Obama carries on and expands Bush policies

In an article in Salon, Alex Kane a reporter for MondoWeiss, lists five ways in which Obama has carried on with Bush policies such as rendition, indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, drone attacks, and use of Guantanamo.

Kane points out that on his second day of office Obama broke with the Bush era by signing executive orders that banned torture and he also promised that Guatanamo would be closed within a year. Guantanamo is still open.

Obama can hardly be blamed entirely for the failure to close Guantanamo since the Republican Party has tried to block attempts to close the base. Nevertheless, Obama has hardly continued to press that hard to close the base and he himself has signed bills that restrict his ability to close it.

As if often his strategy, Obama threatened to veto the NDAA of 2013 but then signed it. In the provisions of the act is one that restricts “the transfer of detainees into the United States for any purpose, including trials in federal court. It also requires the defense secretary to meet rigorous conditions before any detainee can be returned to his own country or resettled in a third country.”

Human Rights Watch has blasted the restrictions saying:

“Indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo is illegal, unsustainable and against U.S. national security interests, and it needs to end. The administration should not continue to just blame Congress. President Obama should follow through on his earlier commitments and make the effort to overcome the transfer restrictions.”

As the appended video indicates, 86 of the inmates at Guantanamo have been cleared for release. However, the restrictions imposed on their release means that they will still be held indefinitely.

Obama does not seem to care. He is more concerned with nominating for the CIA John Brennan, a person closely associated with all the Bush programs that Obama and Democrats railed against not so long ago, including torture and extraordinary rendition. Obama tried to appoint Brennan in his first term but memory of his service to Bush was still too strong. Instead he made him a top advisor on counter-terrorism. Brennan has been a staunch defender of the expanded drone program initiated by Obama.

Obama has expanded the drone program far beyond anything that existed under Bush. Not only does he use it in war zones but in any area where there are suspected militants. The Bush administration carried starting in 2002 carried out only 52 drone strikes. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism these strikes killed an estimated 438 including 182 civilians and 112 children. Even before Obama's second term begins he has ordered 300 drones strikes just in Pakistan. These strikes killed about 2,152 people including 290 civilians with 64 being children.

However there are other disastrous effects of the drone programs as the constant buzzing of drones above:

“terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.”

There is no sign of any end to the program just continuous expansion beyond targeting specific individuals to signature strikes. The Washington Post describes a new "matrix" being developed as part of:

“the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”

This is just a sample of the detailed information presented in the article, which shows that Obama is carrying on and expanding Bush policies. Even as he does so, there is only limited opposition to what is happening. The nomination of Brennan is a perfect example of how any opposition has become muted. The reality for many liberals seems to be that there is no alternative, so keep quiet or the Republicans will get you if you don't watch out.

U.S. withdraw negotiating team working on deal to reopen NATO supply routes

Since a fatal border air attack by NATO last November which killed 24 Pakistani troops Pakistan has closed down NATO supply routes to Afghanistan. As a condition of opening the routes again the Pakistanis have asked for an apology and cessation of drone attacks. The U.S. has responded by stepping up the number of drone attacks. They have not apologized.

The Pakistani government strongly objected to the drone attacks.The U.S. through defense minister Panetta said that the U.S. was losing patience with Pakistan for harboring terrorists. All of this no doubt has made it virtually impossible in political terms to reach a deal with the U.S. Apparently the U.S. does not care.

Pentagon spokesperson George Little said:"The decision was reached to bring the team home for a short period of time," The negotiating team had been in Pakistan for six weeks and thought that they were close to a deal. U.S. actions have no doubt sabotaged that for now. There has not even been a date set for resumption of negotiations.

  Althoughthere is an alternative land route through central Asian republics the cost is very much greater than the Pakistan route. For more see this article.

Former top CIA official critical of Obama drone policy

Many critics have argued that the Obama drone program is counter productive. Although militants may be killed the collateral damage to innocents causes more harm than the good achieved. Especially in a tribal society those who suffer loss of relatives have an obligation of revenge. Hence militants have a fertile climate for recruitment after drone attacks.

Many have argued on moral grounds as well that the attacks are a terrible precedent. The official Pakistani position is that the drone attacks there should cease and that they violate Pakistan's sovereignty. This seems correct but the U.S. does not cease and desist and I have never heard any U.S. official worry about this violation.

Whatever reasons have been given against the attacks they continue. They do no doubt kill militants and militant leaders but it is doubtful they kill more than are created by their actions. Since drone attacks were initiated first in Yemen militancy has grown by leaps and bounds. However the attacks are good domestic propaganda although perhaps the American taxpayer might prefer more jobs than a higher tally of militants killed by drones. But now a top official in the war on terror has also come out as a critic of Obama's drone program.

David Grenier was chief of the CIA's counter terrorism center from 2004 to 2006. Grenier is not opposed to drone attacks per se but he does oppose the Obama program. While the Obama administration defends the attacks as very focused and accurate Grenier actually claims the opposite. Grenier claims that the drone policy is far too indiscriminate in its policy. The result could be political instability and even safe havens for a burgeoning terrorist movement. Something of this sort seems to have happened in Yemen although other factors are involved as well.

Grenier says: "It [the drone program] needs to be targeted much more finely. We have been seduced by them and the unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences," Grenier agrees that specific strikes with good intelligence in a feasible strike area may be justified. With the use of signature strikes based on behavior patterns the strikes become much less specific and collateral damage and mistaken attacks much more common. This is what Grenier sees happening in the Obama policy.

Of course Obama manages to reduce collateral damage by definition. Any military age male killed in a strike is simply defined as a suspected militant. This is not likely to impress relatives of a male in this category who simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Grenier emphasised that the use of drones was a valuable tool in tackling terrorism but only when used against specific identified targets, who have been tracked and monitored to a place where a strike is feasible. Some tactics used such as the double tap are adopted from terrorist tactics. Terrorists plant a bomb and then when rescuers arrive they explode another.

The CIA over the weekend killed a suspected militant and then attacked his funeral. Even Mafia rules forbid such actions.But then no doubt all those at the funeral will under the signature strike criteria be suspected militants. Who would attend a militant's funeral but militants!

Grenier remarks:"We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan," Will anyone listen when someone from within the intelligence community speaks out. Do not count on it. For more see this article. I include an interesting video about drone strikes on the Young Turks including Jeremy Scahill.

Reaper drone missions to quadruple by 2016

As the war in Afghanistan supposedly winds down the drone war and missions by special forces will ramp up. Wars with large contingents of troops on the ground are not only expensive but often politically damaging. Better to keep the empire expanding and supposedly safe using high tech weapons and elite forces often acting in secret.

With a growing and spreading use of drones and special forces no doubt the terrorist kill figure will rise but so will resentment in those areas where drone attacks occur as collateral damage to civilians is bound to rise as well.

The U.S. governments site for contractors is seeking: “industry input on how best to support Air Combat Command’s remotely piloted aircraft missions.” “Support will consist of aircraft, ground control station, and Predator Primary Satellite Link maintenance, weapons loading for both aircraft, [and] munitions build-up for MQ-9 aircraft,” This will be job creation for the military-industrial complex.. The contracts will support the work of the Reaper drone.

This drone has a 66-foot wingspan. It is able to carry a 500-pound laser guided bomb. By 2016 according to the notice the Reapers will be launched from 11 locations and will carry out 66 sorties per day or at least that is the plan. The Predator will be phased out and replaced by the bigger faster and more lethal Reaper.

The Air Force wants all the new drone bases located outside the continental U.S. The editor of the Long War journal suggests that new locations will be in Afghanistan, the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia or Oman--for attacks in Yemen. President Karzai has insisted that there be no drones launched from Afghanistan to attack foreign countries after 2014. However, Karzai could always change his mind or look the other way. There are also rumors of a base in the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean. The islands belong to Australia.. For more see the full article in Salon.

Karzai government will not allow U.S. drone launches from Afghanistan after 2014

When U.S. combat forces leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014 there will be no more launching of drone attacks on neighboring countries from Afghanistan claims the Afghan Foreign Minister Zahay Rasool. The CIA launches attacks on the Tribal Regions of Pakistan at present from Afghan bases.

Before relations with Pakistan went downhill after the shooting of Pakistan soldiers by the U.S. in a border incident a base in Pakistan was also used. Now that base is closed. However this just means that drones will need to fly further. There is an important base in Djibouti and other bases are planned on the Arabian peninsula. There is also a base in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia.

The U.S. and the Karzai government have been negotiating the terms of a U.S. presence in Afghanistan after combat troops are removed by the end of 2014. Plans are for a U.S. presence to remain for years if not a decade even after security is supposedly turned over to the Afghans. For more see this article.

ACLU sues Obama administration under Freedom of Information Act

The ACLU is suing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The group seeks information on the guidelines Obama officials use in deciding on targets to be killed in drone attacks.

The request “seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killing”. The administration has refused to provide any information on these issues. The CIA is insisting to federal courts that it is unable even to confirm or deny the existence of the drone program.The CIA argues that revealing any of that information would endanger national security. This is such astonishing nonsense that it is almost beyond belief.

Consider this! A number of Obama administration officials have publicly not only recognised the existence of the program but praised it as being effective. Obama recently said:“we are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” and and the program is “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on.” Former CIA Director and current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also spoke about the program noting that the drone program has “been very effective at undermining al Qaeda and their ability to plan those kinds of attacks.” Finally Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech tried to justify the program in legal terms.Should not all these officials be prosecuted for endangering the national security of the U.S. by revealing all this about a drone attack program that cannot be admitted even to exist?

Obama administration officials are free to say whatever they like about the program for their own political ends. But when the public seeks basic information it cannot be revealed for reasons of national security. For much more see the full article in Salon.

Drone Disasters

 An article here by Nick Turse points out that the armed drones used extensively by Obama are wonder weapons with wings of clay. In all 70 drones have been crashed or been downed since 2000. Each event has resulted in damage of 2 million or more.
  The drones are launched from a network of 60 bases around the globe often in consort with elite special forces units. This is part of the new leaner military of Obama. Often crashes are caused by failure of the drones electronic control system. In certain type of electronic failures some drones are programmed to self destruct as happened in an incident in Iraq in 2007.
   The rise in hours flown by drones is huge over the years. In 2001 Air Force drones flew only 7,500 hours but at the end of last year over 70,000 hours had been flown. Drone disaster happen in many different areas including Afghanistan, Djibouti, Iraq, Libya, Seychelles and Kuwait and other unspecified areas.
  Although some defense spending is being cut expenditures on drones will increase. The Congressional Budget Office last year published a report showing that over the next ten years“the Department of Defense plans to purchase about 730 new medium-sized and large unmanned aircraft systems”
 Turse believes that drones do more harm than good as they create hostility and generate more enemies. No doubt this will show that there is a need for more drones to kill them. Drones are only useful against enemies who do not have at their command resources to shoot them down. They are powerful only against the defenseless. Turse gives detailed examples of a number of drone incidents in his article.

Obama defends U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan Tribal Areas

Perhaps now that Obama admits that the U.S. is carrying out drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan the news media will finally report them as actually U.S. attacks. Up to now many reports are phrased cautiously as suspected U.S. attacks as if perhaps U.S. alllies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia might be responsible!

The casualties in these attacks will no doubt continue to be classified as "suspected militants" even though the evidence is that there are many civilians killed as collateral damage.

Obama says that the targets are: "people who are on a list of active terrorists". Of course one does not know how correct those lists are. Probably, Pakistani intelligence sources co-operate in determining targets even though officially Pakistan has for long criticised the attacks.

Reporters are not allowed in to the tribal areas although some locals have taken photos purportedly showing damage and the dead as a result of the attacks. Rights groups such as Amnesty have been critical of the attacks and questioned their legality under International Law.

The Pakistani parliament has passed a motion demanding the attacks stop but to no avail. The drone attacks began in 2004 under George W Bush but have escalated considerably under Obama. Under Obama the attacks have more than doubled reaching 118 in 2010 and 70 in 2011. Although there was a pause of a couple of months attacks have resumed now. For more see this article. Obama is extending drone attacks to other areas as well such as Somalia and Yemen. Their use fits in with Obama's plan for a leaner but high tech military. Drone attacks involve no U.S. casualties and are thus not likely to be a political problem domestically.

While no doubt some militant leaders have been killed in drone attacks the reports are often too optimistic. Some militant leaders have about as many lives as cats. Civilian deaths are hardly ever cited in official reports and come only from locals.