Breaking: Obama not soft on terror

[Eddie Dane]

Hello teabaggers,

It turns out that secret communist-socialist-fascist-Muslim Obama isn't being buddy-buddy with the terrorists. Instead he seems to be doing what the US should have done since 9-12-2001 (and maybe before); sneaking up on them and killing them in their beds.

Granted, the fact that this is all covert-operation stuff, robs him of the media show that -say- a huge expensive war would provide.

Quote:

The attack offered a glimpse of the Obama administration's shadow war against al-Qaeda and its allies. In roughly a dozen countries – from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife – the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy, and training local operatives to chase terrorists.

Linky

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I never really did understand what they meant by "soft" on terror. Dennis Kucinich, sure, but Obama is the same guy who during the debates/primaries took quite a bit of heat from the progressives when he continually pushed for the expansion of the Afghan war, making sure Iran wouldn't develop a nuclear weapon, and refusing to make deals with terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Paranormal Inquirer

I never really did understand what they meant by "soft" on terror. Dennis Kucinich, sure, but Obama is the same guy who during the debates/primaries took quite a bit of heat from the progressives when he continually pushed for the expansion of the Afghan war, making sure Iran wouldn't develop a nuclear weapon, and refusing to make deals with terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

These would be, I'm guessing, the same folks who didn't know what Obama stood for or that he had no plan despite the benefit of a year plus campaign, a website, and an 80+ page pdf that outlined his plans and positions on issues?

[JihadJane]

Barack Obama - keen on unaccountable death squads.

[leftysergeant]

Republicans do not understand the application of military force. They just know how to order weapons systems.

Democrats figure out how to use them as cost-effectively and with as little collateral damage as possible, and how not to make too many enemies by using them.

Like the GOP gives a rat's who gets pissed off at us.

The GOP has somehow confused jumping up and down screaming "KILL, KILL!" for being tough.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Republicans do not understand the application of military force. They just know how to order weapons systems.

Democrats figure out how to use them as cost-effectively and with as little collateral damage as possible, and how not to make too many enemies by using them.

Like the GOP gives a rat's who gets pissed off at us.

The GOP has somehow confused jumping up and down screaming "KILL, KILL!" for being tough.

This wan't always the case, of course.

It's just that the modern incarnation of the GOP voter would think of Eisenhower as an appeaser, and Sarah Palin as the kind of person who could manage a war.

Although I seem to remember that Eisenhower did quite a good job running some military operation of sorts...remind me..what was it again? It involved that man with that funny mustache...

[nvidiot]

I can't conceive of anything more terrifying than Sarah Palin in charge of deciding when her nation went to war.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

I can't conceive of anything more terrifying than Sarah Palin in charge of deciding when her nation went to war.

I can... Rush Limbaugh and his brothers in spirit deciding that. Palin, at least, is only ignorant and clueless. Rush et al are all that, but also hateful and malicious.

[JihadJane]

Obama does it with a pretty smile.

[Undesired Walrus]

I say this with no malcious intent Jihad, but what would you prefer to do with members of Al Qaeda holed up in a bunker?

[JihadJane]

I'd ask myself if the inevitable "collateral damage" and subsequent recruitment of more fighters to the resistance is worth trashing international law for.

[Undesired Walrus]

Is this actually illegal?

[Brainster]

If this same article had been written about President Bush two years ago, it would have been pointed to with outrage by many of the posters praising Obama today. Let's see:

Quote:

At first, the news from Yemen on May 25 sounded like a modest victory against terrorists: An airstrike had hit a group suspected of being operatives for al-Qaeda in the remote desert of Marib province.

But the strike, it turned out, had also killed the province's respected deputy governor. Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, accepted responsibility and paid blood money to the offended tribes.

The strike, though, was not the work of Saleh's decrepit Soviet-era air force. It was a secret mission by the U.S. military, according to U.S. officials, at least the fourth such assault on al-Qaeda in the arid mountains and deserts of Yemen since December.

And:

Quote:

Yet such wars come with many risks: the potential for botched operations that fuel anti-American rage; a blurring of the lines between soldiers and spies that could put troops at risk of being denied Geneva Convention protections; a weakening of the congressional oversight system put in place to prevent abuses by America's secret operatives; and a reliance on authoritarian foreign leaders and surrogates with sometimes murky loyalties.

Yes, I am sure that very same paragraph written about Bush in 2008 would have provoked squawks of outrage from most liberals.

Quote:

The Pentagon is becoming more like the CIA. Across the Middle East and elsewhere, Special Operations troops under secret "Execute Orders" have conducted spying missions that were once the preserve of civilian intelligence agencies. Such programs typically operate with even less transparency and congressional oversight than traditional covert actions by the CIA.

And:

Quote:

As word of the Dec. 17 attack filtered out, a mixed picture emerged. The Yemeni press quickly identified the U.S. as responsible for the strike. Al-Qaeda members seized on video of dead children and joined a protest rally a few days later.

Children killed by the US military? Hey, nice to see that everybody around here is okay with a little collateral damage provided we get some bad guys too.

Quote:

An inquiry by the Yemeni Parliament found that the strike had killed at least 41 members of two families living near the makeshift al-Qaeda camp. Three more civilians were killed and nine were wounded four days later when they stepped on unexploded munitions from the strike, the inquiry found.

Remember, this is in an article which the OP thinks portrays Obama's new policy in a positive light.

Quote:

Obama administration officials defend their efforts in Yemen. The strikes have been "conducted very methodically," and claims of innocent civilians being killed are "very much exaggerated," said a senior counterterrorism official.

Somehow I sense that paragraph would have been greeted with hoots of derision by Lefty Sarge had it been published in 2008.

Let me specify here too that I don't have a problem with the approach Obama is taking. Indeed I doubt if the war on terror would rank highly on a list of things that the Tea Party opposes about Obama.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Brainster

If this same article had been written about President Bush two years ago, it would have been pointed to with outrage by many of the posters praising Obama today. Let's see:

Not from me.

I would have preferred the US using special ops to hunt AQ, instead of occupying whole countries and getting stuck. So yeah, I disagree with Bush's overall approach, not with him targeting AQ members with drones etc.

With that out of the way, you make a good point.

I think that there are two kinds of confirmation bias at work here.
The first is that we tend to agree with what 'our side' does. So liberals will tend to agree by default with Obama's policies.

The second is that weird paradox where "soft" politicians can kick butt and get away with it (Obama) and "tough" politicians can get away with withdrawing and compromising (Sharon, Reagan).

[leftysergeant]

I only grudgingly accept that he has to employ some of these tactics because some clueless moron and a bunch of degenerate war profiteers stuck him with an otherwise untennable position.

The Shrub handed him a rattlesnake and now he has to figure out how to let go of it.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Brainster

If this same article had been written about President Bush two years ago, it would have been pointed to with outrage by many of the posters praising Obama today. Let's see:

I may be wrong, but you seem to be confusing going after Al Qaeda with invading Iraq.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Is this actually illegal?

"Special operations" are above the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/wo...shadowwar.html

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Brainster

If this same article had been written about President Bush two years ago, it would have been pointed to with outrage by many of the posters praising Obama today. Let's see:

And:

Yes, I am sure that very same paragraph written about Bush in 2008 would have provoked squawks of outrage from most liberals.

You are right. And I'm not exactly happy with it.

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let me specify here too that I don't have a problem with the approach Obama is taking. Indeed I doubt if the war on terror would rank highly on a list of things that the Tea Party opposes about Obama.

I doubt Tea partiers would even acknowledge this occurred. Don't forget that the "Obama is a secret commie muslim" idea is still quite popular.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Republicans do not understand the application of military force. They just know how to order weapons systems.

Democrats figure out how to use them as cost-effectively and with as little collateral damage as possible, and how not to make too many enemies by using them.

Like the GOP gives a rat's who gets pissed off at us.

The GOP has somehow confused jumping up and down screaming "KILL, KILL!" for being tough.

I cannot defend the wisdom of military actions in recent years, but ordering weapons systems is definitely in keeping with the US strategy of "having the best trained, best-equipped military. Let the other nations throw human waves against each other."

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I cannot defend the wisdom of military actions in recent years, but ordering weapons systems is definitely in keeping with the US strategy of "having the best trained, best-equipped military. Let the other nations throw human waves against each other."

We are not the best-equipped and we pay too much for what we have.

Being well-equipped is over-rated. It is the training and doictrine and the morale of the soldiers that makes the most difference, in the end, and Republicans are notoriously weak in this regard. Haven't had a Republican president in sixty years who could understand that. Don't see any coming up with a freaking clue, either.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

We are not the best-equipped and we pay too much for what we have.

evidence?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I may be wrong,

Correct.

Quote:

but you seem to be confusing going after Al Qaeda with invading Iraq.

Incorrect.

I was pointing out that if Bush had ordered a drone strike that "had killed at least 41 members of two families living near the makeshift al-Qaeda camp," nobody praising Obama's policy on this thread would be similarly praising the Bush Administration's strategy.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by joobz

evidence?

At least that is what I make of the comments from soldiers returning from the combat zones. The equipment is breaking because it has been in the field too long and a lot of national Guard units are short of vehicles.

Further, and on this point I will have to accept that it is a result of a liberal idea that was not thought out far enough, we do not have some of the support infrastructure that we should have, like water purification and electrical generating units. These used to be a military function with thousands of people hiolding the appropriate MOS. Whjen the compost hit the fan in 2001, those functions were turned over to contractors and they still haven't been able to get their stuff together, and we lost soldiers because of it. Time for the army to start doing all those things again.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I was pointing out that if Bush had ordered a drone strike that "had killed at least 41 members of two families living near the makeshift al-Qaeda camp," nobody praising Obama's policy on this thread would be similarly praising the Bush Administration's strategy.

We would have criticized that less severely than we do his poisoning a whole generation of children aropund Bagdhad by blowing up the water treatment facilities.

I I can still hear a bunch of shrieking monkeys shouting "No blood for Monica" after a couple of cruise missile attacks into Afghanistan under Clinton.

And then there's the way they all got their panties in a bunch over that "aspirin factory."

Republicans rely on our having short memories.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

We would have criticized that less severely than we do his poisoning a whole generation of children aropund Bagdhad by blowing up the water treatment facilities.

I I can still hear a bunch of shrieking monkeys shouting "No blood for Monica" after a couple of cruise missile attacks into Afghanistan under Clinton.

Hmmm, you have quite an ear there. I don't remember "no blood for Monica". Indeed when I googled that term, all I found was a bunch of shrill posts by liberals "remembering" that.

Quote:

And then there's the way they all got their panties in a bunch over that "aspirin factory."

Yes, shrieking monkeys like Michael Moore:

Quote:

Of course, then the story unravelled. The factory was making aspirin, not weapons. And the US government quickly abandoned their claims that this dangerous aspirin-making was economically connected to Osama bin Laden. America, however, was undeterred. Coincidentally, the bombs fell just as Monica Lewinsky came before Ken Starr’s grand jury.

Salon (Chris Hitchens):

Quote:

First, was the Al-Shifa factory a Tom Clancy cauldron of devil's brew? Second, did it have to be hit that very night? The first question does involve the second, but for convenience let's summarize its headings. The administration said that no medical or commercial products were made at Al-Shifa. It added that the factory was directly related to bin Laden's occult commercial empire. It further said that the traces of the chemical compound EMPTA had been found in the soil outside the plant. Within days, there was an amazingly swift climb-down from all these claims:

Slate (Tim Noah):

Quote:

It is possible that we'll one day learn Al-Shifa was a legitimate bombing target. Most of the information about this incident is still classified. Benjamin, Simon, Clarke, and the rest of the Clinton national security team had access to a lot more intelligence than the rest of us do. But based on the evidence available now, Al-Shifa looks very much like the fiasco we thought it was then. The Sudan bombing is a blot on the Clinton presidency, and a blot it ought to remain.

[leftysergeant]

Was there some reason Clinton was supposed tro stop being commander-in-chief just because Newt and his thugs were after his scalp?

[SonOfLaertes]

There is no question that the POTUS has no choice but to take the battle to the "Cell" level - doing so is currently our only viable option in regards to disrupting the planning, organization, and long-term strategy goals of the extremists. And yes, I say that knowing full well that such operations increase local resentment and increase the likelihood of an attack in the short term.

Ignoring these cells, however, would be fatal in the long term. They would eventually link up in various ways, increase their sophistication and sources of funding, develop and cultivate contacts with states like Iran and North Korea, and develop and cultivate contacts with rogue suppliers of weapons systems. Short-term risk and revenge attacks are a regrettable outcome to prevent the onset of nuclear(dirty)/biological tactics.

Obama is doing the right thing, but I agree that he has been backed into a corner by the short-sighted policies of the previous administration. If Bush & Co. had simply moved into Afghanistan after 9/11 with extreme prejudice against Al-Qaeda, and continued on into Northern Pakistan while the US still had the moral imperative to do so (despite the outcry, the local tribes would have understood our right to honor/revenge) none of this would be necessary.

Pre-emptive reply: I am an independent who voted Republican right up to the invasion of Iraq, mostly for fiscal policy reasons, so my opinions are not colored by identification with either party, unlike some posting on this thread.

We need to wake up in this country and stop supporting the bought-and-sold members of both major parties.

[SonOfLaertes]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Was there some reason Clinton was supposed tro stop being commander-in-chief just because Newt and his thugs were after his scalp?

No, I find the Repubs reaction to Bosnia/the aspirin factory/etc., as opposed to their blabbering about supporting the Iraq invasion, quite disingenuous.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

At least that is what I make of the comments from soldiers returning from the combat zones. The equipment is breaking because it has been in the field too long and a lot of national Guard units are short of vehicles.

That suggests they aren't equipped as well as they should be. But the statement you challenged was one of relative status, not absolute, and your reply doesn't actually support your original challenge.

If we're not the best-equipped military, then someone else is. Who?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SonOfLaertes

Obama is doing the right thing, but I agree that he has been backed into a corner by the short-sighted policies of the previous administration. If Bush & Co. had simply moved into Afghanistan after 9/11 with extreme prejudice against Al-Qaeda, and continued on into Northern Pakistan while the US still had the moral imperative to do so (despite the outcry, the local tribes would have understood our right to honor/revenge) none of this would be necessary.

Would they really have "understood" that? Or would they have used it as an excuse to foment unrest throughout Pakistan?

Do you think the Pakistani government could have afforded to allow us to invade them? And do you honestly think we could hold Afghanistan without supply lines through Pakistan?

And lastly, of course, invading a nuclear power was never in the cards.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If we're not the best-equipped military, then someone else is. Who?

The Empire.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tricky

The Empire.

Those things? You could destroy them with a tripwire. They're walking death-traps. If you thought the whole unarmored humvee thing was a mess, just imagine the congressional hearings after one of those got taken out with a piece of rope. And the storm trooper body armor? Someone needs to go to jail for that: it doesn't stop anything. Not even ewok weapons.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

At least that is what I make of the comments from soldiers returning from the combat zones. The equipment is breaking because it has been in the field too long and a lot of national Guard units are short of vehicles.

Ziggurat hit the nail on the head with my question. I agree that our military could be better equipped, but I would find it rather hard to imagine another military have the same complement of arms that our guys have.

I am not at all well versed into the comparative arsenals of different countries. Do the Israelis have the same tech available? What does China have?

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Is this actually illegal?

I would think it is worse than the waterboarding that most people think is terrible (including myself). Although I doubt if very many terrorists have been snuck up on and killed in their beds.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by SonOfLaertes

There is no question that the POTUS has no choice but to take the battle to the "Cell" level - doing so is currently our only viable option in regards to disrupting the planning, organization, and long-term strategy goals of the extremists. And yes, I say that knowing full well that such operations increase local resentment and increase the likelihood of an attack in the short term.

Ignoring these cells, however, would be fatal in the long term. They would eventually link up in various ways, increase their sophistication and sources of funding, develop and cultivate contacts with states like Iran and North Korea, and develop and cultivate contacts with rogue suppliers of weapons systems. Short-term risk and revenge attacks are a regrettable outcome to prevent the onset of nuclear(dirty)/biological tactics.

What makes you think of Iran or North Korea as potential "contacts" for al Qaeda?

[Manopolus]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Correct.



Incorrect.

I was pointing out that if Bush had ordered a drone strike that "had killed at least 41 members of two families living near the makeshift al-Qaeda camp," nobody praising Obama's policy on this thread would be similarly praising the Bush Administration's strategy.

NO one was accusing Mr. Bush of being "soft on terror" either.

[leftysergeant]

The Russians still have the capability to kick some serious butts, and their equipment is almost impossible to break. The T-80, from all I have heard, lacks some of the stupid flaws that the T-72 showed. Training and motivation are quite another matter.

As for traianing and morale, Rummy was clueless and the suicide rates among veterans shows it. Shinseki had a lot more to do with the success of the invasion of Iraq than did that doofus Franks.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

I can't conceive of anything more terrifying than Sarah Palin in charge of deciding when her nation went to war.

Might be entertaining as hell.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

We are not the best-equipped and we pay too much for what we have.

Half wrong, and half right, in order of your attempt at a statement.

That said, men mean more than guns in the rating of a ship, and training is expensive if you want your people to win. War never gets less complicated. This is why Rumsfeld was such a fan of silver bullets (tech): they cost less in the long run, effectiveness across the whole spectrum be damned.

DR

[SonOfLaertes]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Would they really have "understood" that? Or would they have used it as an excuse to foment unrest throughout Pakistan?

Do you think the Pakistani government could have afforded to allow us to invade them? And do you honestly think we could hold Afghanistan without supply lines through Pakistan?

And lastly, of course, invading a nuclear power was never in the cards.

I never said that we should "invade" Pakistan. My opinion is that, if we had followed the Taliban and Al Qaeda into Waziristan in the heat of the moment, in hot pursuit, as it were, and terminated our enemies with extreme prejudice - if we had seized the moment and got out when our work was done - there would have been a lot of arm-waving and shouting but the tribal communities there would have basically felt : we had no choice. Honor compelled us to confront our enemies after they attacked us and honored compelled us to seek revenge. The climate directly after the attacks was completely different than the climate a few months later. Intuitively I think it likely that people in the the tribal areas are amazed we did not follow through on our pursuit of the perpetrators.

I said nothing about holding Afghanistan, as well. Everything I posted was predicated on taking the battle to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with very narrow, but tough, mission parameters. This in fact is exactly what we did, before Bush & Co. turned tail and let the enemy get away, with the puzzling intention of taking the battle to Iraq, after emotions had cooled down.

We are in fact drone bombing cells in Waziristan now with the blessing of the Pakistani government, who have grown weary of foreign fighters stirring up the tribal areas against them. I think that the Pakistani govt, with the exception of the intelligence sector, is quite content to allow us to cull the foreign fighter base in the northern areas, even now.