A Small Secret Airstrip In Africa Is the Future of America's Way of War 139
HughPickens.com writes: Reuters reports that the Pentagon is quietly building up a small airstrip in a remote region of east Africa that is a complex microcosm of how Washington runs military operations overseas — and how America's way of war will probably look for the foreseeable future. Chabelley Airfield is less than 10 miles from the capital of the small African nation of Djibouti but the small airport is the hub for America's drone operations in the nearby hotspots of Somalia and Yemen as part of its war against Islamic militants. "The U.S. military is being pressured into considering the adoption of more of a lily pad basing model in the wake of so much turbulence and warfare across the region," says Dr. Geoffrey Gresh. "Djibouti is a small, relatively safe ally that enables the U.S. special operators to carry out missions effectively across the continent." In September 2013, the Pentagon announced it was moving the pilotless aircraft from its main base at Camp Lemonnier to Chabelley with almost no fanfare. Africom and the Pentagon jealously guard information about their outposts in Africa, making it impossible to ascertain even basic facts — like a simple count — let alone just how many are integral to JSOC operations, drone strikes, and other secret activities. However a map in a Pentagon report indicates that there were 10 MQ-1 Predator drones and four larger, more far-ranging MQ-9 Reapers based at Camp Lemonnier in June 2012 before the move to Chabelley.
The Pentagon does not list Chabelley in its annual Base Structure Report, the only official compendium of American military facilities around the world. "The Chebelley base [is] a reflection of the growing presence of the U.S. military in Africa," says Dr. David Vine, author of 'Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World". "The [U.S.] military has gone to great lengths to disguise and downplay its growing presence in Africa generally in the hopes of avoiding negative attention and protests both in the U.S. and in African countries wary of the colonial-esque presence of foreign troops." American drones fly regular missions from Chabelley, an airstrip the French run with the approval of the Djiboutian government. Washington pays Djibouti for access to Paris' outpost. Part of the reason for this circuitous chain of responsibility could be the fact that the Pentagon's drone missions are often controversial. Critics contend targeted strikes against militants are illegal under American and international law and tantamount to assassination. "The military is easily capable of adapting to change, but they don't like to stop anything they feel is making their lives easier, or is to their benefit. And this certainly is, in their eyes, a very quick, clean way of doing things. It's a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war, without having to have the massive ground invasion mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Pentagon does not list Chabelley in its annual Base Structure Report, the only official compendium of American military facilities around the world. "The Chebelley base [is] a reflection of the growing presence of the U.S. military in Africa," says Dr. David Vine, author of 'Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World". "The [U.S.] military has gone to great lengths to disguise and downplay its growing presence in Africa generally in the hopes of avoiding negative attention and protests both in the U.S. and in African countries wary of the colonial-esque presence of foreign troops." American drones fly regular missions from Chabelley, an airstrip the French run with the approval of the Djiboutian government. Washington pays Djibouti for access to Paris' outpost. Part of the reason for this circuitous chain of responsibility could be the fact that the Pentagon's drone missions are often controversial. Critics contend targeted strikes against militants are illegal under American and international law and tantamount to assassination. "The military is easily capable of adapting to change, but they don't like to stop anything they feel is making their lives easier, or is to their benefit. And this certainly is, in their eyes, a very quick, clean way of doing things. It's a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war, without having to have the massive ground invasion mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Why is a political article like this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck did a purely-political article like this one end up on the front page of Slashdot?!
Is it just to stir up argument, to try to get more ad impressions?
It's hilarious that we see so many good Slashdot comments modded "Troll" or "Flamebait" so often, when it's stories like this that are far worse than those comments ever are.
And before anyone wastes their time pointing out that this submission is about drones, let me remind you that it isn't. It's about nothing more than the politics around drones. The technology itself is playing second fiddle in this story, well behind the politics.
Enough with the political articles, Hugh and the editors. We want real stories here, not junk like this!
Clickbait (Score:1)
Same as the stories about Hillary and Flint, GMO crops, etc., etc.
Re: Why is a political article like this on Slashd (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"It's hilarious that we see so many good Slashdot comments modded "Troll" or "Flamebait" so often, when it's stories like this that are far worse than those comments ever are."
Because Troll == 'I strongly disagree' and Flamebait == "Not only do I strongly disagree, but the poster might even be a Republican."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Debunking venerated myths or persons is also unwelcome: viz [slashdot.org]
Re:Why is a political article like this on Slashdo (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a new mod category for this: -1, Apostasy.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL! +1, insightful!! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Says the right-wing crybaby whose parent comment is currently at +5
Witness right-wing fragility in action, people.
Re: (Score:2)
the poster might even be a Republican
It's funny, because I would have said "socialist/Democrat" or "SJW". Soylent might actually be on to something with the Disagree mod, but the troll voting blocks would probably ignore it because it doesn't count as a -1.
Re: (Score:2)
I also think most Democrats don't get modded down a lot, unless they're really far left. Moderate left seems to fair better than moderate right here, although YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There have always been politics on Slashdot?
You must be new here.
War is nerdy (Score:1)
It turns out you can be a nerd about warfare, too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, and also about maps and geography.
Here's the base [google.com], based on the shadows under the tail sections I think those are 3 Reapers on the flight line.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the heck did a purely-political article like this one end up on the front page of Slashdot?!
Drones?
Good luck ... (Score:3)
Secret base? (Score:5, Funny)
"Chabelley Airfield is less than 10 miles from the capital of the small African nation of Djibouti"
So much for the secret base
Re:Secret base? (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for the secret base
It was never a secret. Anybody that cares has long known that America runs drone ops out of Djibouti. We also have an artillery range there. When I was a Marine, we made a training stop in Djibouti. The people there were very friendly and very pro-American, which surprised me since I had never before met any friendly pro-American French speakers.
Re:Secret base? (Score:5, Insightful)
The French have always been pro-America since the war of Independence, but this suffered a massive hit due to the awesome diplomacy skills of your previous President. You did say you're an ex-Marine, so maybe you've only experienced the post George W Bush version of the French?
Re: (Score:2)
The population is also 90% Muslim, and they have a somewhat saner "life + 30 years" copyright term. Interesting country.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I'd presumed it wasn't. I was mostly taking a shot at the click bait headline.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh? I hate to do it but it is inactive Marine Not "was a Marine."
Yeah, I hate it too. Sometimes, just to piss off some friends, I'll call myself a former Marine. That's always good for a tussle.
Anyhow, found out why I'm sick. I have pneumonia. It would appear that I have probably had it for some time.
At any rate... What was your MOS? I spent eight years. The first was 0311 for about half. Then I switched to 3531 which spanned my re-up, per "guarantee" and finished out my tranquil days as 5814 which mostly
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I fucked that one up. The FFL typically speak highly of the USMC - in case you're curious.
Re: (Score:2)
We care, and read to catch up. We already know bases exist maybe just not where or its name.
So it should be called an "obscure base" or a "little known base" not a "secret base". This is not a secret base.
Jah booty (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past, force multipliers like rifles, grenades, and rockets were used to up the death toll while keeping the participants hands from being as bloodied, and it is unclear this has been for the better.
A rational young man forced to war by draft or patriotism is much, much more likely to quickly have his fill of it standing close to the death and horror.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that drone pilots are any more or less remorseful for the killing they do, than any other pilot tasked with killing people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On the surface your statement sounds really good, I certainly believe that I would get sick of violence very quickly after seeing it first hand.
On the first Christmas of WW1, troops came out of the trenches en masse on both sides and shared an observance. The following Christmases, most of them just kept on shooting.
Some people are sickened; some are hardened.
Re: (Score:2)
We're animals with extensive symbolic reasoning systems bolted on at the last minute. Our basic natures are brutish and short-sighted as any other animal.
But. We have the something in us that gets us out there the 1st year, and no haplorhini (nor other mammal) exhibits a similar tendency.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they kept shooting because none of the belligerent parties leaders wanted such observances to be the case in the following years, so they made sure that it was not to be repeated.
Re: (Score:2)
On the first Christmas of WW1, troops came out of the trenches en masse on both sides and shared an observance. The following Christmases, most of them just kept on shooting.
Some people are sickened; some are hardened.
And in this case, all were generals that gave specific orders that banned the practice. In their nice, warm chateaus, miles from the front.
Re: (Score:2)
"On the surface your statement sounds really good, I certainly believe that I would get sick of violence very quickly after seeing it first hand. However, why is it that war has continued for so long?"
Because the youngsters that go to war, generation after generation, is the first time that are youngsters.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been killing people remotely for almost 100 years. I don't see a fundamental difference between a B-29 and a Reaper drone.
Re: (Score:3)
We've been killing people remotely for almost 100 years. I don't see a fundamental difference between a B-29 and a Reaper drone.
One difference I perceive is that you run no personal risk of being shot down from the Controls of the Reaper.
And look long and hard into the act of flying your B-29 in over cities, much like the one you live in yourself, before releasing the bombs in your wake... even from there, you're more connected to the idea of war being the destruction of another's humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
And look long and hard into the act of flying your B-29 in over cities, much like the one you live in yourself, before releasing the bombs in your wake
That explains why those bomber crews refused to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No...wait...they actually killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's a fundamental difference, anonymous genius?
Re: (Score:3)
But the people who make the decisions about who is going to be killed already may never set foot on the battlefield. And veterans aren't to my knowledge the major component of war protesters.
On the other hand remote combat (theoretically) removes much of the incentive for killing. If you are out on the battlefield, killing is how you guarantee your personal survival. Armies have historically dealt with non-violent acts such as desertion with on-site execution of their own men because of their own personal
Re: (Score:2)
To kill people before drones you had to send people to do it in person. That was risky, they could be killed or captured. It created political problems with sending personnel into other countries, or having bases in helicopter range, or travelling long distances on the ground in hostile territory.
Drone strikes are relatively risk free for commanders to order. The worst that is likely to happen is you kill a bunch of innocent civilians, who you then classify as a mixture of enemy combatants, supporters of te
Re:Jah booty (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's [thenewamerican.com] more [telegraph.co.uk] articles [stripes.com] on this, if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Would Africa be better of had it stayed colonized? (Score:3, Informative)
It seems like whatever moral victory was obtained in the decolonization process in the 50s and 60s was lost (and then some) in the chaos and kleptocracy that followed.
Were the British colonies horrible, apartheid-style military dictatorships or were they something perhaps paternalistic but not repressive? Were many of them evolving in terms of local autonomy or civil rights, or just staying repressive?
I guess I'm trying not to assume their past was rosy, but I wonder how many adults who remember 1950s Rhodesia look back from Mugabe's Zimbabwe and think maybe being Rhodesian wasn't so bad.
I'd have to guess that access to the UK economy would have been beneficial and that the colonial officials would have made sure the roads and electricity worked.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK and some other EU powers tried to stay on for as long as they could under their own local leaders or more direct rule.
The West was even ready to swap to military dictatorships
Re: (Score:3)
It's a curious argument, but Rome did colonize Africa. Most of North Africa was controlled by Rome and largely part of the Roman empire after the fall of Carthage and the Jugurthine war. And the Romans controlled most of the middle East, although beyond Damascus it was frequently challenged by the Parthians.
And pretty much all of those places are a train wreck now, with plenty of tribal conflicts. In fact, bribing tribal leaders to abandon loyalty to al Qaeda was one of the principal counterinsurgency st
Iraq and Afghanistan are not 'mistakes' (Score:1)
The goal is destabilization to scare off competing 'investments' and keep the Russians in a box. Mission accomplished!
Small, distributed bases make a lot of sense. A lesson I would hope was learned in Pearl Harbor. You know, *eggs in one basket*, etc. And not just for the drones, they blend in a tiny bit better... Could even make them unmanned, with automated fueling spigots and and weapons loading, operating in the dark.
When does Genesis launch?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Costs for some, profits for others. The people that profit from war do not consider it a 'mistake'. While you chatter on about politics and 'morality', they are conducting business. And right now, war is very good business, for some.
The lily pad basing model (Score:5, Informative)
Just like in another few nations in the region.
Just how very "very slick" and "efficient" can be found in the Drone Papers https://theintercept.com/drone... [theintercept.com]
The Pentagon's New Generation of Secret Military Bases (Jul. 16, 2012)
How the Pentagon is quietly transforming its overseas base empire and creating a dangerous new way of war.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol... [motherjones.com]
As for the US 'French" connection? Clinton Email Shows that Oil and Gold Were Behind Regime Change In Libya (01/09/2016)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
Will the US vision of a remote war work? For that the US needs constant signals intelligence ie people have to walk around with electronics that is "on" and been in use. Shared electronics or electronics thats just been driven around randomly could be another part of the puzzle.
Another method was to hand out tagging and tracking systems to local "freedom fighters" or US trained "moderates" to then place near people of interest. Such efforts can get used to quickly settle local issues rather than the US expected role for easy leadership decapitation.
The US is still trying to reduce flight time and get more loitering time.
Great news for the contractors and mercenaries working hours. Just like the Vietnam war base funding, pacification ideas and search and destroy zones but no complex draft politics back home.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the US vision of a remote war work?
It had better, since the Chinese are already well under way doing the same thing.
Not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except it is now a much more entrenched "national interest" to keep arms manufacturers fed massive contracts. Can't do that if you aren't using up your fancy new consumables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to be "weak on defense," there must first be an offense. There isn't one. There hasn't been any "threat" to the US that couldn't be prevented by simply not letting certain people into the country, since the WWII era.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it cheery how much more time we spend blowing things up abroad now that we have a Department of Defense, unlike our old barbaric ways when we had a Department of War?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't like this kind of stuff very much. It seems like this administration is willing to get us involved in every conflict on the globe... but not very much involved.
That is the result of the nature of the ongoing conflicts. They aren't big tank battles between the armies of two countries, they are gorilla warfare and terrorism. The Powell Doctrine isn't really applicable.
In some places all that is needed is intelligence assistance to the locals, an occasional drone strike or special forces raid. Tank brigades aren't helpful for that.
Either tamp down the problem before it takes root when Jihadis start infiltrating, or the problem may become much larger and require sub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it? Why can't we just leave them alone and not allow them inside our borders?
Who is "them"? The most recent terrorist events (San Bernadino & Paris) were done by local citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when were Colorado Springs and the Malheur reserve not terrorist events?
Re: (Score:2)
The point still stands though, how would banning all international travel have helped in the cases of San Bernadino and Paris?
Re: (Score:2)
San Bernadino would have been a one-man job if we had a sane immigration policy. No way the wife should have been allowed in the country. Not only did she broadcast her intentions on social media, she didn't even put a real address on her paperwork. Anyway, it's clear our strategy of bombing mud huts in Africa isn't actually working, wouldn't you say?
The French are screwed. But that's not something we need to consider in US foreign policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it's clear our strategy of bombing mud huts in Africa isn't actually working, wouldn't you say?
Impossible to say. Since most of our information comes from the news, which is proven to be unreliable, there are simply not enough facts to make that call.
However one thing I'm sure of, the idea of banning all international travel is a pretty dumb one. It would kill the economy overnight, and people would be starving in the streets before the month is out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a rest.
Er, that's not how discussions work sorry...
Local citizens who where new or first generation immigrants from the Middle East.
Oh so you want to retro-actively apply it? How far back do you go? The Native Americans will be pleased, you should sign up for one of their support groups.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like this kind of stuff very much. It seems like this administration is willing to get us involved in every conflict on the globe... but not very much involved. Enough to piss all the locals off, but not enough to affect the outcome of whatever is going on. I'd rather see the US adhere to the so-called "Powell Doctrine" (much older than Powell) - stay out of other peoples' business until significant national interests are really at stake. And if you have to go to war you don't do it half-assed.
The target countries specified are part of the larger war being fought against Al-Qaeda and Daesh (IS) :
Somalia
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Yemen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but not enough to affect the outcome of whatever is going on.
Rest assured it only seems that way because we don't know what their actual long-term objective is.
Call it what it is: Murder. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not much of a "war" if your opponent has no way to defend themselves much less retaliate against your attacks.
Considering we also have a problem with cruelty [theguardian.com], being able to determine when we are bombing a hospital and stopping the act [wikipedia.org], and making little kids fear the sky [thewire.com], I don't think assassination goes quite far enough to describe the US governments use of drones in combat. It's pure murder, caused by people who have gone insane with power, accountable to no one. Who will complain? The dead victims families? Who never saw the attacks coming? Who would take responsibility? A government that places no value on the lives of others during war, and places so much money into their war machine that attempting to get them to back down would require support from the entire world? No one should be able to kill like that. Not an individual, not a government, no one. The US government should be condemned and punished for their actions and the use of these things. I say that as a US Citizen, albeit as an AC, as even I would fear those drones being used on us.
Re: (Score:1)
Killing the enemy is killing, not murder. They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price.
Your lines about "people who have gone insane with power" and "accountable to no one" are bullshit.
You don't like it? Vote for someone else. I'll let you in on a secret - pretty much anyone likely to win will do the same thing. The US isn't going to let them kill American citizens and allies without paying a price.
Re: (Score:1)
Note same AC.
The above quote means you are justifying their deaths in someway. If you actually read my comment, you'd see I was referring to innocent bystanders and unintentional civilian targets. People who did NOT decide to make war on the US and it's allies, not "the enemy".
Given that, I'd like to know how you are justifying the deaths of those innocent civilians.
OK,
Killing but not necessarily okay (Score:1)
Killing the enemy is killing, not murder. They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price.
Your lines about "people who have gone insane with power" and "accountable to no one" are bullshit.
You don't like it? Vote for someone else. I'll let you in on a secret - pretty much anyone likely to win will do the same thing. The US isn't going to let them kill American citizens and allies without paying a price.
Yes and no. Killing an enemy in a time of war is by definition not murder, but is killing with legal justification. (I.e. a designated enemy in a time of war, plus usually in self-defense or defense of others if the war is legal, since almost every legal war today is couched in self-defense).
That does not necessarily mean "They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price." Because (1) the guy you're killing is almost never the one who made that decision, and
No limit to our reach (Score:1)
What? (Score:2)
It's a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war, without having to have the massive ground invasion mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Have we gone completely schizo now. I thought the narrative was it was the surge and boots on the ground that finally brought some order to those places, or are we only talking about the narrow context of defeating the traditional military forces there?
Given the great success that Libya, Yemen, Syria, and to a lessor extent Iraq and Afghanistan I am not see much in the form of experiences we want to repeat. This whole air-power only strategy does not seem to be securing the outcomes we want. I think we c
open source warfare (Score:1)
get to work! we expect many bug reports.
Re: (Score:2)
30 people die for every "terrorist" killed by a drone
Citation?
Re:Slick or sick (Score:5, Informative)
There are many articles about the poor ratio of intended targets vs. "collateral damage" or civilian deaths.
http://mic.com/articles/16949/... [mic.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/... [cnn.com]
But you know that because you can Google too.
The US now prefers killing poor people in 3rd world countries with robots. Not very brave or noble. Not very good for our standing in the world. Not good for poor people in 3rd world countries.
In fact, it isn't good for anyone but defense contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
The US now prefers killing poor people in 3rd world countries with robots. Not very brave or noble. Not very good for our standing in the world. Not good for poor people in 3rd world countries.
In fact, it isn't good for anyone but defense contractors.
It's also absolutely brilliant for Al Qaeda and friends, even more so than the defence contractors. The US achieves essentially zero through their robot assassination programs for themselves (on the off chance that they do hit something other than women, children, and old people, they're quickly and easily replaced), but creates a hugely visible motivation for recruitment into terrorist organisations to avenge the killings.
Of course then you need even more drone strikes to deal with that, so perhaps that's
Re:Slick or sick (Score:5, Insightful)
the more terrorists your drone strikes recruit, the more drones General Atomics and friends get to sell...
This is the "military–industrial complex" Eisenhower warned about in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slick or sick (Score:4, Informative)
This is the "military–industrial complex" Eisenhower warned about in action.
Not really, no. The MIC that Eisenhower warned about account for about 40% of GDP at the end of WW2. Since then it has fallen to about 4.5% of GDP. If the MIC were all powerful would it have lost that much economic power? No. The simple fact is that both the military and military spending have scaled to the need. There was huge need in WW2, after that it dropped. There have been occasional spikes, such as Viet Nam, and during the 80s, but the overall trend has been decline since the height of WW2. The end of the Cold War brought significant cutbacks as well.
The US spends twice as much for social welfare spending than it does for military spending.
The Military-Industrial Complex is mainly a boogeyman for rousing and scaring progressives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the overall trend has been decline since the height of WW2...
Not according to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
You're awarethat the US has the world's largest military budget aren't you? [pgpf.org]
You're wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the war on illiteracy
You mean the public education system? Or the many literacy programs that public libraries offer?
on mental illness, on unwanted pregnancies, on homelessness
How would a "war on mental illness" be fought? Should there be taxpayer-funded clinics for people to get lithium, etc.? As for unwanted pregnancies - ever hear of Planned Parenthood? Sex Ed could be a lot better in many US states, true, but the Feds don't have the authority to force that issue. Homelessness is tough to deal with, true, and we should be doing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the war on illiteracy, on mental illness, on unwanted pregnancies, on homelessness?
It's doing about as well as the war on drugs from what I hear.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can Google this too.
https://theintercept.com/drone... [theintercept.com]
Our government says that virtually no civilians are killed by drones, and we know from as far back as Vietnam that the military lies when it comes to casualties and deaths. If they want to make it sound like the war is going well, they boost the number of enemy killed. If they want to make the drone program sound precise, they lie about the civilian casualties. That's their business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Your second citation completely contradicts your claim-
"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.
Your first citation takes a claim from the second, that only 2% of people killed are "high value targets" and twists that into "on
Re: (Score:2)
https://theintercept.com/drone... [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The pilots would possibly be endangered. I knew someone here would complain that I used the term robot. UAVs are remote controlled robots.
In my opinion, and that of many others, killing people overseas when there is no declared war is a war crime. A very, very serious war crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The US is no longer occupying the moral high ground. We only attack countries that can't defend themselves, and then when someone tries to strike back with a terrorist attack we act shocked. Personally, I believe that the US is trying to instigate more terror attacks in order to justify our obscene military budget and aggression around the world. It's job security for the military-congressional-defense contractor complex. They should at least be honest and change the name from the "defense dept." to
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't to say I suppo
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a habit of setting bad precedents these days and that is especially true of drone assassinations. Now every country will want a drone fleet, and we have given them all the excuses they need to employ them to "kill terrorists". Of course, like us, they will be the ones who decide what a terrorist is. UK courts just decided that journalists should not be considered terrorists, indicating that we are in a world of hurt when that question even comes up.
http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com]
How can the US
Re: (Score:2)
"Slick and efficient if you don't happen to be someone who lives in the affected countries"
Yes, it's in the abstract: "It's a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war".
But wasn't war that little thing the president should announce and get approved by the Congress? When did USA declare war to Somalia and Yemen?
And killing people not at war with without due process, wasn't assassination, a crime both under USA and international laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Got us to read the whole bloody article...