Americans approve of drone warfare by about three to one, for obvious reasons. Drones let us kill the "bad guys" without risking any "good guys" — except when we don't. Killing a couple of hostages turned out to be a bit embarrassing for the Obama administration. Suddenly, people are paying attention again.
Apparently some "faulty intelligence" was to blame. Whoops. Mind you, the CIA is loathe to admit fault. According to the CIA, "collateral damage" occurs less than one per cent of the time. NGOs with personnel in places like Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan beg to differ, as do most governments of targeted areas. (Granted, the Pakistanis have been quietly cooperating while noisily complaining, and one of things the CIA really liked about former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi of Yemen was that he could be counted on to keep his mouth shut.)
The recent "whoops" is unlikely to change any attitudes among the American people, so the politics of drone warfare remains positive for Obama. It also won't make any difference to the prospective civilian casualties living under the drone flights. They'll go right on hating our guts.
Anyway, there may me some rethinking of "signature strikes," where the CIA looks for "patterns" that "indicate" bad guy activity, and wipe out the bad guys without actually knowing who they are. Maybe the Obamites will decide that warfare by assassination works better when you know who you're killing.
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Friday, April 24, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
What's with Yemen?
There are a lot of Americans who never even heard of Yemen, and wonder why it should be getting all that news coverage. Unfortunately, the news media seem to have little more information about Yemen than the aforementioned Americans. This article seeks to unravel some of what has been going on there better than PBS, the BBC, or even Fox.
Let us begin. In recent weeks, a Zaidi/Shiite group called the Houthi has pushed the "elected" Yemeni government out of power but, oddly enough, has not taken over the reins of power itself. So-called "elected" President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi has resigned, probably a wise choice on his part because his Presidential Residence was overrun by Houthi fighters. Hadi is often called a "staunch ally of the United States" because he makes no objection when the USofA sends drones against AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) and anybody else who happens to be in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Hadi ran unopposed in the election he "won," with financial backing by the US and the Saudis. Yemen is a very poor country, which survives mostly on foreign aid, mostly from the USofA and Saudi Arabia. Nobody was surprised when Hadi, backed by his country's most significant donors, found nobody running against him.
During the seventies and eighties, the southern regions of Yemen were independent, and under Communist leadership. When the Soviet Union collapsed, so did South Yemen, and the country was more or less united again. It is very unlikely that there are any Communists left, but you never know.
At the moment, Yemen has something of the look of a Saudi-Iranian proxy war, with the Saudis backing what remains of the most recent government, and the Iranians supporting the Houthi group. which bears some slight resemblance to Hezbollah in that it opposes corruption. The Saudis, of course, support corruption, and certain Saudi oligarchs probably are supporting AQAP as well. The USofA, needless to say, dares not offend Saudi Arabia, no matter how many journalists are jailed and whipped, "adulterers" stoned to death, or "infidels" beheaded there.
Assuming the USofA does not wish to ally itself with AQAP, the only viable alternative is the Houthi resistance. The trick is finding a way to do it without pissing off the House of Saud, Israel, and Iranian-hating members of Congress. The Houthi are at war with AQAP, but probably won't be nearly so willing as Hadi to wave at departing American drones while yelling "bombs away. On the other hand, it looks like Iran has far less control over the Houthi than it does over, say, Hezbollah.
Okay, did that help? I didn't think so.
Let us begin. In recent weeks, a Zaidi/Shiite group called the Houthi has pushed the "elected" Yemeni government out of power but, oddly enough, has not taken over the reins of power itself. So-called "elected" President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi has resigned, probably a wise choice on his part because his Presidential Residence was overrun by Houthi fighters. Hadi is often called a "staunch ally of the United States" because he makes no objection when the USofA sends drones against AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) and anybody else who happens to be in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Hadi ran unopposed in the election he "won," with financial backing by the US and the Saudis. Yemen is a very poor country, which survives mostly on foreign aid, mostly from the USofA and Saudi Arabia. Nobody was surprised when Hadi, backed by his country's most significant donors, found nobody running against him.
During the seventies and eighties, the southern regions of Yemen were independent, and under Communist leadership. When the Soviet Union collapsed, so did South Yemen, and the country was more or less united again. It is very unlikely that there are any Communists left, but you never know.
At the moment, Yemen has something of the look of a Saudi-Iranian proxy war, with the Saudis backing what remains of the most recent government, and the Iranians supporting the Houthi group. which bears some slight resemblance to Hezbollah in that it opposes corruption. The Saudis, of course, support corruption, and certain Saudi oligarchs probably are supporting AQAP as well. The USofA, needless to say, dares not offend Saudi Arabia, no matter how many journalists are jailed and whipped, "adulterers" stoned to death, or "infidels" beheaded there.
Assuming the USofA does not wish to ally itself with AQAP, the only viable alternative is the Houthi resistance. The trick is finding a way to do it without pissing off the House of Saud, Israel, and Iranian-hating members of Congress. The Houthi are at war with AQAP, but probably won't be nearly so willing as Hadi to wave at departing American drones while yelling "bombs away. On the other hand, it looks like Iran has far less control over the Houthi than it does over, say, Hezbollah.
Okay, did that help? I didn't think so.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
The CIA: Where We Are Now
Forget the intricate spy novels of John LeCarre. Even forget Jack Bauer, whose use of torture foiled a terrorist plot every week. Under Obama, the CIA has evolved. Information collection has taken second place to assassination. The CIA no longer is an intelligence gathering organization, it is a paramilitary force.
It seems that capturing and interrogating individuals associated with terrorist organizations got a little dicey, especially after torture (admittedly useless, but so much fun) was discontinued. It turned out to be so much easier to blow away "suspects" with drone strikes. Presumably, there is more evidence against the "suspects" than a resentful brother-in-law, but even so, one has to wonder whether due process of law might reach different conclusions.
The second victim of a CIA drone strike was US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, age 16. One supposes it was reasonable to assume he would grow up to be antagonistic to the USofA since victim number one was his father, Anwar. Just the same, as best we can tell, the kid hadn't actually done anything yet.
Then there's the "collateral damage" — wedding parties and whatnot blown to bits because some terror suspect was the bride's second cousin once removed. Even if the suspect was killed, the rest of the casualties were just straight-out murders.
Responsibility for drone strikes was supposed to be transferred to the Pentagon, which, at least, is under some oversight — but the CIA was allowed to continue killing with only minor restraint. Since CIA activities are classified, nobody has to take the blame for screw-ups.
Among those escaping blame is Our President, who allows the CIA to act independently without Executive oversight. And the band plays on...
It seems that capturing and interrogating individuals associated with terrorist organizations got a little dicey, especially after torture (admittedly useless, but so much fun) was discontinued. It turned out to be so much easier to blow away "suspects" with drone strikes. Presumably, there is more evidence against the "suspects" than a resentful brother-in-law, but even so, one has to wonder whether due process of law might reach different conclusions.
The second victim of a CIA drone strike was US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, age 16. One supposes it was reasonable to assume he would grow up to be antagonistic to the USofA since victim number one was his father, Anwar. Just the same, as best we can tell, the kid hadn't actually done anything yet.
Then there's the "collateral damage" — wedding parties and whatnot blown to bits because some terror suspect was the bride's second cousin once removed. Even if the suspect was killed, the rest of the casualties were just straight-out murders.
Responsibility for drone strikes was supposed to be transferred to the Pentagon, which, at least, is under some oversight — but the CIA was allowed to continue killing with only minor restraint. Since CIA activities are classified, nobody has to take the blame for screw-ups.
Among those escaping blame is Our President, who allows the CIA to act independently without Executive oversight. And the band plays on...
Thursday, October 24, 2013
War Crimes?
Amnesty International, in Pakistan, and Human Rights Watch, in Yemen, have spent some time documenting civilian casualties from US drone strikes. According to those two well respected organizations, there have been many, despite Obama administration claims of "pinpoint precision." You probably heard about the old lady picking okra in the middle of a field and minding her grandchildren who was blown away with "pinpoint precision." Obviously, she must have been a dangerous terrorist.
Amnesty says some drone attacks amount to war crimes. I disagree. I think war crimes require intent, whereas the "collateral damage" done by our drones is more like criminal negligence — albeit, that's bad enough. What we really need at this point is a Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden with access to the drone program, because the administration's lips are all zipped tight.
Americans have a right to know what kind of damage is being done in their names.
Amnesty says some drone attacks amount to war crimes. I disagree. I think war crimes require intent, whereas the "collateral damage" done by our drones is more like criminal negligence — albeit, that's bad enough. What we really need at this point is a Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden with access to the drone program, because the administration's lips are all zipped tight.
Americans have a right to know what kind of damage is being done in their names.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)