Showing posts with label drone attacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drone attacks. Show all posts

Sunday, August 11, 2013

An 'orgy of drones' in Yemen

I'm re-posting this article in full because I don't think it made front page news in the U.S. that we launched nine drones strikes in 10 days in Yemen and killed at least 36 "suspected militants."

We absolutely must know about these drone strikes in our name, ostensibly to protect us, that create fear and hatred toward the U.S.

Then we turn around and ask, incredulously, "Why do these crazy Muslims hate America?"




By Joshua Hersh
August 11, 2013 | Huffington Post

On Friday night, Farea al-Muslimi, a young Yemeni journalist and activist, went for a drive with a friend around the capital city of his home, Sanaa.

It was a holiday weekend, the second day of the Muslim holy festival of Eid al-Fitr, and the streets were calm. But what struck al-Muslimi the most as they crossed through the town, was that they hardly encountered any security presence.

"We didn't see a single checkpoint," he told HuffPost. "No one buys the idea that there is a security threat here. They simply don't see it -- I don't see it."

Over the previous week, the United States and other Western nations ramped up terror alerts about Yemen, a small nation on the tip of the Arabian peninsula that attracts a disproportionate amount of American attention. A recent terrorism alert prompting the closures of nearly two dozen American embassies around the Arab world was "emanating from Yemen," the U.S. said, and earlier in the week American citizens were urged to flee Yemen. The staff of the U.S. embassy there was spirited to Germany on a military cargo plane.

However, as the week progressed, signs of terror did not take the form of an attack by al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, an increasingly powerful franchise of the feared terrorist organization, but instead, as Haykal Bafana, a Sanaa-based Yemeni lawyer, put it recently, of an "orgy of drones."

Over the past 10 days, at least nine American drone strikes have been conducted across the country's remote provinces, most recently on Saturday evening. At least 36 people, all of them immediately deemed "suspected militants" by the Yemeni government, were killed, according to wire service counts. On Thursday alone, there were three drone attacks, an unprecedented rate; Saturday's was the fifth in 72 hours.

For those left in Yemen, it has been like living in a universe parallel to the one described in American terror alerts, Bafana said on Saturday. "It's like there are two different Yemens," he said. "The one the U.S. and Yemeni government claims is always under a terrorist threat, and the one we actually live in, with drones. It's like they stepped through the looking glass."

For Farea al-Muslimi, that's meant a week of fear and anger. "You can tell how frustrated the people here are," al-Muslimi said, when reached by phone late on Friday.

Earlier in the week, he said, when an American P-3 Orion spy plane circled over Sanaa for nearly 10 hours, loudly buzzing as residents tried to celebrate the start of Eid, residents stopped in their tracks to protest. "People were standing in the street and screaming at it," he said.

Al-Muslimi became something of an American household name, at least in the relatively small circle of people who monitor America's counter-terrorism policies and drone usage, earlier this year when he live-Tweeted accounts of a drone strike from his family's village, Wessab.

He subsequently traveled to Washington, D.C., where he testified before Congress about the experience, telling lawmakers that drone strikes were destroying America's image in Yemen, and driving ordinary citizens into the arms of al Qaeda and other militants. "What violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike achieved in an instant," he said at the time.

In the ensuing months, amid a growing atmosphere of dissent about the use and abuse of drone warfare in Washington, President Barack Obama found himself compelled to speak publicly about the policy. In a speech in May, he acknowledged America's role in drone strikes and pledged to create a legal framework for oversight of the program.

But The New York Times and others have since reported that the reality in targeted areas like Yemen shows that drone policy is anything but reformed.

In Yemen, there have already been 22 strikes this year, close to the pace in 2012 when Obama ordered a record 42 drone strikes,according to the Long War Journal. And in Pakistan, another frequent target of American drones, there were more strikes in July than in any month since January.

The history of U.S. drone wars in Yemen includes a number of tactical successes, of course, including the strike that killed feared al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. But it's also littered with devastating failuresinnocent families and children have been hit by misguided missiles, first-aid responders have found themselves targeted by a practice known as "double-tapping," and even some prominent anti-al Qaeda clerics have been assassinated.

The day after Obama was reelected for his second term, for instance, he ordered a strike that killed a tribal leader known for negotiating with al Qaeda militants to reduce their lethality. More recently, officials acknowledged that a strike last summer killed Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, a popular sheik who a few days earlier delivered a sermon on the evils of al Qaeda.

Mohammed al-Qadhi, a Sanaa-based Yemeni journalist, said that so far there is no conclusive evidence that the current attacks killed innocents. Others, including Bafana, who tracks the strikes through his own network, said the first strikes last week in Hadhramauat killed at least four civilians, including a child.

Either way, al-Qadhi said the latest strikes are producing an uptick in popular discontent and protest -- on Facebook and Twitter, in the targeted villages, and at the now-vacant American embassy in Sanaa.

"People feel they don't have a government anymore," al-Qadhi said by phone. "They feel we don't have a government to attack the militants, so the Americans are handling it for us, and they are encroaching onto the sovereignty of Yemen."

The killings, he added, "may be good for Americans but in the end it doesn't solve the problem completely, especially if some civilians are killed. It just creates a kind of sympathy with al Qaeda. And I think al Qaeda will not stop attacking. I think they will retaliate, and they will fire back again in retaliation to these attacks."

The practitioners of America's counterterrorism strategy also sometimes seem at a loss to explain the U.S. policy's objectives.

“It’s too early to tell whether we’ve actually disrupted anything,” a top U.S. official told The Washington Post this week, of the most recent round of strikes. “What the U.S. government is trying to do here is to buy time."

To al-Muslimi, the return of drone warfare almost reflects an aimlessness among American policymakers. "Just like troubled teenagers with bad parents might run to the addiction of drugs and alcohol when it has problems, Americans are running to drones when they have terrorism problems," he said. "Alcohol makes you forget your failures, and for the Americans it seems like drones are for when they want to forget their counter-terrorism failures. It's senseless."

Meanwhile, he said, this week's action may have made some Americans feel better, but it's only increasing the sense of terror in Yemen.

"When there is a normal war, people can hide, or they can stay away from the military -- they can make choices and be careful," al-Muslimi said."But when drones come, you just don't know when you'll be next. The fear is incredible."

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Cornel West: Obama's racism speech hypocritical, too late

Brother West was having none of President Obama's bland and measured post-post-trial statement on the "not guilty" verdict of George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin:  

I think we have to recognize that [President Obama] has been able to hide and conceal that criminalizing of the black poor as what I call the re-niggerizing of the black professional class. You’ve got these black leaders on the Obama plantation, won’t say a criminal word about the master in the big house, will only try to tame the field folk so that they’re not critical of the master in the big house. That’s why I think even Brother Sharpton is going to be in trouble. Why? Because he has unleashed—and I agree with him—the rage. And the rage is always on the road to self-determination. But the rage is going to hit up against a stone wall. Why? Because Obama and Holder, will they come through at the federal level for Trayvon Martin? We hope so. Don’t hold your breath. And when they don’t, they’re going to have to somehow contain that rage. And in containing that rage, there’s going to be many people who say, "No, we see, this president is not serious about the criminalizing of poor people." We’ve got a black leadership that is deferential to Obama, that is subservient to Obama, and that’s what niggerizing is. You keep folks so scared. You keep folks so intimidated. You can give them money, access, but they’re still scared. And as long as you’re scared, you’re on the plantation.

Most liberal and moderate pundits gave Obama high marks for his unprepared remarks last week about being a black man in America.  Nevertheless, it's kind of pathetic that we need our President to interpret the African-American experience for us.  If you're black, you already know about it. If you're white, and you don't acknowledge your own prejudices, then you're kidding yourself and lying to everybody else.  So who was Obama addressing, the history books?



Interview with Amy Goodman
July 22, 2013 | Democracy Now!

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Wilkerson: Drones destroy 'warrior ethic'


I'm still going back & forth on drones.  Here Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Gen. Colin Powell's former chief of staff and a critic of the "sexed up" intelligence leading to the Iraq invasion, and some other guy offer some new objections to America's use of drones that I've never heard before.

For one, drones destroy what Wilkerson calls the U.S. military's "warrior ethos" [bold mine]:

At one stroke, the drone has destroyed any positive image of the United States in the countries over which it operates. It has contributed to the destruction of the tribal codes of honor, such as Pukhtunwali among the Pukhtun tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this immorality and destructive nature reflects back on those who use it, harming the warrior ethic of the American military so critical to battlefield bonding among soldiers in combat.

The warrior ethos may be largely a myth but, like most myths, it protects something very important: the psychology of killing in the name of the state. That killing becomes nothing less than murder when the soldier doing it is utterly invulnerable. Most US citizens, so long divorced from any responsibility to take up arms and fight and kill, do not understand this. Soldiers – good ones – do. Such understanding was behind the recent cancellation by Secretary of Defense Hagel of the valor award for drone operators. 

Likewise, Wilkerson argues that drones deprive our victims, most of them located in tribal communities with ancient codes of honor, of the chance to defend themselves or fight back.  We can imagine that their pent-up frustration would lead to more terrorist recruits and increased danger to the U.S.:

However precise the weapon, this is the reality and the price on the ground, destroying the codes so vital to both parties involved – those who are targets and the people who see them die and the operators at their computer terminals. The use of the drone is creating more problems than it is solving.

In the defense of drones I will say this: they are just a weapon. We also employ air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missiles from so far away that our enemies have no chance to strike back.  And these missiles can also strike without warning and cause collateral damage.  There are also Howitzer artillery pieces with a range of about 25 km.  The principle is the same. This is not to mention our nuclear weapons that can erase entire communities.  (And the U.S. is still the only country to have used nuclear weapons.)  Or our cyber weapons deployed by nerds sitting at computers thousands of miles away.  

So if we're going to say that drones are somehow "dishonorable," unfair or causing dangerous rage in the communities whose hearts and minds we want to win over to our side, then we also have to include all these other impersonal, remote-controlled weapons that bring death from the sky.

In criticism of drones I will say that they have the unintended (?) psychological effect of creating terror.  Imagine if you are not a terrorist, and yet you hear drones buzzing above you everyday without end, and you know that an errant missile could kill you or your innocent friends and family any second, day or night.  How would you feel about that?  You would be terrified or outraged or both!

Again, let's remember that drone strikes are happening where the U.S. is not at war and often violating national sovereignty.  Drones may have no "physical" footprint but they certainly have a moral, psychological and legal footprint in the countries where they attack.

Wilkerson is definitely right about one thing: America is overdue for a public debate about the use of drones, and everybody should be asked to weigh in -- citizens, politicians, academics, human rights advocates, lawyers, the military, and even victims' advocates.  We can't simply trust Obama or any POTUS to handle this responsibility himself.

UPDATE (05.07.2013): Here's a HuffPo article, "Obama Drone War 'Kill Chain' Imposes Heavy Burden At Home," that offers another drawback of drones: the psychological toll it takes on the the military intelligence officers who sift through data and watch computer screens all day to identify targets.  Apparently it's not just like playing a video game.  These military operators work 12-hour shifts, live under constant pressure for perfection, struggle with constant doubt and fear of deadly mistakes, and so their burnout rate is high.


By Akbar Ahmed and Lawrence Wilkerson
May 4, 2013 | Guardian

Friday, September 14, 2012

Unnoticed, U.S. is in permanent global war mode


Peace activist and journalist Tom Engelhardt always comes correct, with surprising but well-researched facts and statistics.  Here's how he sums up his comprehensive description of Washington's "monopoly on war":

Washington may be mobilized for permanent war.  Special operations forces may be operating in up to 120 countries.  Drone bases may be proliferating across the planet.  We may be building up forces in the Persian Gulf and “pivoting” to Asia.  Warrior corporations and rent-a-gun mercenary outfits have mobilized on the country’s disparate battlefronts to profit from the increasingly privatized twenty-first-century American version of war.  The American people, however, are demobilized and detached from the wars, interventions, operations, and other military activities done in their name.  As a result, 200 Marines in Guatemala, almost 78% of global weapons salesdrones flying surveillance from Australia -- no one here notices; no one here cares. 

War: it’s what we do the most and attend to the least.  It’s a nasty combination.


We may honor our troops and feel patriotic and yet still admit that our U.S. Military has become the least publicly-understood and accountable institution in the federal government.  We really don't know who is doing what, where, why, when and for whom.  (Hopefully, for us, ultimately.)  Are we comfortable with everything they're doing in our name?  How can we begin to answer if we don't come close to knowing what they're doing?  

We tend to take these things on trust, perhaps because we trust in the honor and integrity of our troops; but the truth is that our armed forces are directed by our elected officials.  (Think Joe Biden and John McCain.  Do you want to leave it to them to decide?)  Yet relative to its size (about 20% of the federal budget), manpower (more than 2 million), and geographic scope (more than 1,000 bases outside the U.S.), the U.S. Military enjoys tremendous secrecy and receives little public scrutiny.  

There's nothing unpatriotic about admitting that, or starting to ask more hard questions about our military.  Indeed, our Founding Fathers would expect nothing less from us.


By Tom Engelhardt
September 13, 2012 | Tom Dispatch

Thursday, September 13, 2012

What U.S. 'appeasement'?!

I can't believe anybody still publishes V.D. Hanson.  He should have been chased across the U.S. border by an angry mob years ago.

How in the world has Obama "appeased" radical Islamists?  By killing bin Laden and more Taliban fighters in four years than Dubya did in eight? By increasing drone strikes in sovereign Pakistan 6 times, not to mention Yemen and Somalia? By having not a single Islamist terrorist attack on U.S. soil?  By refusing to close Dubya's Guantanamo Bay detention camp?  By carrying out extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens suspected of Islamist terrorism?  VDH doesn't specify. It's all understood, I guess, if you too reside in his crazy alternate universe where Iraqis are still greeting us with flowers, and we are winning Afghans' hearts and minds as we kill them.

Look, folks, we don't control Egypt, Libya, or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter. The difference between the first two and the last two countries is pretty significant though: the people of the former two countries decided to overthrow their leaders, and spilled their own blood to make it happen, whereas in the latter two countries, we did it for them and then stuck around way past our welcome as Occupiers.  In Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, the Arab Spring was their idea; it was their revolution, not ours.  Meanwhile, we have spent a few $ billion in Egypt and Libya on arms and aid, and a few $ trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not to mention 4,486 U.S. troops killed in Iraq and 2114 in Afghanistan.

If Obama's way is "leading from behind," I'll opt for that any day.  Unworldly and ignorant Mitt Romney and the disgraced neocons whispering terrible advice in his ear are living in the illusions of 2002, not the realities of 2012. We're smarter and better than that now.  Forward, indeed!


By Victor Davis Hanson
September 12, 2012 | National Review

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

War Nerd: Obama's a better C-in-C than W but a terrible cheerleader

Classic War Nerd.  Glad to see he's back.  

Did you know that the U.S. had no troops killed in action in Iraq in 2011? Zero.  None.  That's f-ing amazing.  As Gary put it: "Once the big US forces left, the Iraqis stopped attacking us. I mean completely."  

Kinda makes all those folks like, um, (cough-cough!), myself look pretty damn smart for saying the Iraqis didn't hate us for who we were or our freedom, they hated the open-ended U.S. occupation.  And it makes all those people who said they were just crazy Muslims look kind of dumb, doesn't it?  I mean, you can't be crazy violent Muslim one year and sane democrat the next.

Still, 'Bama can't get any love from W's erstwhile GWOT-lovers and troop-honorers. He's just too eerily calm and collected about his blood & guts.  And he never spikes the ball in the endzone, even when he nailed the biggest bearded baddy of them all.  He lets others do his bragging for him, like Crazy Old Joe repeating in semi-senile fashion, "GM is alive and bin Laden is dead."  Obama's steady nerves, quiet modesty and self-restraint may be admirable traits in a Clint Eastwood-type film hero, but these are terrible traits in a U.S. president.  

Concludes Gary:

War isn’t about “winning” wars, so much — the 2004 election proved that once and for all. It’s about having something to woof on behalf of, like the NFL squared. Bush was the worst warrior since George Villiers, but he was a pro at cheerleading and we reelected him. Obama’s been a big surprise as a C-in-C, a damn good, cool-headed master of assassins, which is what you need for counterinsurgency … but he’s worse than nothing as a cheerleader.




By Gary Brecher
September 11, 2012 | NSFW Corp


Friday, August 19, 2011

The Drone Wars

You gotta give Ohio's Dennis Kucinich credit for his consistency. He doesn't hesitate to criticize Obama or his own party when principle compels him.
It's worth pondering that Obama has killed way more people -- innocents and combatants alike -- with drone attacks in two years than Dubya did in eight.
Drones only seem to bypass international law and state sovereignty. Much as we may hate to admit it, their use in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is illegal, and could be construed as an act of war by the United States. More than that, they undermine America's moral authority and turn peaceful people against us.
Is it time to can the drones?


By Rep. Dennis Kucinich
August 17, 2011 | Huffington Post

The Obama Administration continues to use unmanned drones as a tool of war - a tool that according The New York Times, the Administration claims has killed 600 militants in Pakistan and no civilians since May 2010. But the math doesn't add up. Nor does the policy.

Think of the use of drone air strikes as summary executions, extra-judicial killings justified by faceless bureaucrats using who-knows-what "intelligence," with no oversight whatsoever and you get the idea that we have slipped into spooky new world where joystick gods manipulating robots deal death from the skies and then go home and hug their children. Everything America was once said to stand for: the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in danger of becoming collateral damage as our fearful leaders continue to kill suspects and innocent alike, mindlessly unaware that the hellfire we are sowing will surely be reaped by Americans in the future. The proliferation of drone technology and its inevitable extension to civilian law enforcement is a leap into the arms of Big Brother.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recently estimated that at least 2,292 people have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. The Bureau determined that of that number, over 350 are civilians. A July 2009 Brookings Institution report stated ten civilians die for every one suspected militant from U.S. drone strikes. Yet another study by the New American Foundation concluded that out of 114 drone attacks in Pakistan, at least 32% of those killed by the strikes were civilians.

President Obama has greatly expanded the use of drones over the past several years, authorizing more drone strikes during his first fifteen months in office than President Bush did during the entirety of his eight years in office. In addition to the use of drones in Pakistan, the Administration has authorized strikes in Yemen and Somalia. The increasing reliance on drones and the lack of recourse for the families of innocent civilians that are killed by such strikes demonstrate the impunity with which the U.S. uses this technology.

Drone attacks undermine our moral standing in the world. They foment anger and resentment toward the United States. We have spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of nurturing democracy and the rule of law while at the same time, our use of unmanned drones severely undermines the rule of law.

Challenging the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and calling to light their indiscriminate nature is vital to prevent a dangerous precedent from being set that would allow international law and the laws of war to be stretched to justify strikes elsewhere. The legal justification for their use in Pakistan can and will be used to justify their use in other countries. Under this legal framework, the battlefield could be stretched to include anywhere in the world. Anywhere.