You have commented 0 times on Rantburg.

We're sorry, but only human beings are allowed to comment on Rantburg. If you're a human being, please take this simple test to prove it. If you're not, get lost.

Munchkins
Teapot
This is a chicken. What are you?
Fluffy bunnies
Recruiting poster for the WACs
Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Photo
Terror Networks
Bureau of Labour wanks: Trump, Obama and the future of targeted killing
2017-01-20
[UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism] Barack Obama’s foreign policy legacy is often discussed in terms of things he didn’t do: intervene in Syria, reset with Russia, get out of Afghanistan.

In one area however, Obama developed and expanded a defining policy architecture which his successor Donald Trump now inherits: the ability to kill suspected terrorists anywhere without US personnel having to leave their bases.
"Order up some more lawn chairs!"
While his administration lauded the drone programme for being so "surgical and precise" it could take out the enemy without putting "innocent men, women and children in danger", human rights groups lambasted it for doing just that ‐ hundreds of civilians were reported killed outside active battlefields during Obama’s eight years in power.

As his presidency progressed, Obama put restraints in place aimed at reducing civilian casualties ‐ but experts are now worried those limitations will be swept away by Trump in favour of an "anything goes to get the bad guys" approach.

Armed drones were first used under George W Bush. But it was Obama who dramatically increased their use. Responding to evolving militant threats and the greater availability of remote piloting technology, Obama ordered ten times more counter-terror strikes than his predecessor over the course of his term.
Lengthy, bitchy, and arrives at no conclusions, recommendations, or solutions. Proceed at your own risk.
Posted by:Besoeker

#7  I'm with visitor.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-01-20 02:35  

#6  When will the local victims of collateral damage realize the source of the fault is their own complacency?

As soon as its acceptable to point out that both the target and themselves shared a common problem...adherence to Islam.
Posted by: Crusader   2017-01-20 01:42  

#5  When will the local victims of collateral damage realize the source of the fault is their own complacency?
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-01-20 01:12  

#4  As his presidency progressed, Obama put restraints in place aimed at reducing civilian casualties ‐ but experts are now worried those limitations will be swept away by Trump in favour of an "anything goes to get the bad guys" approach.

They say it like that's a bad thing...
Posted by: Crusader   2017-01-20 00:36  

#3  If you haven't already, watch some of the drone strike videos on YouTube. The victims are all buildings and bad guys. You just don't see any 'family picnic' strikes MSM popularizes.
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-01-20 00:34  

#2  "Order up some more lawn chairs!"

And order the next terrorist annihilation on pay-per-view!
Posted by: gorb   2017-01-20 00:26  

#1  I disagree with the drone strategy, but for an entirely different reason than these pommie, leftest snowflakes.

Killing cockroaches one at a time with a Colt 1911 may be an impressive visual for friends and neighbors, but it's a very poor pest control strategy.
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-01-19 14:06