront one another on land, on the sea and in the sky, warriors pitting themselves against one another until the final drop of blood is spilled and one or the other combatant resigns and retreats from the battlefield in defeat."
Indeed, and nothing illustrates your point better than the terrorist tactics used by Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in their consistent attempts to use everything from airliners as missiles, to suicide bombings, to truck bombings against targets ranging from US domestic facilities to Embassies abroad, and the always certain goal of causing mass civilian casualties.
"What is clear here is that, like the Vietnam War, there are massive grey areas that need to be presented to the federal judiciary to adjudicate their legality."
Here is where I think you miss the mark, Mark (no pun intended). Once we are committed to introducing US forces (be they "boots on the ground," special ops night raids, or lethal drone attacks) against forces that have attacked us and continue to plan and execute attacks against the US, the President, as Commander in Chief, has the authority to respond. That is written into the Constitution under Article II, Section 2. The courts have traditionally, and with good reason, not inserted themselves into questions of national defense and military decisions.
"It would be a stretch to connect Jabhat al-Nusra with 9/11 despite the fact their fighters do profess an allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Jabhat al-Nusra claims to only want Assad out of office at this time and has no operations against the U.S., but under the current logic advanced by the Obama administration, this group could arguably face drone attacks."
Good point. Nevertheless, my guess would be they will not face drone attacks as long as their activities are restricted to ousting Assad from power. Should Jabhat al-Nusra mount operations against the United States, US facilities, or US interests, however, I think they would certainly be fair game for US counter-terrorism operations, including drone attacks.
Ms. Currier has written a well-balanced piece, laying out both the US Government's case for the legality of the drone program (the AUMF), as well as the possibility that in the future the AUMF may no longer apply. As things stand now, however, and certainly in the near to intermediate future, the AUMF will continue to be valid, as Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations and forces (AQAP, AQIM, etc.) will remain active threats to the United States and US interests. The targeting of senior, operational commanders and operatives will continue to be legal, both under the AUMF and Article 51 of the UN Charter.
One interlocutor in Ms. Currier's piece stated that the AUMF may be undermined when active conflict in Afghanistan ends. I do not think the end of active conflict in Afghanistan will have any effect on the legality of the AUMF. The AUMF does not limit the US military response to any particular geographic region, and it specifically grants the US the right to target "organizations."
"Since when was assassinating non-combatants considered a legitimate form of a warfare?"
Assassinating non-combatants has never been considered a legitimate form of warfare. And the United States upholds this key provision of the Law of War by targeting only Senior Leaders and Operatives of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. The US does not target innocent non-combatants.
"Bill, because the US military has arrogated to itself the “right” to murder random civilians in Pakistan"
Are you being deliberately disingenuous, Nathanael? The US military has followed, and is following, the rules of engagement set out in US policy: namely the targeting of Senior Leaders and Operatives of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. It has not "arrogated to itself the 'right' to murder random civilians in Pakistan."
"This is the military justification, and in fact, drones are part of an international movement toward less violent warfare that is less costly and kills fewer people. Those considerations have obviously won out over the legal ones in the halls of power."
Actually, the military justification for the use of drones against Senior Operatives in the war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations has won out not only because it is more efficient, but also precisely because it is legal.
"The key is the fact that there is NO REVIEW. The President has arrogated the power of judge, jury and executioner into the executive branch."
No, Nathanael, the Constitution's Article II, Section 2 grants the President the title of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. In doing so, the Constitution granted the President and Executive Branch the power to make military decisions. No "review" of such decisions was contemplated.
Joe from LowL, I’ve served in USA Army Special Forces.
Awlawki was not out of reach of SOCOM, regardless of what you are told by DoD “information operations."
It is admirable that you served in the US Army Special Forces, Brian, but you have no idea from your current vantage point what the calculations were that determined the cost-benefit of capturing vs. killing Al-Awlaki. The military obviously weighed the costs and determined that killing Al-Awlaki was the way to go. Unless you were in on the calculations and determination, your estimates bear no relation to reality. Just because it is theoretically possible to capture someone doesn't mean the cost is worth it.
"You illustrate the problem; an ever widening war in geography"
It is indeed, and it is so because Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations continue the war and expand their geographic reach. I would advise you to lecture Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations on the need to ratchet down its aggressive war against the United States and the West. They are the ones who need the lesson.
"Whatever happened to declarations of war? Did they NEVER mean anything? Now, a U.S. Citizen can just disagree with U.S. policy, associate (used to be a freedom) with people someone (we don’t know who) has deemed to be undesirable, and now that person can be legally killed on the order of someone in the White House. Isn’t there a bit too much “trust us, we’re from the government” in your take on this, Mr. Wesolowski?"
Two points, Mr. Rizzo.
A. In all of the conflicts in which the United States has been involved since adoption of the Constitution (something like 130), there have only been five declarations of war: The War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Declarations of war are the exception, not the norm.
B. The drone program does not target US citizens who disagree with US policy or associate with those simply deemed "undesirable." The program targets those who are "senior, operational leaders" of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. Read the White Paper.
A. The White Paper states that the US can lawfully kill one of its own citizens if it determines that the person is a "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The emphasis is on "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. That the person in question is a US citizen grants him no more immunity from attack than if a member of the German army waging war against Americans in World War II happened to also be a US citizen. This is war, not criminal activity.
B. That some pundits talk about US citizens located "far away from any battlefield" illustrates a naive view of the war being waged. It suggests that this is a war fought within certain geographic boundaries. It is not. The battlefield in this case encompasses the area in which the terrorists operate as well as the area in which their target is located. There is no designated geographic "battlefield" as such pundits apparently define the term.
C. As for being charged for a crime, this is a war in which Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are attacking the US. This is not a group of thugs knocking of a Seven-Eleven convenience store or committing murder while attempting armed robbery. The US criminal justice system does not apply here.
D. The term "imminent threat" is applicable because, as the White Paper states, Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations are "continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
In short, I think the White Paper pretty well makes the case for the Administration's policy.
"33 terrorism deaths of Mercans since 9/11, 170000 murders of Mercans."
Thank you for bringing these numbers to our attention, Rosemerry. That there have been so few deaths of Americans by terrorism since 9/11 demonstrates the success of the US counter-terrorism program.
"The USA seems to claim it won WW2, but lots happened especially on the Eastern Front before the USA, having made lots of money from both sides, actually found it in its interest to join."
What alternative history of World War II are you reading, Rosemerry? The United States did not find it "in its interest to join" the allies in World War II. You will no doubt be surprised to learn that on December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, precipitating the US entry into the war. Four days later, on December 11, 1941, Germany declared war on the United States.
"As I understand the “Al Qaeda” gripe, the whole situation developed out of Americans’ presence as a military force in Saudi Arabia. Since Rummie pulled most of the American forces out of SA in 2003, the “Al Qaeda” issue should be mostly resolved."
Perhaps you should try to convince Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations of that.
Dinges, as well as others during that time, made all sorts of allegations. Much of it was based on ideolgogical predisposition. There is no evidence that the CIA was linked to the assassination of Letelier and Moffitt. That the CIA and DINA trained together is no evidence that the CIA was involved with DINA's actions. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the same old "conspiracy" theories that have always surrounded events in Chile during that time.
"The relevance of the Moffitt case is that it shows that CIA-linked assassination programs has the potential to lead to innocent Americans being killed."
Further to my post above, your attempt to "link" the CIA to the assassination of Letelier and Moffitt is just as disingenuous and lacking in credibility as your attempt to link the the drone program to it. It simply does not wash to anyone aware of the facts.
I served in Santiago, Chile during Pinochet's rule and am well-aware of the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC. Your attempt to link that crime with the US Counter-Terrorism drone program directed against those who declared war on the US is an exercise in pure sophistry. It does not even begin to have credibility.
"Why did the Justice Department obtain a grand jury indictment against Osama Bin Laden arising out of the al-Qaeda embassy bombings in Africa? Either it applies or it doesn’t."
Any judicial action taken against Osama bin Laden prior to his September 11 attacks against the United States (which were acts of war) were superseded by his status as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant after attacking the US. The Law of War then took precedence.
The transcript of the interview has Jameel Jaffer saying, "It sets out, or professes to set out, the power that the government has to carry out the targeted killing of American citizens who are located far away from any battlefield, even when they have not been charged with a crime, even when they do not present any imminent threat in any ordinary meaning of that word."
Let's parse this statement.
A. The White Paper states that the US can lawfully kill one of its own citizens if it determines that the person is a "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The emphasis is on "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. That the person in question is a US citizen grants him no more immunity from attack than if a member of the German army waging war against Americans in World War II happened to also be a US citizen. This is war, not criminal activity.
B. Jaffer's comment about US citizens located "far away from any battlefield" illustrates his naive view of the war being waged. He seems to think this is a war within certain geographic boundaries. It is not. The battlefield in this case encompasses the area in which the terrorists operate as well as the area in which their target is located. There is no designated geographic "battlefield" as he apparently defines the term.
C. As for being charged for a crime, this is a war in which Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are attacking the US. This is not a group of thugs knocking of a Seven-Eleven convenience store or committing murder while attempting armed robbery. The US criminal justice system does not apply here.
D. The term "imminent threat" is applicable because, as the White Paper states, Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations are "continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
Based on her activities and the environment in which she operated, Malala Yousafzai certainly has a greater claim to the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama did when he was awarded the prize in 2009 for having accomplished...literally nothing of significance up to that point.
"If it goes beyond targeting enemy commanders in a declared war, it will be a problem."
"Like the killing of 16 year old American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki?"
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not targeted. He had the misfortune (and bad judgment) to be associating at the time with AQAP operatives who were targeted. It was a perfectly legitimate strike and did not in any way violate Joe from Lowell's admonition above.
Read my post carefully, SUPER390, and you will note that I did not say the Marshall Plan was the only initiative the US engaged in during the early Cold War. I was responding to Chomsky's comment about Kennan, which certainly involved the Marshall Plan and, as I noted, the policy of Containment. I used those as examples; I did not state they were the only ones. They were, however, successful over the long haul.
It is my understanding that in early 2001, Cheney and the oil industry lobbied Congress to lift, or at least modify, the sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and Libya, in order to get more oil flowing on to the market. The problem, as usual, was that AIPAC and the Israeli lobby played a tune on Congress's jugular vein, and the lobbying effort was abandoned. I don't think the Administration pushed Congress very hard on the issue. Nevertheless, I do not find it credible that the Iraq War was all about oil. In my opinion, it was far more ideological (Saddam Hussein, WMD, Evil) than the practical nexus of US national interest and oil would suggest.
Noam Chomsky's ever-predictable (and always amusing) ability to see nothing but malevolence behind every United States action in the world has reached the point where he has become a caricature of himself. Not for him the occasional realignment of his views to match reality. When there appears a mismatch between his views and reality, he realigns reality to match his views. Let's examine some of his statements.
"To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region."
Here Chomsky sets up a false choice between "democracy" and "oil," and states that the reason for the invasion was oil. One can quibble about whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction or democracy, or a combination of both, were the reasons Saddam Hussein was deposed. One thing is pretty clear, however, it was not for oil. If the US had wanted oil, all we had to do was reverse our opposition to Saddam, reach a modus vivendi with him, and begin importing Iraqi oil. We didn't need to go to war for that.
"It (the US) had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world — not unrealistically at the time.
Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented."
When Chomsky refers to George Kennan, he is referring to US policy and actions during the 1947-48 period, several of which were the brainchild of Kennan. Among them were the Marshall Plan, which was a $16 billion program between 1948 and 1952, to assist Europe rebuild after World War II. The plan was offered to the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, as well as to Western Europe, but Stalin would not allow the USSR or its satellites to participate. Another was the policy of "containment," of the Soviet Union, which had shown aggressive tendencies (closing Western access to Berlin, installing communist governments in Eastern Europe, the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia, threats to Turkey, etc.) In short, these were not US attempts to "run the world," as Chomsky contends. They were valid attempts by the US to head off the certain pressure that Stalin would have exerted to bend the Western Europeans to his will and isolate the US from its Western European allies. These policies were hardly the malevolent maneuverings Chomsky would have us believe.
"The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”"
There is no so-called Clinton doctrine that states that the US is entitled to resort to unilateral force any time it wishes to ensure the access Chomsky mentions. It should be noted, however, that, as far as I can tell, Chomsky never criticized the "Brezhnev Doctrine" of the old Soviet Union, which stated that the US and the West had no right to undermine Socialist countries, but the USSR had the right to undermine Capitalist countries. Not a word from Chomsky on that one. (It would deter from his Narrative of a malevolent US.)
"Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial."
Chomsky makes the mistake here of considering Osama bin Laden a criminal, as if he had knocked off a Seven-Eleven convenience store or a bank in the United States, or even committed murder, rather than the Unlawful Enemy Combatant he was. He was not entitled to "Federal constitutional protections," as one comment has it above. With his attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, both Acts of War, he was not entitled to have "Miranda Rights" read to him, or to a trial. It is amusing to imagine a Process Server accompanying the Seal team to his compound in Abottabad, in order to serve bin Laden a subpoena to appear in court for his hearing.
President Obama has made it clear on numerous occasions that we are in Afghanistan to suppress the insurgents, assist the Afghan Government to expand its writ to as much of the country as possible, and to train the Afghan security forces to take over. The over-arching goal is to prevent Al-Qaeda and its affiliates from regaining a foothold in Afghanistan.
Obama summed it up in his 02 May 2012 address at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan:
"For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al Qaeda, to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, and train Afghan security forces to defend their own country."
Frankly, I have my doubts whether or not we will succeed in meeting our objectives. I am not a fan of Counter-Insurgency and "Nation-Building." Nevertheless, President Obama has made it very clear, as did President Bush, why we are in Afghanistan.
"nice that russia is standing up to israel, not many examples of that in the world."
Your comment naively suggests that Russia is "standing up" to Israel out of some sort of principled position. To read it, one would never know that Russian opposition to the Israeli attack is due to Russia's national interest invested in Syria, from the sale of Russian arms to the Russian naval base at Tartus on Syria's Mediterranean coast. Standing up to Israel indeed!
"What is with Joe and Bill...?" "One wonders what kind of skin they have or had in the Great Game."
It is telling, Mr. McPhee, that you apparently cannot imagine anyone having an opinion different from your own without having, or having had, "skin in the Great Game." This represents an attitude that is either so obtuse as to be unable to envision alternative opinions, or so intolerant as to be unable to accept that anyone could rationally reach a conclusion different from your own.
"As an infantryman, and as the leading American voice on the illegality of the US Government employing Mercenaries"
That you were an infantryman is admirable, and that you consider yourself to be "the leading American voice on the illegality of the US Government employing Mercenaries" is interesting. Can you provide citations or articles designating you as "the leading American voice on the illegality of the US Government employing Mercenaries"? Or is the designation self-selected?
How does either attribute qualify you, anymore than anyone else, as an expert in parsing and interpreting the Geneva Conventions? I'm not suggesting you are not an expert, but your flaunting of your perceived credentials suggests that you think they add something to your voice that others who have read and digested the Conventions lack, and thus their understanding will be inferior to yours.
"I think the term “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” comes to us from the brilliant legal scholars from the GW Bush Administration. As far as I can tell, it first appears in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In my opinion, that particular piece of legislation flouts our Constitution."
Common Article No. III of the Geneva Conventions defines Lawful Combatant for purposes of determining who should be granted treatment due prisoners of war. (Under a command structure, having rank, not targeting civilians, etc.). Those Combatants who do not meet the definition are thus Unlawful Combatants, as they do not meet the Geneva Conventions' definition of a Lawful Combatant under Common Article No. III. Those leaders and operatives of Al-Qaida and its affiliated organizations (AQAP, AQIM, etc.) who are planning and executing attempts to attack the US and US interests are thus "Unlawful Enemy Combatants."
Regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the Act does not "flout our Constitution."
"Also, at what point in the future would you say it would be safe to return to the Rule of Law?"
The question is moot, as the US Government is operating under the rule of law in carrying out its Counter-Terrorism program.
"Let’s consider the people in Yemen who were the targets of US drone strikes in 2012. Can you provide evidence that they had both the intention and capability to attack the US?"
I cannot, because I am not part of the targeting mechanism that determines who is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant. But those who are doing the targeting could. By the way, "attacking the US" does not mean just launching an attack against the continental US. It also covers attacking US interests worldwide, wherever they may, be they US citizens, US Embassies, US companies, etc.
"This argument misses the point. We use the word “criminal” to describe Charles Manson and the BTK killer, too. The distinction between a criminal and an enemy is a categorical one, not a difference in significance or badness."
Exactly my point. To call these Unlawful Enemy Combatants "criminals" who have not even been put on trial is to dismiss the categorical difference between domestic criminals (who knock off Seven-Eleven convenience stores, for example) and the Unlawful Enemy Combatants that they actually are. I'm surprised you did not catch the categorical difference inherent in my comment.
"The U.S. is firing drones across a good portion of the globe"
The US is targeting Unlawful Enemy Combatants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. If that is your idea of "a good portion of the globe," your world map is very different from mine.
"It is called the end of empire! It is pretty ugly but has happened before. There are lots of precedents. What ended the British Empire? Terrorism. Look at...Malaysia."
You have it exactly backward. The Malayan Emergency began in 1948, and by 1957, when the British granted Malaya independence, the communist insurgency had been largely defeated. The British were not forced to leave Malaya by terror; they first defeated terror and then left. And they left a Malaya that has prospered as a result.
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been war crimes and so may extrajudicial assassination used by the CIA herein – but the cruel fact is that decades from now, historians may look upon Obama and John Brennan as heroes for saving thousands of American lives at the expense of some Third World natives that most of the American public could care less about."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes. They forced Japan to capitulate and surrender, after having attacked the US and ravaged most of East Asia. And the bombs didn't just save many American lives, they also saved many more Japanese lives, both military and civilian, that would have been lost had an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu taken place. The estimate is that upwards of 500,000 Japanese lives would have been lost with an invasion, as opposed to the 200,000 that perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, of course, many more American lives would have been lost.
As far as the drones, they are not targeting "Third World natives." They are targeting Unlawful Enemy Combatants who have sworn to attack the US. That American lives may be saved by killing such Unlawful Enemy Combatants is perfectly justified under International Law, US law, and the Law of War.
"The other set of important questions around armed drones are constitutional in nature. The people being targeted by the drones are not an enemy army of a state on which the US has declared war. They are suspected criminals or terrorists. But they haven’t been put on trial."
The targets of the drone strikes (Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations) do not have to be "an enemy army of a state on which the US has declared war." They are non-state enemies of the US who are waging war against the US. As Unlawful Enemy Combatants waging war against the US, the US has the right of self-defense, and the right to use drones (among other options) in securing self-defense.
To call these Unlawful Enemy Combatants "criminals," as if they had just knocked off a Seven-Eleven convenience store, is ludicrous. They are non-state enemies who have made it clear their target is the United States.
"In the interest of probity, it should be conceded that the dearly departed “Ambassador” a gentleman who just prior to his investiture had, in his capacity as arms merchant and CIA operative, glibly and gladly participated in the recent and violent overthrow of the government of the formerly sovereign Libyan nation. In fact the Ambassador’s uncurbed enthusiasms (which mirrored those of his employer — no more, no less) led him to oversee yet another American torture chamber — referred to in polite conversation as a “safe house” or “special mission.”
Speaking of "cognitive dissonance," I see that you haven't produced a shred of evidence to substantiate your wildly inaccurate and uninformed comments regarding Ambassador Stevens. Your comment represents a delusional attempt to align your preferred narrative with reality. It has failed.
"But Bill, how does Johnson’s blather about Susan Rice’s talking points “advance the dialogue regarding necessary measures that should have been in place, and that should be in place in the future?”
You do know that that was what Hillary was chastising him about, right?"
Johnson's blather does not advance the dialogue, but neither did Hillary's coy remark.
Actually, Hillary Clinton's "fiery" response to Senator Ron Johnson's query was pretty lame.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?
That response is not worthy of a Secretary of State. To trivialize Benghazi by suggesting that one of the alternative scenarios was "guys out for a walk one night" who "decided to kill some Americans," even if meant sarcastically, does nothing to advance the dialogue regarding necessary measures that should have been in place, and that should be in place in the future.
The most ridiculous statement came from Senator Rand Paul, who suggested that Clinton was culpable for the deaths because she had not read Ambassador Stevens' diplomatic cable registering security concerns. Anyone who has ever worked in the State Department knows that the Secretary does not read 90 percent of the cables that come in. That is what she has Assistant Secretaries, Office Directors, and Desk Officers for.
There is no one in the US administration who "is able to figure out the Linkage" between North Korea and Iran, Corpral Clinker, because there is no linkage. North Korea is not acting as a cat's paw for Iran.
Furthermore, the US is not going to get into a "serious Asian Land War," as you suggest. Where do you get your informatiohn?
"I’m sure you wouldn’t denounce Mandela because he used terror as a tool of liberation."
There is a big difference between a Mandela fighting oppression and striving for equality in an apartheid state already in existence, and the Begins, Shamirs, and Jabotinskys using terror to ethnically cleanse an already-existing Arab population in order to prepare for a state that did not even exist. And they weren't above killing British Mandate officials and the UN Representative to force their way either. The two situations are not comparable.
I have noted it previously, but it cannot be emphasized enough. Many of Israel's founders, including Jabotinsky, Menachim Begin (a leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi) and Yitzhak Shamir (a leader of the Stern Gang), as well as others, were bloody terrorists, willing to shed anyone's blood who they perceived stood in the way of their goal. They killed Arabs and British officers, as well as Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Representative. It is noteworthy that both Begin and Shamir went on to become Prime Ministers of Israel.
"The US financial and, in 1941, petroleum blockade of Japan provoked the Pearl Harbor attack (Japan wanted to break out toward the oil in the Dutch East Indies and resources in British Malaya, were afraid the US would try to stop them, and so wanted to neutralize the US fleet).
Two points regarding the above-cited statement.
A. In July 1941, the United States imposed a freeze on Japanese financial assets and an oil embargo on Japan. It was not a blockade.
B. The imposition of the freeze on financial assets and the oil embargo probably accelerated the timing of the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor, but a wealth of Japanese archival material suggests that Japan was committed to knocking out the US Pacific fleet in any case. Japan's military leaders were convinced the US would enter the war once they executed their "Strike South" strategy, which Japanese naval commanders had already decided would include the Philippines, at the time a US dependency.
"Sorry, Juan. Like every other commenter, I find it hard to believe your kind words about the warmonger, élite-supporter, anti-worker, anti-poor people, pro-Reagan, POTUS whose only similarity to MLK is his “African-american” label."
Speak for yourself, Rosemerry. You certainly do not speak for "every other commentater," and you certainly do not speak for me.
"Obama also was the first president to admittedly personally approve individual extrajudicial assassinations – a practice which Amnesty International asserts violates international law."
Amnesty International is hardly an authority on international law. It has an agenda and views the drone program through its own ideological lens. In fact, as has been asserted many times on this forum by several posters, there is ample evidence that supports the legality of the program, from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to the 2001 Congressional act.
"Comments made by the French and US presidents were more forgiving of the operation compared to the British, Japanese and other concerned foreign nations."
The US Government, like the Algerian Government, has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.
Well said, Saior Arepo. There are too many people who post comments without researching or understanding the real issues. Of course, real research takes time and thought, and it might disturb the preconceived narrative that, for example, ascribes "Dirty Hands" to JSTOR.
My comment was directed to the poster's apparent sarcastic criticism of the US for assisting South Korea to defend itself against North Korea, which she described as "one of the mighty, belligerent imperialists." And she meant it in a sarcastic sense, demonstrating that she does not know much about the history of North Korean belligerence and aggression.
I take it you don't consider North Korea a threat on the Korean Peninsula? Where have we gone wrong then? Have we simply misunderstood their belligerent talk, not to mention their aggressive actions (sinking a South Korean vessel, infiltrating agents into the South via tunnels, blowing up half the South Korean Cabinet in an official visit to Rangoon, Burma in 1983, etc.)? Were these actually North Korea's peaceful overtures that the United States and South Korea presented as belligerent actions for propaganda purposes?
The fact is, Osama bin Laden did not even mention the Palestinians when he began to publicly justify the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Years later, in an attempt to gain support, he brought in other reasons, including the Palestinians. But that was an effort to gain support in the Muslim World. His impetus for the attacks was to hit the "Far Enemy" of Islam, and he made that clear from the beginning.
I'm afraid you did not coin that phrase. Neither have you given credit to the one who did. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase by incorporating it into the title of her 1963 work, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil."
You seem to flatter yourself that you alone had the prescience to predict the September 11 terrorist attacks by pointing to a letter you sent to Senators and Congressmen about Americans endangered because of violence in the Near East, and you suggest that by ignoring your letter, these legislators missed a cue. The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were not precipitated by violence in the Middle East, nor specifically by the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Osama bin Laden did not even mention the Palestinians when he began to publicly justify the attacks. His reasons were to hit the "Far Enemy" of Islam, and his eventual goal was a return to a purer form of Islam, as he understood it, and a return of the Caliphate.
Many American Senators, and Congressmen, as well as Administration officials in the State Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence community, and other entities were very much aware that violence in the Near East could represent a danger to American citizens and interests. That was nothing new. But to suggest that your letter represented a revelation that would have alerted them, had it not been ignored, is to grant it a level of importance it does not deserve.
"Remember we did not just lose in Vietnam but not long after we lost our military bases the Philippines."
Actually, it was quite a while after Vietnam. Vietnam fell in 1975, and the Philippine bases were vacated in 1991. You misrepresent the reason we left the bases in the Philippines, though. It had nothing to do with "losing" in Vietnam resulting in a cascading effect on the Philippines. The Philippines Foreign Minister, Raul Manglapus, and a majority of the Philippine cabinet and Congress, were quite willing to have the US remain. The problem was they were holding out for much more money than the US was willing to pay.
Ironically, here is where Vietnam and other elements do come into play. Having lost Vietnam and long since not involved in that country, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we no longer considered the bases in the Philippines as much of a strategic asset as before. Although we wanted to remain, we were not going to play the same old game of paying anything to keep them, because they were not seen as an absolute necessity. The Filipinos, however, thought we were playing the same game, and they thought they could get away with requesting exorbitant rent for the bases. We told them no and walked away. In other words, Raul Manglapus and his negotiators did not realize the game had changed and overplayed their hand.
The so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" to which you refer did last for some time. It was put to rest, however, by the first Gulf War in 1991, a war which was entirely justified (and had the UN Security Council imprimatur) in pushing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, which he had invaded and occupied. Don't forget, there were 35 allies, including Syria under Hafez Assad, in the coalition.
One must be careful in stating categorical "lessons," from Munich to Vietnam. There are exceptions to all so-called "lessons." It also depends on the inclinations of the observer. For example, many who were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were very much in favor of the US and NATO war against Serbia in 1999. And that war lacked a UN Security Council imprimatur, just as did the second Gulf War against Iraq. It would be interesting to ask those who were against the US war in Iraq why they approved of the 1999 war against Serbia, a nation that represented no threat to either the US or Europe.
"Oh, and Bill: if the US support for tyrannical Middle Eastern governments like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain were to stop, and the US wars against various Islamic countries were to stop, then al-Qaeda’s “war” against the US would also stop. The US started this fight, although bad education in the US means that most people in the US don’t realize this."
Take a deep breath and calm down, Nathaniel. The US did not "start this fight." That is a fiction that you and your like-minded cohorts love to pass off as fact. It is not. You seem to think it started on September 11, 2001. Please get a better handle on history.
Let's review the bidding:
--The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
--The 1996 plot (discovered in time) to bomb six airliners over the Pacific.
--The 1998 bombing of US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es-Salaam.
--The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
--The 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentabon.
And the above are just attacks against the US up to 2001. It does not take into account all the attacks on other targets: London, Madrid, and various other locations, as well as against the US after 2001.
The United States did not start this war, but it certainly entered it after September 11, with good reason and with every justification to defend itself.
"The political alternative to al Qaeda is often not much better, and could be worse. It’s like we’re killing bootleggers to make the world safe for bank robbers."
To compare Al-Qaeda to bootleggers demonstrates an astonishing naivete' regarding the intentions and active attempts by Al-Qaeda to attack the United States on numerous occasions. Were Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations to cease their war (and it is a war) against the US, rest assured the drone program and other anti-terrorist measures would cease as well. By the way, the US anti-terrorist measures, including the drone program, are meant to defend the US, not to "make the world safe for bank robbers."
The US Government has never said the "entire world is our playground battlefield." The drone campaign is targeted on Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations, and it so happens that they are primarily located in the Pakistani FATA, Yemen, and Somalia. The drone program targets terrorists, not geographic areas.
Your question regarding an attack on the Air Force bases or areas where pilots and weapons officers live sets up a false choice. It is not a matter of being either an act of terror or an act of war. Just as the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of war, so, too, terrorist attacks on your above-mentioned targets would be continuing acts of war.
"After all, the US Government says that the entire world is our playground battlefield."
No, the US Government has not said that the entire world is our "playground battlefield." You apparently don't realize how your exaggerations completely undermine any valid point that may be hidden within your hyperbolic verbal camouflage.
The United States targets leaders, and leading operatives, of Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations where they operate. To date, that has meant the drone campaign has concentrated primarily on the Pakistani FATA, Yemen, and Somalia because that is where the terrorists operate and, thus, where the threat to the US exists. Should a terrorist threat to the US arise in some other area, Northern Mali for example, the drone campaign may well include that area. Conversely, should the threat diminish in an area, the drone program no doubt will be reduced or stopped entirely in that area. It is not a world-wide scatter-shot program as you suggest; it is very narrowly targeted on the terrorists, not on geographic areas as such.
Regarding your question whether an attack on the Air Force bases and areas where pilots, weapons officers, and targeting officers live would be considered an act of terrorism or an act of war, you present a false choice. Just as the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of war, so too would be attacks on your above-mentioned targets. In the context of our current struggle, these acts of terror are acts of war.
"So why shouldn’t we, the citizens who supposedly govern the most heavily armed power on Earth, pick and choose our historical evidence from movies? It’s the path of least resistance, isn’t it?"
I hope your comment is meant to be facetious, with a hint of self-deprecating humor, SUPER390. Although you and I disagree from time to time, I have always thought you offered thoughtful ideas on topics under discussion, and I cannot imagine you swallowing as historical evidence something just because it appeared in a movie. Your point, however, is well-taken. Many people do accept as "truth" something just because it appears on the big screen. That doesn't mean that we should condone such flabby intellectual (in)activity and passive acceptance of a script as "truth."
The Lyndie England idiocy (the dog collar, etc.), along with that of her cohorts, was not part of the systematic enhanced interrogation and torture regime of either the military or the CIA. That incident was a case of idiots who thought they were having a lark. They were not attempting to gain information. They were just being abusive for the sake of their own sick entertainment Subsequently they were courtmartialled, found guilty, and imprisoned.
Ms. Greenberg should calm down and remember that this is a movie, not a historical documentary. Artistic license has been used in many films that purport to portray actual events. I wonder if Ms. Greenberg was similarly exercised over Oliver Stone's "JFK," which presented the assassination of John F. Kennedy as having been plotted and executed by the military, the CIA, and practically the entire national security establishment. It was obviously a false portrayal (anyone who knows Washington at all knows that such a "secret" could not have been kept secret long), but Stone presented it as fact.
There will be viewers in the audience who think "Zero Dark Thirty" is entirely true. I suspect that whether they approve or disapprove of the take-away will depend on preconceived opinions regarding enhanced interrogation and torture they bring with them, just as Ms. Greenberg appears to have done. The same thing occurred with viewers of "JFK." Those who entered the theatre with a preconceived conspiratorial frame of mind no doubt had their opinion validated. Those who viewed it without the conspiratorial drama hindering their vision no doubt saw it for what it was, a historically flawed film they may or may not have considered entertaining.
My advice to Ms. Greenberg is kick back this evening, have a glass of chardonnay, and watch a good flick on Turner Classic Movies.
"The US now says Kabul will have to negotiate with the various insurgents itself, Afghan-to-Afghan."
In my opinion this is as it should be. The U.S. should not negotiate on behalf of a feckless government in Kabul that, after the U.S. pulls out, will have to come to terms with the Taliban anyway. I think it is pretty clear that Afghans understand each other far better than we do. Let them reach their own compromises and deal with the results.
Of course the Bush Administration made a policy decision to engage the U.S. in counter-insurgency. It follows that the U.S. got bogged down in counter-insurgency. One needn't get into the details to reach that conclusion.
You state that you don't know how I can say that the U.S. did not engage in Afghanistan to “surround Iran, claim minerals or oil, or keep the territory out of Chinese hands." It's easy, Joe. There is absolutely no evidence that those were the reasons the U.S. engaged in Afghanistan. There is every reason to think we went in to engage in the (admittedly foolish) game of "nation-bulding" in order to create a nation and government that would maintain a bulwark against terrorism springing from its territory. Nevertheless, Joe, I am open to consider any evidence you can proffer that would suggest we engaged in order to "surround Iran, claim minerals or oil, or keep the territory out of Chinese hands."
"They call it the Ten Thousand Day War for a reason."
Yes, but it wasn't a Ten Thousand Day U.S. War. Read your history. To the Vietnamese it appeared to be a continuous struggle, but the "War" had two distinct phases, the French and the U.S. Do not try to conflate the two.
The successful effort to oust the Taliban and Mullah Omar, and to deprive Al-Qaeda of a safe-haven in Afghanistan, was the reason the United States went in. It was fully justified, both under international law and under the Law of War, as we had been attacked by an enemy (Al-Qaeda) who received the support of the Afghan government (the Taliban). The U.S. had every right to defend itself and take out those who had committed such an act of war.
The problem is the U.S. got bogged down in counter-insurgency. I have posted several comments in the past about the reasons why the circumstances in Afghanistan do not favor a successful counter-insurgency program. I will not repeat the reasons here, but the only successful counter-insurgency program since World War II was that of the British in Malaya.
As the U.S. draws down in Afghanistan, we need to continue our robust counter-terrorism program, including the use of drones and Special Ops, both in the Pakistani FATA and in Afghanistan if intelligence reveals a return of Al-Qaeda or its affiliated organizations.
Rest assured, the U.S. did not engage in Afghanistan to "surround Iran, claim minerals or oil, or keep the territory out of Chinese hands."
By all means, let's get the perfunctary questions regarding Hagel's attitude toward gays and lesbians out of the way so he can demonstrate his newly-enlightened attitude. Then let's let the Senate Armed Services Committee get down to the important issues and discuss with him the national security challenges faced by the United States, and how he plans to meet them in an era of tight budgets. I suspect Hagel will acquit himself well.
No one I know of is talking about a policy to weaken Israel, nor are many who advocate a more balanced U.S. policy toward Israel suggesting anything other than putting the U.S. national interest first. The fact is, the U.S. national interest is not always compatible with the Israeli perception of its national interest.
The West Bank settlement program is a prime example. The United States has opposed the settlement program for decades (and for good reasons), yet Israel thumbs its nose at the U.S. and continues building. (The creation of "facts on the ground.") Acquiescense of the U.S. (who, after all, is Israel's prime benefactor and source of security) is not in the our national interest. The disgusting Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war, an attack that occurred with full knowledge that the Liberty was a U.S. ship, is another example in which the U.S. acquiesced in assisting in the cover-up of Israeli complicity in the killing and injuring of U.S. personnel, not to mention damage to the ship, apparently in order to spare Israel condemnation. There are many other examples where the U.S. national interest would have been better served by diverging from our lockstep march with Israel, both in our bilateral relations and in our posture at the United Nations.
Your simplistic suggestion that those who think the U.S. national interest does not always track with Israel's "learn their history from Michael Moore and Howard Zinn," demonstrates arrogance exceeded only by ignorance.
No need for Chuck Hagel to perform Maoist self-criticism regarding his previous statements regarding gay and lesbian rights. He has already apologized. Hagel is up for Secretary of Defense, not for president of the Log Cabin Republicans. His views on the United States national interest are far more important than previous statements regarding gay and lesbian rights. Let's get real here, folks. The primary qualification for Secretary of Defense is his views on the national interest of the United States, not his previous stance on gay and lesbian rights.
Driving a wedge down the middle of the conservative movement is of little importance. That we would have a Secretary of Defense who is not beholden to Israel, or the Israeli lobby, is of immense importance.
Chuck Hagel has apologized for his prior statements and, indeed, should be given the benefit of the doubt. The critical element that should determine whether or not he is qualified to be Secretary of Defense should be his position on how best to defend the national interest of the United States. Any past positions on gays and lesbians is of secondary importance. He is not running for president of the Log Cabin Republicans.
My first choice for Secretary of Defense would have been Michele Flournoy. I think she has full command of the issues that are important for the security of the United States. But Chuck Hagel is an honorable choice. Let's not let secondary issues obscure his qualifications.
My explanation does not assume that the drone campaign is a single, coherent thing. And it certainly does not assume that the increase in the strikes in Yemen is being driven by the decline in strikes in the Pakistani FATA. This is something you conjured up.
If read carefully, you will note that my comment suggested that the decline in strikes in Pakistan may well be due to their success in eliminating much of the Al-Qaeda and unlawful enemy combatant leadership. The increase in strikes in Yemen, however, is due to the surge in AQAP leadership in that country. Each is driven by its own dynamic. You appear to have mistaken my comment, illustrating an apparent correlation between the two campaigns, as suggesting causation, one driving the other. I made no such linkage.
Your attempt to provide your own interpretation of what I wrote to fit your preconceived Narrative, Mr. McPhee, is so transparently obvious that it barely warrants a response. Please read what I wrote, after first removing your ideological lenses, and you will note that I did not suggest the Leftist, terrorist, guerrilla movements were "equivalent" to the governments in each country.
I did note that the actions of those governments cannot be properly understood without mentioning these movements. Such movements committed some pretty horrible atrocities themselves. I obviously was not justifying all actions of the governments in question, but To omit any mention of these movements is to tell only half of the story. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
As far as he goes, Mr. Grandin presents a reasonably accurate account of events in South America, including Operation Condor, the 1954 US-instigated coup in Guatemala, and the effort to implement more efficient security organs in various countries that were experiencing Leftist terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, Mr. Grandin's piece is noteworthy as much for what he omits as for what he includes in his litany of US involvement.
Mr. Grandin completely omits any mention of the extremely dangerous and vicious Leftist movements that existed at the time and later--The Montoneros in Argentina, the Tupamaros in Uruguay, the Movimiento Izquirdista Revolutionario (MIR) in Chile, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarios de Colombia (FARC) in Colombia, and later the Sendero Luminoso in Peru are good examples. These Leftists movements were willing to attack and kill their perceived opponents every bit as much as the governments were. Without mentioning these movements, Mr. Grandin tells only half of the story.
Finally, by his statement, "The CIA-backed coup by General Pinochet and his military led to the death of Chile's democratically-elected President Salvador Allende," Mr. Grandin seeks to perpetuate the enduring Leftist myth that the US was behind the 1973 coup.
As was brought out in Senator Frank Church's 1975 Senate hearings on the CIA's intelligence activities, the CIA did provide $8 million over a three-year period to various opposition groups in Chile to keep them going, including labor unions, the anti-Allende newspaper El Mercurio (which Allende was attempting to shut down by having the nationalized banks withhold credit for newsprint), and others. I assume that many readers of this forum would not favor a government attempt to close down an opposition newspaper. Nevertheless, the U.S. provided neither funding nor assistance in the planning and execution of the coup itself. Although Embassy officials had evidence that something was afoot, they were not privy to the timing and actual plan itself. As far as Allende's death, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that he committed suicide in the Presidential palace, using the rifle given him by Fidel Castro.
Anyone who has served in Chile and studied the 1973 coup would find it laughable to hear someone insist that the Chilean military would need assistance from the U.S. The Chilean military was (and is) a very professional military, and was perfectly capable of planning and executing the coup on its own. That the United States was glad to see Allende overthrown is undeniable. It does not follow, however, that the United States engineered the action that led to his overthrow.
There is a big difference between women covering their head while attending Christian church services and urging "Christian girls to wear a head scarf in this conservative Muslim country."
In the first instance, it is a matter of honoring the Christian heritage of those sects that require a woman to cover her head while attending services. In the second, it is a matter of pandering to the majority Muslim culture in order to avoid such egregious behavior as being called a "harlot" by some ignoramus who deserves a shoe in the face.
"This would be such a great time for the House of Sabah to unilaterally institute a Constitutional Monarchy patterned after Great Britain. If only the Western oligarchs would support that."
In the unlikely event that the House of Sabah were to unilaterally institute a constitutional monarchy, what makes you think the Western powers would not support it? They certainly assisted change in Libya, and they have gone along with fundamental changes in Tunisia and Egypt. What is your evidence that they would not accept and support change in Kuwait?
Urdu is sometimes considered synonymous with Pakistan because it was made the national language. Before the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, however, none of the major groups that inhabited the area that would become Pakistan spoke Urdu. They spoke Baluchi, Punjabi, Pashto, and Sindhi.
Urdu was imported to Pakistan after independence with the migration to Sindh, and particularly to Karachi, of the Urdu-speaking Mojahirs from Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Hyderabad, and Bihar. In 1948, Karachi was declared Pakistan's capital, and by 1951, Sindhis had become a minority in that city, with a 57 percent majority of the population being Urdu-speaking Mojahirs.
Lord Palmerston is quoted as saying: "Nations have no permanent friends or enemies, they only have permanent interests."
This is, in fact, a wise observation. When it is in the US interest to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as friends, then it is wise to do so, just as it was wise to support Mubarak's Egypt as a friend of US interests. When it is no longer in the US interest to support Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, it will be equally wise to relinquish their friendship, just as it was wise to relinquish Mubarak's Egypt when it no longer was in the US interest to support it. This is an element of international relations that ideologues of both the Left and the Right have a hard time coming to grips with.
"Centcom winding down for Africom"
Your evidence, please? Africom's structure does not depend upon Centcom's status. Any evidence you have to the contrary would be welcome.
"I assume that our residual forces in Afghanistan post-2014 will work for Eric Prince."
Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim as stated in the above-cited quote? Otherwise, one can only conclude that you are making wildly unsubstantiated claims.
"When did you start taking Dick Cheney at his word?"
My question exactly, Joe. Why get wrapped around the axle over what Cheney says? There are more important things about which one should be concerned, unless one's focus is solely on looking at the past.
"Did you pay no attention to the growing conflict between Israel and Turkey over Gaza? The neocons hate everyone who criticizes Israel in any way, and try to isolate and destroy them."
The Neocons are not in charge of US foreign policy. The Obama Administration is. In fact, the United States, under both the Bush and Obama Administrations, has consistently favored Turkey's admission into the European Union.
"It is not he business of the Americans to tell the Europeans whether Turkey should be a member of the EU or not. Most of the European opinions are against the adhesion of Turkey. It has not much to do with Turkey being a Muslim country, but more with the fact that Turkey is still an emerging country when it comes to the economy."
The Americans are not telling the Europeans whether or not Turkey should be a member of the European Union. The United States supports the inclusion of Turkey in the EU, but realizes that it is up to the Europeans to decide that issue for themselves.
In fact, the EU reluctance to admit Turkey into the European Union has a lot to do with Turkey being a Muslim country. Europeans don't like to admit it because it is considered politically incorrect, but there is a strong bias against admitting Turkey for that reason. Of course, Turkey's economic condition and the migration of labor from Turkey to Northern EU countries that would occur if Turkey became a member contributes to the EU position as well.
"Indeed. Nixon had his own reasons for the China tri: The longstanding Cold War required another implementation of the “divide and rule” policy! China friend USSR foe."
Nixon's opening to China was not a case of "divide and rule." Far from it. In fact, both the Chinese and the US saw the Soviet Union as a threat, and both saw it in their interest to establish a friendly relationship. China, particularly Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai, was as eager to have the relationship as was the US.
Is that why the US is involved in counter-terrorism in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia? To control Middle East Oil? Is the US in control of Iraqi oil? Is there a huge reserve of oil under the sands of Yemen that most of us are unaware exists? It would be interesting to see the intelligence to which you are privy to determine how you reach your conclusion that the US effort in the above-cited areas is a ploy to control Middle East oil.
Iran's Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, registered a cautious welcome to VP Biden's suggestion of direct talks, but with the stipulation that the US tone down its rhetoric. Now we have Ahmadinejad weighing in as well. The Iranian leadership at times appears to be divided over several issues, so it is hard to tell if anyone making any statement is doing so at the behest of, and representing the thinking of, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose decisions are the only ones that count.
What is clear is that all three--Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and Salehi--appear to be in synch on this issue at this particular time. That has not always been the case, and it may not always be the case in the future. Reading the Iranian leadership is very much like the old Kremlinologists trying to read the Soviet leadership by parsing statements and seeing who appeared on the reviewing stand for the annual Mayday parade.
"But the key issues are legal and moral. The drone policy might be moral if more lives were saved by killing bad guys than innocents were killed by drones. But it is dumb to think the authorities could or would accomplish that."
Many more lives have been saved by disrupting the bad guys' plans and operations to attack the US and vital US interests, which would have resulted in many deaths, than the civilian loss of life resulting from targeted drone attacks on Al-Qaeda commanders and operatives planning and directing those attacks.
"American interests in the Middle East include propping up monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states, thuggish regimes in Mubarak Egypt and Israel or any government that the US finds useful. These are all American interests and warrant a violent American response if threatened."
Are you referring to the "violent American response" that was ignited by the removal of the "regime in Mubarak Egypt"? What was that "violent American response"? Did we target Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt with drones and missiles? Oh, wait, we are attempting to work with President Morsi and his government. So what does the author mean by the above-cited quote?
"thuggish regimes in Mubarak Egypt...or any government that the US finds useful. These are all American interests and warrant a violent American response if threatened."
Your hyperbole undermines any useful point you were trying to make. What, pray tell, was the "violent American response" to the deposing of Mubarak in Egypt, to which you refer above as an example that warranted such a response?
My reference was specifically to American facilities, Embassies, citizens, and other core vital interests. I certainly was not referring to regimes that may have been friendly to the US, as several have been deposed without the "violent American response" that exists in your imagination.
The US citizens in question are Unlawful Enemy Combatants planning and executing attacks against the United States and US interests as members of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces. They are at war with the US, not criminals, and they do not have the right to "judicial review," and due process any more than a German commander or soldier in World War II fighting against US forces, who also happened to hold US citizenship, had a right to judicial review and due process in US courts. That the Al-Qaeda (or AQAP, AQIM, etc.) Unlawful Enemy Combatant happens to be a US citizen does not grant him the right of "due process" or "judicial review" any more than the German combatant's citizenship status in World War II.
The term "immediate threat" is applicable as the Administration defines it, as commanders and operatives of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces are, as the White Paper states, constantly planning attacks against the US and its interests. It is impossible to have knowledge of every individual, planned operation against the US in absolute real time. The President's chief responsibility is protection of the United States and its citizens, and, thus, the definition of "immediate threat" is rational and justified.
I do agree that the Cambodia analogy is flawed. The US bombing of Cambodia was not a violation of Cambodia's neutrality, however, because since 1965, with North Vietnam running supplies through Cambodia to the South via the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Cambodia had no neutrality to violate. North Vietnam had already rendered Cambodia's neutrality inoperative. Where the argument is flawed is that Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are not claiming neutrality (as did Cambodia) in this fight. (Pakistan's protests are obviously for public consumption, as they are privately working with us.)
"Ahmadinejad in Cairo was not hip or cool. He was so 1979, representing a movement contemporaneous with the Bee Gees’ “Too Much Heaven."
Very astute post, Professor Cole. And your comparison of Ahmadinejad with the Bee Gees was the epitome of "hip and cool." Well done.
Corrected name. Bill vice Bil.
"Alternately, in response to a posting on this subject earlier from someone with a Special Forces background, many of these missions could be done by them. It’d be less economically effective, but not by a whole lot; there’d be the potential of “.5″ casualties (or some factor that could be quantified); and it’d be technically less effective in terms of 24-hr surveillance over time, etc."
Ironically, your statement cited above contains within it the very reasons why Special Forces could not accomplish the job with anywhere near the precision, cost-effectiveness, and saved lives of drones. These operatives of Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations and forces are operating in extremely rugged territory. Drones operate on "real-time" intelligence; Special Ops Forces would be operating on intelligence that is less than "real-time." There is also the problem of another possible "Blackhawk Down" incident, something none of us would want. Finally, drones have resulted in far fewer civilian casualties than any "boots on the ground" encounter would have. Imagine a fire-fight with terrorists embedded in the civilian population of a town or village.
With the use of drones we are demonstrating that we take targeting terrorists, with the fewest possible civilian casualties, very seriously.
"It might be said that the use of any weapons system that denies the possibility of hand-to-hand combat is less than heroic. Gone are the days when fighters are able to confront one another on land, on the sea and in the sky, warriors pitting themselves against one another until the final drop of blood is spilled and one or the other combatant resigns and retreats from the battlefield in defeat."
Indeed, and nothing illustrates your point better than the terrorist tactics used by Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in their consistent attempts to use everything from airliners as missiles, to suicide bombings, to truck bombings against targets ranging from US domestic facilities to Embassies abroad, and the always certain goal of causing mass civilian casualties.
"What is clear here is that, like the Vietnam War, there are massive grey areas that need to be presented to the federal judiciary to adjudicate their legality."
Here is where I think you miss the mark, Mark (no pun intended). Once we are committed to introducing US forces (be they "boots on the ground," special ops night raids, or lethal drone attacks) against forces that have attacked us and continue to plan and execute attacks against the US, the President, as Commander in Chief, has the authority to respond. That is written into the Constitution under Article II, Section 2. The courts have traditionally, and with good reason, not inserted themselves into questions of national defense and military decisions.
"It would be a stretch to connect Jabhat al-Nusra with 9/11 despite the fact their fighters do profess an allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Jabhat al-Nusra claims to only want Assad out of office at this time and has no operations against the U.S., but under the current logic advanced by the Obama administration, this group could arguably face drone attacks."
Good point. Nevertheless, my guess would be they will not face drone attacks as long as their activities are restricted to ousting Assad from power. Should Jabhat al-Nusra mount operations against the United States, US facilities, or US interests, however, I think they would certainly be fair game for US counter-terrorism operations, including drone attacks.
Ms. Currier has written a well-balanced piece, laying out both the US Government's case for the legality of the drone program (the AUMF), as well as the possibility that in the future the AUMF may no longer apply. As things stand now, however, and certainly in the near to intermediate future, the AUMF will continue to be valid, as Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations and forces (AQAP, AQIM, etc.) will remain active threats to the United States and US interests. The targeting of senior, operational commanders and operatives will continue to be legal, both under the AUMF and Article 51 of the UN Charter.
One interlocutor in Ms. Currier's piece stated that the AUMF may be undermined when active conflict in Afghanistan ends. I do not think the end of active conflict in Afghanistan will have any effect on the legality of the AUMF. The AUMF does not limit the US military response to any particular geographic region, and it specifically grants the US the right to target "organizations."
"Since when was assassinating non-combatants considered a legitimate form of a warfare?"
Assassinating non-combatants has never been considered a legitimate form of warfare. And the United States upholds this key provision of the Law of War by targeting only Senior Leaders and Operatives of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. The US does not target innocent non-combatants.
"Bill, because the US military has arrogated to itself the “right” to murder random civilians in Pakistan"
Are you being deliberately disingenuous, Nathanael? The US military has followed, and is following, the rules of engagement set out in US policy: namely the targeting of Senior Leaders and Operatives of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. It has not "arrogated to itself the 'right' to murder random civilians in Pakistan."
"This is the military justification, and in fact, drones are part of an international movement toward less violent warfare that is less costly and kills fewer people. Those considerations have obviously won out over the legal ones in the halls of power."
Actually, the military justification for the use of drones against Senior Operatives in the war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations has won out not only because it is more efficient, but also precisely because it is legal.
"The key is the fact that there is NO REVIEW. The President has arrogated the power of judge, jury and executioner into the executive branch."
No, Nathanael, the Constitution's Article II, Section 2 grants the President the title of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. In doing so, the Constitution granted the President and Executive Branch the power to make military decisions. No "review" of such decisions was contemplated.
Joe from LowL, I’ve served in USA Army Special Forces.
Awlawki was not out of reach of SOCOM, regardless of what you are told by DoD “information operations."
It is admirable that you served in the US Army Special Forces, Brian, but you have no idea from your current vantage point what the calculations were that determined the cost-benefit of capturing vs. killing Al-Awlaki. The military obviously weighed the costs and determined that killing Al-Awlaki was the way to go. Unless you were in on the calculations and determination, your estimates bear no relation to reality. Just because it is theoretically possible to capture someone doesn't mean the cost is worth it.
"This is rich: Joe from Lowell offended by pervarications."
I think you meant prevarications, Brian.
"You illustrate the problem; an ever widening war in geography"
It is indeed, and it is so because Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations continue the war and expand their geographic reach. I would advise you to lecture Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations on the need to ratchet down its aggressive war against the United States and the West. They are the ones who need the lesson.
"Whatever happened to declarations of war? Did they NEVER mean anything? Now, a U.S. Citizen can just disagree with U.S. policy, associate (used to be a freedom) with people someone (we don’t know who) has deemed to be undesirable, and now that person can be legally killed on the order of someone in the White House. Isn’t there a bit too much “trust us, we’re from the government” in your take on this, Mr. Wesolowski?"
Two points, Mr. Rizzo.
A. In all of the conflicts in which the United States has been involved since adoption of the Constitution (something like 130), there have only been five declarations of war: The War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Declarations of war are the exception, not the norm.
B. The drone program does not target US citizens who disagree with US policy or associate with those simply deemed "undesirable." The program targets those who are "senior, operational leaders" of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. Read the White Paper.
Some thoughts.
A. The White Paper states that the US can lawfully kill one of its own citizens if it determines that the person is a "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The emphasis is on "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. That the person in question is a US citizen grants him no more immunity from attack than if a member of the German army waging war against Americans in World War II happened to also be a US citizen. This is war, not criminal activity.
B. That some pundits talk about US citizens located "far away from any battlefield" illustrates a naive view of the war being waged. It suggests that this is a war fought within certain geographic boundaries. It is not. The battlefield in this case encompasses the area in which the terrorists operate as well as the area in which their target is located. There is no designated geographic "battlefield" as such pundits apparently define the term.
C. As for being charged for a crime, this is a war in which Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are attacking the US. This is not a group of thugs knocking of a Seven-Eleven convenience store or committing murder while attempting armed robbery. The US criminal justice system does not apply here.
D. The term "imminent threat" is applicable because, as the White Paper states, Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations are "continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
In short, I think the White Paper pretty well makes the case for the Administration's policy.
"33 terrorism deaths of Mercans since 9/11, 170000 murders of Mercans."
Thank you for bringing these numbers to our attention, Rosemerry. That there have been so few deaths of Americans by terrorism since 9/11 demonstrates the success of the US counter-terrorism program.
"The USA seems to claim it won WW2, but lots happened especially on the Eastern Front before the USA, having made lots of money from both sides, actually found it in its interest to join."
What alternative history of World War II are you reading, Rosemerry? The United States did not find it "in its interest to join" the allies in World War II. You will no doubt be surprised to learn that on December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, precipitating the US entry into the war. Four days later, on December 11, 1941, Germany declared war on the United States.
"As I understand the “Al Qaeda” gripe, the whole situation developed out of Americans’ presence as a military force in Saudi Arabia. Since Rummie pulled most of the American forces out of SA in 2003, the “Al Qaeda” issue should be mostly resolved."
Perhaps you should try to convince Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations of that.
Dinges, as well as others during that time, made all sorts of allegations. Much of it was based on ideolgogical predisposition. There is no evidence that the CIA was linked to the assassination of Letelier and Moffitt. That the CIA and DINA trained together is no evidence that the CIA was involved with DINA's actions. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the same old "conspiracy" theories that have always surrounded events in Chile during that time.
"The relevance of the Moffitt case is that it shows that CIA-linked assassination programs has the potential to lead to innocent Americans being killed."
Further to my post above, your attempt to "link" the CIA to the assassination of Letelier and Moffitt is just as disingenuous and lacking in credibility as your attempt to link the the drone program to it. It simply does not wash to anyone aware of the facts.
I served in Santiago, Chile during Pinochet's rule and am well-aware of the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC. Your attempt to link that crime with the US Counter-Terrorism drone program directed against those who declared war on the US is an exercise in pure sophistry. It does not even begin to have credibility.
"Why did the Justice Department obtain a grand jury indictment against Osama Bin Laden arising out of the al-Qaeda embassy bombings in Africa? Either it applies or it doesn’t."
Any judicial action taken against Osama bin Laden prior to his September 11 attacks against the United States (which were acts of war) were superseded by his status as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant after attacking the US. The Law of War then took precedence.
The transcript of the interview has Jameel Jaffer saying, "It sets out, or professes to set out, the power that the government has to carry out the targeted killing of American citizens who are located far away from any battlefield, even when they have not been charged with a crime, even when they do not present any imminent threat in any ordinary meaning of that word."
Let's parse this statement.
A. The White Paper states that the US can lawfully kill one of its own citizens if it determines that the person is a "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. The emphasis is on "senior, operational leader" of Al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates. That the person in question is a US citizen grants him no more immunity from attack than if a member of the German army waging war against Americans in World War II happened to also be a US citizen. This is war, not criminal activity.
B. Jaffer's comment about US citizens located "far away from any battlefield" illustrates his naive view of the war being waged. He seems to think this is a war within certain geographic boundaries. It is not. The battlefield in this case encompasses the area in which the terrorists operate as well as the area in which their target is located. There is no designated geographic "battlefield" as he apparently defines the term.
C. As for being charged for a crime, this is a war in which Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are attacking the US. This is not a group of thugs knocking of a Seven-Eleven convenience store or committing murder while attempting armed robbery. The US criminal justice system does not apply here.
D. The term "imminent threat" is applicable because, as the White Paper states, Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations are "continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
Based on her activities and the environment in which she operated, Malala Yousafzai certainly has a greater claim to the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama did when he was awarded the prize in 2009 for having accomplished...literally nothing of significance up to that point.
"Investigation and action by the UN is clearly needed."
And what would that action be? I need not remind you that any significant action would require UN Security Council approval.
"Has it been only commanders that are targeted?"
Enemy commanders and important operatives are targeted (as opposed to what one would call ordinary "foot soldiers")
"If it goes beyond targeting enemy commanders in a declared war, it will be a problem."
"Like the killing of 16 year old American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki?"
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not targeted. He had the misfortune (and bad judgment) to be associating at the time with AQAP operatives who were targeted. It was a perfectly legitimate strike and did not in any way violate Joe from Lowell's admonition above.
Read my post carefully, SUPER390, and you will note that I did not say the Marshall Plan was the only initiative the US engaged in during the early Cold War. I was responding to Chomsky's comment about Kennan, which certainly involved the Marshall Plan and, as I noted, the policy of Containment. I used those as examples; I did not state they were the only ones. They were, however, successful over the long haul.
It is my understanding that in early 2001, Cheney and the oil industry lobbied Congress to lift, or at least modify, the sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and Libya, in order to get more oil flowing on to the market. The problem, as usual, was that AIPAC and the Israeli lobby played a tune on Congress's jugular vein, and the lobbying effort was abandoned. I don't think the Administration pushed Congress very hard on the issue. Nevertheless, I do not find it credible that the Iraq War was all about oil. In my opinion, it was far more ideological (Saddam Hussein, WMD, Evil) than the practical nexus of US national interest and oil would suggest.
Noam Chomsky's ever-predictable (and always amusing) ability to see nothing but malevolence behind every United States action in the world has reached the point where he has become a caricature of himself. Not for him the occasional realignment of his views to match reality. When there appears a mismatch between his views and reality, he realigns reality to match his views. Let's examine some of his statements.
"To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region."
Here Chomsky sets up a false choice between "democracy" and "oil," and states that the reason for the invasion was oil. One can quibble about whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction or democracy, or a combination of both, were the reasons Saddam Hussein was deposed. One thing is pretty clear, however, it was not for oil. If the US had wanted oil, all we had to do was reverse our opposition to Saddam, reach a modus vivendi with him, and begin importing Iraqi oil. We didn't need to go to war for that.
"It (the US) had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world — not unrealistically at the time.
Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented."
When Chomsky refers to George Kennan, he is referring to US policy and actions during the 1947-48 period, several of which were the brainchild of Kennan. Among them were the Marshall Plan, which was a $16 billion program between 1948 and 1952, to assist Europe rebuild after World War II. The plan was offered to the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, as well as to Western Europe, but Stalin would not allow the USSR or its satellites to participate. Another was the policy of "containment," of the Soviet Union, which had shown aggressive tendencies (closing Western access to Berlin, installing communist governments in Eastern Europe, the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia, threats to Turkey, etc.) In short, these were not US attempts to "run the world," as Chomsky contends. They were valid attempts by the US to head off the certain pressure that Stalin would have exerted to bend the Western Europeans to his will and isolate the US from its Western European allies. These policies were hardly the malevolent maneuverings Chomsky would have us believe.
"The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”"
There is no so-called Clinton doctrine that states that the US is entitled to resort to unilateral force any time it wishes to ensure the access Chomsky mentions. It should be noted, however, that, as far as I can tell, Chomsky never criticized the "Brezhnev Doctrine" of the old Soviet Union, which stated that the US and the West had no right to undermine Socialist countries, but the USSR had the right to undermine Capitalist countries. Not a word from Chomsky on that one. (It would deter from his Narrative of a malevolent US.)
"Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial."
Chomsky makes the mistake here of considering Osama bin Laden a criminal, as if he had knocked off a Seven-Eleven convenience store or a bank in the United States, or even committed murder, rather than the Unlawful Enemy Combatant he was. He was not entitled to "Federal constitutional protections," as one comment has it above. With his attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, both Acts of War, he was not entitled to have "Miranda Rights" read to him, or to a trial. It is amusing to imagine a Process Server accompanying the Seal team to his compound in Abottabad, in order to serve bin Laden a subpoena to appear in court for his hearing.
"And he has never explained why we’re there."
President Obama has made it clear on numerous occasions that we are in Afghanistan to suppress the insurgents, assist the Afghan Government to expand its writ to as much of the country as possible, and to train the Afghan security forces to take over. The over-arching goal is to prevent Al-Qaeda and its affiliates from regaining a foothold in Afghanistan.
Obama summed it up in his 02 May 2012 address at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan:
"For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al Qaeda, to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, and train Afghan security forces to defend their own country."
Frankly, I have my doubts whether or not we will succeed in meeting our objectives. I am not a fan of Counter-Insurgency and "Nation-Building." Nevertheless, President Obama has made it very clear, as did President Bush, why we are in Afghanistan.
"nice that russia is standing up to israel, not many examples of that in the world."
Your comment naively suggests that Russia is "standing up" to Israel out of some sort of principled position. To read it, one would never know that Russian opposition to the Israeli attack is due to Russia's national interest invested in Syria, from the sale of Russian arms to the Russian naval base at Tartus on Syria's Mediterranean coast. Standing up to Israel indeed!
"What is with Joe and Bill...?" "One wonders what kind of skin they have or had in the Great Game."
It is telling, Mr. McPhee, that you apparently cannot imagine anyone having an opinion different from your own without having, or having had, "skin in the Great Game." This represents an attitude that is either so obtuse as to be unable to envision alternative opinions, or so intolerant as to be unable to accept that anyone could rationally reach a conclusion different from your own.
"As an infantryman, and as the leading American voice on the illegality of the US Government employing Mercenaries"
That you were an infantryman is admirable, and that you consider yourself to be "the leading American voice on the illegality of the US Government employing Mercenaries" is interesting. Can you provide citations or articles designating you as "the leading American voice on the illegality of the US Government employing Mercenaries"? Or is the designation self-selected?
How does either attribute qualify you, anymore than anyone else, as an expert in parsing and interpreting the Geneva Conventions? I'm not suggesting you are not an expert, but your flaunting of your perceived credentials suggests that you think they add something to your voice that others who have read and digested the Conventions lack, and thus their understanding will be inferior to yours.
"I think the term “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” comes to us from the brilliant legal scholars from the GW Bush Administration. As far as I can tell, it first appears in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In my opinion, that particular piece of legislation flouts our Constitution."
Common Article No. III of the Geneva Conventions defines Lawful Combatant for purposes of determining who should be granted treatment due prisoners of war. (Under a command structure, having rank, not targeting civilians, etc.). Those Combatants who do not meet the definition are thus Unlawful Combatants, as they do not meet the Geneva Conventions' definition of a Lawful Combatant under Common Article No. III. Those leaders and operatives of Al-Qaida and its affiliated organizations (AQAP, AQIM, etc.) who are planning and executing attempts to attack the US and US interests are thus "Unlawful Enemy Combatants."
Regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the Act does not "flout our Constitution."
"Also, at what point in the future would you say it would be safe to return to the Rule of Law?"
The question is moot, as the US Government is operating under the rule of law in carrying out its Counter-Terrorism program.
"Let’s consider the people in Yemen who were the targets of US drone strikes in 2012. Can you provide evidence that they had both the intention and capability to attack the US?"
I cannot, because I am not part of the targeting mechanism that determines who is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant. But those who are doing the targeting could. By the way, "attacking the US" does not mean just launching an attack against the continental US. It also covers attacking US interests worldwide, wherever they may, be they US citizens, US Embassies, US companies, etc.
"This argument misses the point. We use the word “criminal” to describe Charles Manson and the BTK killer, too. The distinction between a criminal and an enemy is a categorical one, not a difference in significance or badness."
Exactly my point. To call these Unlawful Enemy Combatants "criminals" who have not even been put on trial is to dismiss the categorical difference between domestic criminals (who knock off Seven-Eleven convenience stores, for example) and the Unlawful Enemy Combatants that they actually are. I'm surprised you did not catch the categorical difference inherent in my comment.
"The U.S. is firing drones across a good portion of the globe"
The US is targeting Unlawful Enemy Combatants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. If that is your idea of "a good portion of the globe," your world map is very different from mine.
"It is called the end of empire! It is pretty ugly but has happened before. There are lots of precedents. What ended the British Empire? Terrorism. Look at...Malaysia."
You have it exactly backward. The Malayan Emergency began in 1948, and by 1957, when the British granted Malaya independence, the communist insurgency had been largely defeated. The British were not forced to leave Malaya by terror; they first defeated terror and then left. And they left a Malaya that has prospered as a result.
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been war crimes and so may extrajudicial assassination used by the CIA herein – but the cruel fact is that decades from now, historians may look upon Obama and John Brennan as heroes for saving thousands of American lives at the expense of some Third World natives that most of the American public could care less about."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes. They forced Japan to capitulate and surrender, after having attacked the US and ravaged most of East Asia. And the bombs didn't just save many American lives, they also saved many more Japanese lives, both military and civilian, that would have been lost had an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu taken place. The estimate is that upwards of 500,000 Japanese lives would have been lost with an invasion, as opposed to the 200,000 that perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, of course, many more American lives would have been lost.
As far as the drones, they are not targeting "Third World natives." They are targeting Unlawful Enemy Combatants who have sworn to attack the US. That American lives may be saved by killing such Unlawful Enemy Combatants is perfectly justified under International Law, US law, and the Law of War.
"The other set of important questions around armed drones are constitutional in nature. The people being targeted by the drones are not an enemy army of a state on which the US has declared war. They are suspected criminals or terrorists. But they haven’t been put on trial."
The targets of the drone strikes (Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations) do not have to be "an enemy army of a state on which the US has declared war." They are non-state enemies of the US who are waging war against the US. As Unlawful Enemy Combatants waging war against the US, the US has the right of self-defense, and the right to use drones (among other options) in securing self-defense.
To call these Unlawful Enemy Combatants "criminals," as if they had just knocked off a Seven-Eleven convenience store, is ludicrous. They are non-state enemies who have made it clear their target is the United States.
"In the interest of probity, it should be conceded that the dearly departed “Ambassador” a gentleman who just prior to his investiture had, in his capacity as arms merchant and CIA operative, glibly and gladly participated in the recent and violent overthrow of the government of the formerly sovereign Libyan nation. In fact the Ambassador’s uncurbed enthusiasms (which mirrored those of his employer — no more, no less) led him to oversee yet another American torture chamber — referred to in polite conversation as a “safe house” or “special mission.”
Speaking of "cognitive dissonance," I see that you haven't produced a shred of evidence to substantiate your wildly inaccurate and uninformed comments regarding Ambassador Stevens. Your comment represents a delusional attempt to align your preferred narrative with reality. It has failed.
"But Bill, how does Johnson’s blather about Susan Rice’s talking points “advance the dialogue regarding necessary measures that should have been in place, and that should be in place in the future?”
You do know that that was what Hillary was chastising him about, right?"
Johnson's blather does not advance the dialogue, but neither did Hillary's coy remark.
Actually, Hillary Clinton's "fiery" response to Senator Ron Johnson's query was pretty lame.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?
That response is not worthy of a Secretary of State. To trivialize Benghazi by suggesting that one of the alternative scenarios was "guys out for a walk one night" who "decided to kill some Americans," even if meant sarcastically, does nothing to advance the dialogue regarding necessary measures that should have been in place, and that should be in place in the future.
The most ridiculous statement came from Senator Rand Paul, who suggested that Clinton was culpable for the deaths because she had not read Ambassador Stevens' diplomatic cable registering security concerns. Anyone who has ever worked in the State Department knows that the Secretary does not read 90 percent of the cables that come in. That is what she has Assistant Secretaries, Office Directors, and Desk Officers for.
There is no one in the US administration who "is able to figure out the Linkage" between North Korea and Iran, Corpral Clinker, because there is no linkage. North Korea is not acting as a cat's paw for Iran.
Furthermore, the US is not going to get into a "serious Asian Land War," as you suggest. Where do you get your informatiohn?
"I’m sure you wouldn’t denounce Mandela because he used terror as a tool of liberation."
There is a big difference between a Mandela fighting oppression and striving for equality in an apartheid state already in existence, and the Begins, Shamirs, and Jabotinskys using terror to ethnically cleanse an already-existing Arab population in order to prepare for a state that did not even exist. And they weren't above killing British Mandate officials and the UN Representative to force their way either. The two situations are not comparable.
"The territories and the people within them are simply conquered."
That is why Israel created, and continues to expand, the settlements on the West Bank, to create irreversible "facts on the ground."
I have noted it previously, but it cannot be emphasized enough. Many of Israel's founders, including Jabotinsky, Menachim Begin (a leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi) and Yitzhak Shamir (a leader of the Stern Gang), as well as others, were bloody terrorists, willing to shed anyone's blood who they perceived stood in the way of their goal. They killed Arabs and British officers, as well as Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Representative. It is noteworthy that both Begin and Shamir went on to become Prime Ministers of Israel.
"The US financial and, in 1941, petroleum blockade of Japan provoked the Pearl Harbor attack (Japan wanted to break out toward the oil in the Dutch East Indies and resources in British Malaya, were afraid the US would try to stop them, and so wanted to neutralize the US fleet).
Two points regarding the above-cited statement.
A. In July 1941, the United States imposed a freeze on Japanese financial assets and an oil embargo on Japan. It was not a blockade.
B. The imposition of the freeze on financial assets and the oil embargo probably accelerated the timing of the attack on the US at Pearl Harbor, but a wealth of Japanese archival material suggests that Japan was committed to knocking out the US Pacific fleet in any case. Japan's military leaders were convinced the US would enter the war once they executed their "Strike South" strategy, which Japanese naval commanders had already decided would include the Philippines, at the time a US dependency.
"Sorry, Juan. Like every other commenter, I find it hard to believe your kind words about the warmonger, élite-supporter, anti-worker, anti-poor people, pro-Reagan, POTUS whose only similarity to MLK is his “African-american” label."
Speak for yourself, Rosemerry. You certainly do not speak for "every other commentater," and you certainly do not speak for me.
"Obama also was the first president to admittedly personally approve individual extrajudicial assassinations – a practice which Amnesty International asserts violates international law."
Amnesty International is hardly an authority on international law. It has an agenda and views the drone program through its own ideological lens. In fact, as has been asserted many times on this forum by several posters, there is ample evidence that supports the legality of the program, from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to the 2001 Congressional act.
"It is nevertheless quite fair to remark that the US is “objectively pro-Salafist” in Syria."
Your above-cited statement is simply untrue. The US is not "objectively pro-Salafist." All the evidence suggests otherwise.
"Comments made by the French and US presidents were more forgiving of the operation compared to the British, Japanese and other concerned foreign nations."
The US Government, like the Algerian Government, has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.
"Do some god damn research."
Well said, Saior Arepo. There are too many people who post comments without researching or understanding the real issues. Of course, real research takes time and thought, and it might disturb the preconceived narrative that, for example, ascribes "Dirty Hands" to JSTOR.
My comment was directed to the poster's apparent sarcastic criticism of the US for assisting South Korea to defend itself against North Korea, which she described as "one of the mighty, belligerent imperialists." And she meant it in a sarcastic sense, demonstrating that she does not know much about the history of North Korean belligerence and aggression.
I take it you don't consider North Korea a threat on the Korean Peninsula? Where have we gone wrong then? Have we simply misunderstood their belligerent talk, not to mention their aggressive actions (sinking a South Korean vessel, infiltrating agents into the South via tunnels, blowing up half the South Korean Cabinet in an official visit to Rangoon, Burma in 1983, etc.)? Were these actually North Korea's peaceful overtures that the United States and South Korea presented as belligerent actions for propaganda purposes?
The fact is, Osama bin Laden did not even mention the Palestinians when he began to publicly justify the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Years later, in an attempt to gain support, he brought in other reasons, including the Palestinians. But that was an effort to gain support in the Muslim World. His impetus for the attacks was to hit the "Far Enemy" of Islam, and he made that clear from the beginning.
"...banality of evil to coin a phrase."
I'm afraid you did not coin that phrase. Neither have you given credit to the one who did. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase by incorporating it into the title of her 1963 work, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil."
You seem to flatter yourself that you alone had the prescience to predict the September 11 terrorist attacks by pointing to a letter you sent to Senators and Congressmen about Americans endangered because of violence in the Near East, and you suggest that by ignoring your letter, these legislators missed a cue. The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were not precipitated by violence in the Middle East, nor specifically by the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Osama bin Laden did not even mention the Palestinians when he began to publicly justify the attacks. His reasons were to hit the "Far Enemy" of Islam, and his eventual goal was a return to a purer form of Islam, as he understood it, and a return of the Caliphate.
Many American Senators, and Congressmen, as well as Administration officials in the State Department, the Defense Department, the intelligence community, and other entities were very much aware that violence in the Near East could represent a danger to American citizens and interests. That was nothing new. But to suggest that your letter represented a revelation that would have alerted them, had it not been ignored, is to grant it a level of importance it does not deserve.
"(Recourse to 3 x 5 card #113: “War is a racket.”)"
Smedley Butler.
"Remember we did not just lose in Vietnam but not long after we lost our military bases the Philippines."
Actually, it was quite a while after Vietnam. Vietnam fell in 1975, and the Philippine bases were vacated in 1991. You misrepresent the reason we left the bases in the Philippines, though. It had nothing to do with "losing" in Vietnam resulting in a cascading effect on the Philippines. The Philippines Foreign Minister, Raul Manglapus, and a majority of the Philippine cabinet and Congress, were quite willing to have the US remain. The problem was they were holding out for much more money than the US was willing to pay.
Ironically, here is where Vietnam and other elements do come into play. Having lost Vietnam and long since not involved in that country, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we no longer considered the bases in the Philippines as much of a strategic asset as before. Although we wanted to remain, we were not going to play the same old game of paying anything to keep them, because they were not seen as an absolute necessity. The Filipinos, however, thought we were playing the same game, and they thought they could get away with requesting exorbitant rent for the bases. We told them no and walked away. In other words, Raul Manglapus and his negotiators did not realize the game had changed and overplayed their hand.
The so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" to which you refer did last for some time. It was put to rest, however, by the first Gulf War in 1991, a war which was entirely justified (and had the UN Security Council imprimatur) in pushing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, which he had invaded and occupied. Don't forget, there were 35 allies, including Syria under Hafez Assad, in the coalition.
One must be careful in stating categorical "lessons," from Munich to Vietnam. There are exceptions to all so-called "lessons." It also depends on the inclinations of the observer. For example, many who were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were very much in favor of the US and NATO war against Serbia in 1999. And that war lacked a UN Security Council imprimatur, just as did the second Gulf War against Iraq. It would be interesting to ask those who were against the US war in Iraq why they approved of the 1999 war against Serbia, a nation that represented no threat to either the US or Europe.
"Oh, and Bill: if the US support for tyrannical Middle Eastern governments like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain were to stop, and the US wars against various Islamic countries were to stop, then al-Qaeda’s “war” against the US would also stop. The US started this fight, although bad education in the US means that most people in the US don’t realize this."
Take a deep breath and calm down, Nathaniel. The US did not "start this fight." That is a fiction that you and your like-minded cohorts love to pass off as fact. It is not. You seem to think it started on September 11, 2001. Please get a better handle on history.
Let's review the bidding:
--The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
--The 1996 plot (discovered in time) to bomb six airliners over the Pacific.
--The 1998 bombing of US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es-Salaam.
--The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
--The 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentabon.
And the above are just attacks against the US up to 2001. It does not take into account all the attacks on other targets: London, Madrid, and various other locations, as well as against the US after 2001.
The United States did not start this war, but it certainly entered it after September 11, with good reason and with every justification to defend itself.
"The political alternative to al Qaeda is often not much better, and could be worse. It’s like we’re killing bootleggers to make the world safe for bank robbers."
To compare Al-Qaeda to bootleggers demonstrates an astonishing naivete' regarding the intentions and active attempts by Al-Qaeda to attack the United States on numerous occasions. Were Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations to cease their war (and it is a war) against the US, rest assured the drone program and other anti-terrorist measures would cease as well. By the way, the US anti-terrorist measures, including the drone program, are meant to defend the US, not to "make the world safe for bank robbers."
The US Government has never said the "entire world is our playground battlefield." The drone campaign is targeted on Al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations, and it so happens that they are primarily located in the Pakistani FATA, Yemen, and Somalia. The drone program targets terrorists, not geographic areas.
Your question regarding an attack on the Air Force bases or areas where pilots and weapons officers live sets up a false choice. It is not a matter of being either an act of terror or an act of war. Just as the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of war, so, too, terrorist attacks on your above-mentioned targets would be continuing acts of war.
"After all, the US Government says that the entire world is our playground battlefield."
No, the US Government has not said that the entire world is our "playground battlefield." You apparently don't realize how your exaggerations completely undermine any valid point that may be hidden within your hyperbolic verbal camouflage.
The United States targets leaders, and leading operatives, of Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations where they operate. To date, that has meant the drone campaign has concentrated primarily on the Pakistani FATA, Yemen, and Somalia because that is where the terrorists operate and, thus, where the threat to the US exists. Should a terrorist threat to the US arise in some other area, Northern Mali for example, the drone campaign may well include that area. Conversely, should the threat diminish in an area, the drone program no doubt will be reduced or stopped entirely in that area. It is not a world-wide scatter-shot program as you suggest; it is very narrowly targeted on the terrorists, not on geographic areas as such.
Regarding your question whether an attack on the Air Force bases and areas where pilots, weapons officers, and targeting officers live would be considered an act of terrorism or an act of war, you present a false choice. Just as the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of war, so too would be attacks on your above-mentioned targets. In the context of our current struggle, these acts of terror are acts of war.
"What used to be the fourth column is now the lap dog of the well to do."
I believe you are referring to the press, which is the "Fourth Estate," not the fourth column.
"So why shouldn’t we, the citizens who supposedly govern the most heavily armed power on Earth, pick and choose our historical evidence from movies? It’s the path of least resistance, isn’t it?"
I hope your comment is meant to be facetious, with a hint of self-deprecating humor, SUPER390. Although you and I disagree from time to time, I have always thought you offered thoughtful ideas on topics under discussion, and I cannot imagine you swallowing as historical evidence something just because it appeared in a movie. Your point, however, is well-taken. Many people do accept as "truth" something just because it appears on the big screen. That doesn't mean that we should condone such flabby intellectual (in)activity and passive acceptance of a script as "truth."
The Lyndie England idiocy (the dog collar, etc.), along with that of her cohorts, was not part of the systematic enhanced interrogation and torture regime of either the military or the CIA. That incident was a case of idiots who thought they were having a lark. They were not attempting to gain information. They were just being abusive for the sake of their own sick entertainment Subsequently they were courtmartialled, found guilty, and imprisoned.
Ms. Greenberg should calm down and remember that this is a movie, not a historical documentary. Artistic license has been used in many films that purport to portray actual events. I wonder if Ms. Greenberg was similarly exercised over Oliver Stone's "JFK," which presented the assassination of John F. Kennedy as having been plotted and executed by the military, the CIA, and practically the entire national security establishment. It was obviously a false portrayal (anyone who knows Washington at all knows that such a "secret" could not have been kept secret long), but Stone presented it as fact.
There will be viewers in the audience who think "Zero Dark Thirty" is entirely true. I suspect that whether they approve or disapprove of the take-away will depend on preconceived opinions regarding enhanced interrogation and torture they bring with them, just as Ms. Greenberg appears to have done. The same thing occurred with viewers of "JFK." Those who entered the theatre with a preconceived conspiratorial frame of mind no doubt had their opinion validated. Those who viewed it without the conspiratorial drama hindering their vision no doubt saw it for what it was, a historically flawed film they may or may not have considered entertaining.
My advice to Ms. Greenberg is kick back this evening, have a glass of chardonnay, and watch a good flick on Turner Classic Movies.
"The US now says Kabul will have to negotiate with the various insurgents itself, Afghan-to-Afghan."
In my opinion this is as it should be. The U.S. should not negotiate on behalf of a feckless government in Kabul that, after the U.S. pulls out, will have to come to terms with the Taliban anyway. I think it is pretty clear that Afghans understand each other far better than we do. Let them reach their own compromises and deal with the results.
Of course the Bush Administration made a policy decision to engage the U.S. in counter-insurgency. It follows that the U.S. got bogged down in counter-insurgency. One needn't get into the details to reach that conclusion.
You state that you don't know how I can say that the U.S. did not engage in Afghanistan to “surround Iran, claim minerals or oil, or keep the territory out of Chinese hands." It's easy, Joe. There is absolutely no evidence that those were the reasons the U.S. engaged in Afghanistan. There is every reason to think we went in to engage in the (admittedly foolish) game of "nation-bulding" in order to create a nation and government that would maintain a bulwark against terrorism springing from its territory. Nevertheless, Joe, I am open to consider any evidence you can proffer that would suggest we engaged in order to "surround Iran, claim minerals or oil, or keep the territory out of Chinese hands."
"They call it the Ten Thousand Day War for a reason."
Yes, but it wasn't a Ten Thousand Day U.S. War. Read your history. To the Vietnamese it appeared to be a continuous struggle, but the "War" had two distinct phases, the French and the U.S. Do not try to conflate the two.
The successful effort to oust the Taliban and Mullah Omar, and to deprive Al-Qaeda of a safe-haven in Afghanistan, was the reason the United States went in. It was fully justified, both under international law and under the Law of War, as we had been attacked by an enemy (Al-Qaeda) who received the support of the Afghan government (the Taliban). The U.S. had every right to defend itself and take out those who had committed such an act of war.
The problem is the U.S. got bogged down in counter-insurgency. I have posted several comments in the past about the reasons why the circumstances in Afghanistan do not favor a successful counter-insurgency program. I will not repeat the reasons here, but the only successful counter-insurgency program since World War II was that of the British in Malaya.
As the U.S. draws down in Afghanistan, we need to continue our robust counter-terrorism program, including the use of drones and Special Ops, both in the Pakistani FATA and in Afghanistan if intelligence reveals a return of Al-Qaeda or its affiliated organizations.
Rest assured, the U.S. did not engage in Afghanistan to "surround Iran, claim minerals or oil, or keep the territory out of Chinese hands."
Exactly, which is why Manning cannot be called a whistleblower. His action does not elevate him to the level of a whistleblower.
By all means, let's get the perfunctary questions regarding Hagel's attitude toward gays and lesbians out of the way so he can demonstrate his newly-enlightened attitude. Then let's let the Senate Armed Services Committee get down to the important issues and discuss with him the national security challenges faced by the United States, and how he plans to meet them in an era of tight budgets. I suspect Hagel will acquit himself well.
No one I know of is talking about a policy to weaken Israel, nor are many who advocate a more balanced U.S. policy toward Israel suggesting anything other than putting the U.S. national interest first. The fact is, the U.S. national interest is not always compatible with the Israeli perception of its national interest.
The West Bank settlement program is a prime example. The United States has opposed the settlement program for decades (and for good reasons), yet Israel thumbs its nose at the U.S. and continues building. (The creation of "facts on the ground.") Acquiescense of the U.S. (who, after all, is Israel's prime benefactor and source of security) is not in the our national interest. The disgusting Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war, an attack that occurred with full knowledge that the Liberty was a U.S. ship, is another example in which the U.S. acquiesced in assisting in the cover-up of Israeli complicity in the killing and injuring of U.S. personnel, not to mention damage to the ship, apparently in order to spare Israel condemnation. There are many other examples where the U.S. national interest would have been better served by diverging from our lockstep march with Israel, both in our bilateral relations and in our posture at the United Nations.
Your simplistic suggestion that those who think the U.S. national interest does not always track with Israel's "learn their history from Michael Moore and Howard Zinn," demonstrates arrogance exceeded only by ignorance.
No need for Chuck Hagel to perform Maoist self-criticism regarding his previous statements regarding gay and lesbian rights. He has already apologized. Hagel is up for Secretary of Defense, not for president of the Log Cabin Republicans. His views on the United States national interest are far more important than previous statements regarding gay and lesbian rights. Let's get real here, folks. The primary qualification for Secretary of Defense is his views on the national interest of the United States, not his previous stance on gay and lesbian rights.
Driving a wedge down the middle of the conservative movement is of little importance. That we would have a Secretary of Defense who is not beholden to Israel, or the Israeli lobby, is of immense importance.
Chuck Hagel has apologized for his prior statements and, indeed, should be given the benefit of the doubt. The critical element that should determine whether or not he is qualified to be Secretary of Defense should be his position on how best to defend the national interest of the United States. Any past positions on gays and lesbians is of secondary importance. He is not running for president of the Log Cabin Republicans.
My first choice for Secretary of Defense would have been Michele Flournoy. I think she has full command of the issues that are important for the security of the United States. But Chuck Hagel is an honorable choice. Let's not let secondary issues obscure his qualifications.
My explanation does not assume that the drone campaign is a single, coherent thing. And it certainly does not assume that the increase in the strikes in Yemen is being driven by the decline in strikes in the Pakistani FATA. This is something you conjured up.
If read carefully, you will note that my comment suggested that the decline in strikes in Pakistan may well be due to their success in eliminating much of the Al-Qaeda and unlawful enemy combatant leadership. The increase in strikes in Yemen, however, is due to the surge in AQAP leadership in that country. Each is driven by its own dynamic. You appear to have mistaken my comment, illustrating an apparent correlation between the two campaigns, as suggesting causation, one driving the other. I made no such linkage.