Obama's Failed Administration

Barry's basketball team dribbled the ball up and down the court like pros.  Its not his fault the other team blocked most of his shots, its not his fault the other team had possession of the ball most of the game, its not his fault the other team had twice as many points on the scoreboard when time ran out.  If the game had just run longer, he would have won, we're sure of it.  He didn't even cry when he fell down -- ever. We're going to give him a Participation Trophy for being such a good sport.

Resorting to sports analogies is a sign of desperation (or lack of facts).

Like most people, I was disappointed with some of Obama's actions and inactions. But to go so far as to call his a failed administration or even a crashing disappointment is excessive, in my opinion. Of course, one is allowed to his opinion of how to weigh the successes against the failures.

Quote :

He has (maybe) reduced boots on the ground, but the ongoing murder of civilians by drone in the name of hopefully, maybe, once in a while, killing an actual enemy on his home ground is abhorrent in principle and in practice.

I fault him for continuing both ongoing wars.  I'm guessing that neither Obama, his diplomatic staff, nor his military advisors could devise a practical exit strategy and the rapid rise of the IS made a total withdrawal politically impossible.  But yes, he should have shut both conflicts down as soon as he got into office, consequences be damned.  Obama gets a lot of shit for not doing anything in Syria but I think he understands that once these things begin it can be very difficult to bring them to an end.  

The drone program has actually hit a considerable number legitimate targets.  I really think it's better not to have as many troops on the ground.  Besides the environmental impact of armies engaged in battle, just hosting a base of 20,000 soldiers uses a huge amount of water, generates diesel exhaust, and attracts suicide and conventional attacks.  The damage from this and the potential for even greater numbers of civilian casualties makes the selective assassination approach more attractive.

Look at it this way.  Drone technology isn't rocket science.  Many more countries will develop drone programs and there's nothing to stop them from using them against us.  If our country were to enter a war and we were subject to attack, I'd rather a drone strike on the Capitol or someone's limosine than bomber runs over LA and NY.  So much less destructive and better for the environment.

If the drone program was anywhere near as effective and well-targeted as you seem to believe, you might have a point.

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

Quote :

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

Quote :

Secondly, foreign and domestic policy are incredibly intertwined, and empires always eventually turn inward. During the occupation of the Philippines, the U.S. government experimented with drug prohibition and torture, programs that eventually became standard domestically. Police are now increasingly resembling, in both attire, attitude, and tactics, their overseas counterparts in Baghdad and Kandahar. Given that in just a few years, drones are set to police American skies, how long will they remained unarmed?

And that article just skims the surface. There's plenty of info out there if you care to look. One article a few years back was very amusing. It looked at the number of terrorists who had been killed multiple times by drones. A target was "identified", a missile fired, and the terrorist was killed (along with how ever many people happened to be nearby). Chalk one up for the good guys! Another win for democracy! Except 6 months later, a target gets identified - and it's the guy you thought you already killed. No matter. Another missile, another win. Except ... you guessed it. There are some terrorists who've been killed 6 or 7 times. And of course, we've no idea if they are actually dead. We are sure about the dozens of civilians who were just collateral damage. We are not talking pinpoint accuracy here.

Quote :

It's easy to see why they might want to avoid the subject. The use of drone strikes have increased exponentially under the Obama administration, becoming a signature aspect of his incredibly aggressive and reckless foreign policy. And while the president and his advisers defend both their supposed legality and precision while simultaneously bragging when convenient and denying when pressured that the drone program even exists, a closer look at the use of Predator drones tells a very different story.

The other obvious reason (though not mentioned) why drone strikes are so popular with Pentagon brass is the lack of risk to American soldiers.  If a drone gets shot down, so what, it's only $14.75 million.

It is this calculation -- 50:1 civilian:target deaths is okay, while 0:50 American soldier deaths:non-American non-combatant deaths is acceptable -- that causes American reputations to be held in such low esteem.

It is coward's combat.

I'm not saying boots-on-the-ground is a good idea -- it isn't, those people have been fighting for generations and they're better at it than we are -- but I can see "why they hate us."  And yes, it's another reason I think the Obama Administration has bought into Cheney's immoral worldview (item #1 on my list), and why -- in the view of history -- his administration will be seen as an abject failure for American values. He is not selling "a shining city upon the hill."

The estimates of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes are all over the place.  Studies have put the rate anywhere between 4 and 98 percent!  The US will claim the smallest percentage and critics will cite the larger numbers.  No one knows the actual figures and no one ever will.  Any idea how many civilian casualties result from collateral damage by coalition troops on the ground or deliberately attacked by ISIL?  I'll bet it is significantly higher than the number killed mistakenly by drones, and much more destructive to infrastructure, antiquities, and the environment.  

Quote :

It is coward's combat.

So what?  Are you longing for a "good"war?

NoCoPilot wrote:

It is coward's combat.

Cowards' combat is typically performed by civilians sitting on their fat asses in front of a tv news broadcast.

kilo wrote:

No one knows the actual figures and no one ever will.  Any idea how many civilian casualties result from collateral damage by coalition troops on the ground or deliberately attacked by ISIL?  

ISIL is not above deliberate civilian casualties to advance their cause. Afterall, innocents thus killed go straight to Heaven to sit on the right hand of God.

However, one wishes that our leadership had a somewhat more enlightened view.

With the incoming administration, at least on the campaign trail, civilians are going to become the PRIMARY targets. Several generals and military historians have pointed out the numerous violations of national and international codes of ethics this would represent. However, since Cheney still walks free I'm not holding my breath.

_Howard wrote:

Cowards' combat is typically performed by civilians sitting on their fat asses in front of a tv news broadcast.

Or a monitor at Creech AFB in Las Vegas.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of hand to hand combat. In my mind there is no "good war." But I can imagine, in the minds of desert soldiers who have been raised all their lives to fight, that what the Americans are doing is seen as intensely unsportsmanlike.

Unsportsmanlike and cowardly are not the same.

Coward is not a word to be used lightly.

I was using "unsportsmanlike" ironically, of course combat is not sport, it's life-and-death. But to cultures where being a soldier is the only option for all little boys, where a Kalishnakov is their first toy and the "5-minute hate" lasts all day long every day, there is considerable male pride in being a tough and ruthless fighter. There is glory in being killed in battle, but even more in taking out as many of the enemy as possible in the process.

That is why being rained upon by bombs from the sky is so undignified, so one-sided, so antithetical to their warrior culture.

They would see drone pilots, sitting in armchairs in Las Vegas operating a joystick, as intensely cowardly.

I don't understand why you reacted so vehemently to that word.

As far as I'm concerned, land mines are much more hideous than drone warfare, where at least an element of intent comes into play.

War is a bad business, to be sure. It is also indelibly stamped on human culture. But I won't shed a tear for the loss of the old warrior culture with its stupid cult of heroism and machismo. Watching a screen and releasing munitions remotely is hardly something to strut over. I've even read of drone operators who grow disturbed and feel guilt over their actions. Which is how it should be.

Yes, turnover in the videogamers brought in to kill anonymous ragheads is extremely high; that's why the huge re-up bonus is out there (linked in my post above).

With Trump talking about intentionally targeting the friends, family and villages of known bad guys -- and the generals warning that such a thing is unconstitutional, against the Code of Conduct, and immoral -- these issues are likely to be debated publicly a lot in the next four years.

kilo wrote:

War is a bad business, to be sure.  It is also indelibly stamped on human culture.  

Mrs NoCo volunteered at a charity toy giveaway a few days before Xmas.  She said one mother was upset that there weren't any toy guns she could give her 5-year old son.  "He likes guns," she said.

Growing up I wasn't allowed to play with toy guns.  I thank my mother for that now.

Movie previews, and TV commercials, are filled with combat games and first person shooter video games.  Combat with other men or thinly-disguised aliens who look a lot like Muslims.  I think we're training a whole generation for the holy wars to come.

NoCoPilot wrote:

That is why being rained upon by bombs from the sky is so undignified, so one-sided, so antithetical to their warrior culture.

I don't understand why you reacted so vehemently to that word.

First of all: fuck their warrior culture. They would be less inclined to play warrior if they had significant opposition. It's surprising how unimportant your culture is when someone is shooting back at you.

Where do you draw the line on what you consider cowardly, NoCo? Is there some specific distance between combatants at which cowardly comes into play? What about a battleship sitting over the horizon and lobbing two-ton shells inland? Are those involved in launching the shells cowardly because they are miles away from their target? What about a close air support controller directing attack aircraft in to bomb the hell of out some folks? Is he cowardly because he is controlling the ordnance dispersal while remaining hundreds of yards from the target? Maybe snipers are more cowardly than most shooters because they are farther away from their targets? Is it necessary to get up close and cut the opponent's throat before you don't consider it cowardly? Of course, one would have to approach from the front; sneaking up from behind would be cowardly.

I am very much opposed to the use of drones in the manner they are now being used. My opposition is based primarily on my concern of the precedent that is being set.

By the way. The mans' name was Kalashnikov.

It's not what *I* consider cowardly.  Hell, I think cowardice in the face of combat is noble.  I think there's almost always alternatives to combat, and humor and wisdom can take people out of desperate situations.

But I wasn't speaking for myself.  I was putting myself in the place of people born into cultures that have been at war for generations, who believe warriors go to heaven, who think death in combat is the ultimate validation.  They look forward to dying, and taking as many opponents with them as possible.

What would I propose instead of drone strikes?  I don't know.  I'm not wise enough.

Besides I've never been in the military, so what do I know.

NoCoPilot wrote:

It is coward's combat.

You made that declaration without equivocation, before referencing other cultures, so I could only assume that you were speaking for yourself.
Are the drone pilots actually cowards? We don't know, as they are not in a position where that quality can be displayed.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Hell, I think cowardice in the face of combat is noble.

That is absurd. Cowardice and refusal to participate based on rational objection are not the same thing.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I think there's almost always alternatives to combat...

Sometimes the opponent defines the alternatives; there may be no choice.

NoCoPilot wrote:

What would I propose instead of drone strikes?  I don't know.

Any alternative other than inaction would result in increased unintended casualties.
I think the drone program sucks, but I think inaction is not viable.

_Howard wrote:

Sometimes the opponent defines the alternatives; there may be no choice.

That may be true, but our current foreign policy is clouded by the influence of the arms manufacturers who are only too happy to supply $15m Predator drones and $2m Tomahawks and $112m Nighthawks for whatever conflict they can drum up.

You can talk about combat or you can talk about foreign policy, but don't confuse them.

Would you agree that our foreign policy puts soldiers in combat?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Blame James Comey for violating the Hatch Act (and blame Obama for not firing him the next morning.)

Blame Obama for not firing Comey in his lame duck period before the inauguration.  What a spineless wimp.

Comey is a bald-faced liar who has used his office to influence the political race, which is totally illegal.