The Permanent War
October 25, 2012 8:35 PM Subscribe
The Permanent War (video). "This project, based on interviews with dozens of current and former national security officials, intelligence analysts and others, examines evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies and the practice of targeted killing." Part 1: Plan for hunting terrorists signals U.S. intends to keep adding names to kill lists. Part 2: A CIA veteran transforms U.S. counterterrorism policy. Part 3: Remote U.S. base at core of secret operations.
U.N. to probe drone attacks by U.S., others resulting in civilian deaths
U.N. to probe drone attacks by U.S., others resulting in civilian deaths
President Romney Can Thank Obama for His Permanent Robotic Death List
posted by homunculus at 8:37 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 8:37 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
why is that guy whispering?!
Shhh! They might hear you!
posted by homunculus at 8:42 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
Shhh! They might hear you!
posted by homunculus at 8:42 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
Is we smartering us be? Yes! Can killing dumberers and soreheads morally now! Is good! All happy be!
posted by mwhybark at 9:11 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by mwhybark at 9:11 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
All so the kidnappering and torture!
posted by mwhybark at 9:12 PM on October 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by mwhybark at 9:12 PM on October 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
Projects with an identifiable goal and end point are bad for business. Perpetual warfare can be a real growth industry. THAT's an Economic Policy that'll revitalize America.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:20 PM on October 25, 2012
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:20 PM on October 25, 2012
Every time we high-five our President for killing Bin Laden we make this a little worse.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:27 PM on October 25, 2012 [13 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:27 PM on October 25, 2012 [13 favorites]
What problem? Bin Laden not being dead was the problem.
posted by humanfont at 9:51 PM on October 25, 2012
posted by humanfont at 9:51 PM on October 25, 2012
This is why I didn't vote Obama. When it's me, my ballot, and my pen, I just can't sign off on a fucking murderer.
You should vote for him though. Otherwise you'll get Romney's picks for the Supreme Court. I trust you. You've got just the cognitive dissonance it takes!
posted by clarknova at 10:05 PM on October 25, 2012 [9 favorites]
You should vote for him though. Otherwise you'll get Romney's picks for the Supreme Court. I trust you. You've got just the cognitive dissonance it takes!
posted by clarknova at 10:05 PM on October 25, 2012 [9 favorites]
JOE KLEIN: ... and there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government. But: the bottom line in the end is - whose 4-year-old get killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror."posted by delmoi at 10:32 PM on October 25, 2012 [2 favorites]
Counter-terrorism is still, at heart, terrorism.
posted by Three Books at 11:00 PM on October 25, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by Three Books at 11:00 PM on October 25, 2012 [3 favorites]
"“The problem with the drone is it’s like your lawn mower,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and Obama counterterrorism adviser. “You’ve got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back.”"
posted by merelyglib at 11:03 PM on October 25, 2012 [5 favorites]
posted by merelyglib at 11:03 PM on October 25, 2012 [5 favorites]
"A humanitarian is always a hypocrite."
posted by KokuRyu at 11:18 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 11:18 PM on October 25, 2012 [1 favorite]
"You’ve got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back."
That's why we should xeriscape.
Ok, that was meant as a throwaway line, but the more I think about it, the more it applies. You can't defeat terrorists by killing them. Capturing them and putting them on trial helps, but is only part of the solution.
We need to modify, redirect, or eliminate the things that cause people to become terrorists in the first place. That means eliminating funding and logistical networks, yes, but also addressing the grievances that people have, that they turn to terrorism to assault us with. These things may be non-addressable (e.g. 'We don't want Western education for women') or they may be addressable ( e.g. 'The West supports repressive regimes')
But merely killing terrorists is like cutting the heads off of weeds in the garden. It doesn't address the roots.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:56 PM on October 25, 2012 [4 favorites]
That's why we should xeriscape.
Ok, that was meant as a throwaway line, but the more I think about it, the more it applies. You can't defeat terrorists by killing them. Capturing them and putting them on trial helps, but is only part of the solution.
We need to modify, redirect, or eliminate the things that cause people to become terrorists in the first place. That means eliminating funding and logistical networks, yes, but also addressing the grievances that people have, that they turn to terrorism to assault us with. These things may be non-addressable (e.g. 'We don't want Western education for women') or they may be addressable ( e.g. 'The West supports repressive regimes')
But merely killing terrorists is like cutting the heads off of weeds in the garden. It doesn't address the roots.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:56 PM on October 25, 2012 [4 favorites]
JOE KLEIN: ... and there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government. But: the bottom line in the end is - whose 4-year-old get killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror."Four-year-olds, Dude.
posted by fullerine at 12:23 AM on October 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
Poorly Learned Lessons About Terrorism
Related to this point is the prevalent, and equally mistaken, notion that fighting terrorism involves wiping out or incapacitating some identifiable set of people: “the terrorists.” That is the idea behind the hit lists and target matrices. The Post's series depicts a U.S. counterterrorist effort that has become increasingly and narrowly focused on eliminating the people in the matrices rather than on what leads people to become terrorists and to get into the matrices in the first place. The United States, through its policies and actions, does a lot to affect which people, and how many people, become terrorists. Those actions include the drone strikes, with their collateral damage and power to enrage, that have become the preeminent means of eliminationposted by the man of twists and turns at 12:54 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Ideology creates terrorists, combat the ideology itself.
Ideally, you combat nationalist or separatist ideologies by instituting democratic processes that're harder for powerful minorities to circumvent, like proportional ranking voting system and deliberative opinion polls, but just giving their leaders some political skin in the game often works too.
Ideally, you combat religious ideologies by undermining that religion's control, meaning you financially back every author, philosopher, film maker, television producer, etc. who deals with gay, lesbian, feminist, or other sexual liberation issues in islam positively. We need at least two generations of all the best art about the islamic world exposing a transition to modern western sexual morals.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:34 AM on October 26, 2012
Ideally, you combat nationalist or separatist ideologies by instituting democratic processes that're harder for powerful minorities to circumvent, like proportional ranking voting system and deliberative opinion polls, but just giving their leaders some political skin in the game often works too.
Ideally, you combat religious ideologies by undermining that religion's control, meaning you financially back every author, philosopher, film maker, television producer, etc. who deals with gay, lesbian, feminist, or other sexual liberation issues in islam positively. We need at least two generations of all the best art about the islamic world exposing a transition to modern western sexual morals.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:34 AM on October 26, 2012
Ideally, you combat religious ideologies by undermining that religion's control, meaning you financially back every author, philosopher, film maker, television producer, etc. who deals with gay, lesbian, feminist, or other sexual liberation issues in islam positively.
I agree with what you're saying about combating ideology rather than just killing people. However, given that radical Islamists have gone after authors and filmmakers already, do you think that funding from "The West" could make things worse? If the artists are seen to be backed by elements outside their society, will it delegitimize their work as "western propaganda"? Not in the minds of the radicals, but to the more moderate elements?
posted by dubold at 2:27 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
I agree with what you're saying about combating ideology rather than just killing people. However, given that radical Islamists have gone after authors and filmmakers already, do you think that funding from "The West" could make things worse? If the artists are seen to be backed by elements outside their society, will it delegitimize their work as "western propaganda"? Not in the minds of the radicals, but to the more moderate elements?
posted by dubold at 2:27 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
"We have always been at war with Eurasia"
posted by Renoroc at 3:48 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Renoroc at 3:48 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Did the CIA's funding of Gloria Steinem or Jackson Pollock delegitimize their work? Not really. Any shortcomings are their own both then and now. Any exceptional work shines through regardless.
You cannot really recognize the exceptional work at the present moment in time of course. I doubt great works arise from individuals so much as from communities exploring themes though anyways, eventually the theme gets explored well enough that differently strong talents implement it. You know, most Liverpool bands sounded like the Beatles, but the Beatles had more talent. You avoid being propagandists precisely by funding such a broad swaths of artistic endeavors like this, i.e. no ideological micro-managment.
In the short terms, there are two practical approaches to avoiding false accusations of propaganda : (1) You avoid mentioning the Islamic world directly, but instead focus on Islamic immigrants integrating into the wests more liberal culture. (2) You fund stuff too racy for the visible public purse, like say feminist islamic porn, using secretive organizations like the CIA.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:28 AM on October 26, 2012
You cannot really recognize the exceptional work at the present moment in time of course. I doubt great works arise from individuals so much as from communities exploring themes though anyways, eventually the theme gets explored well enough that differently strong talents implement it. You know, most Liverpool bands sounded like the Beatles, but the Beatles had more talent. You avoid being propagandists precisely by funding such a broad swaths of artistic endeavors like this, i.e. no ideological micro-managment.
In the short terms, there are two practical approaches to avoiding false accusations of propaganda : (1) You avoid mentioning the Islamic world directly, but instead focus on Islamic immigrants integrating into the wests more liberal culture. (2) You fund stuff too racy for the visible public purse, like say feminist islamic porn, using secretive organizations like the CIA.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:28 AM on October 26, 2012
Here's a dirty little secret: A President Green or President Johnson would in all likelihood not be able to govern significantly different than President Obama on these issues.
The political and military structures already in place means that either one would have to expend significant energy and their currently non-existent political capital over several years (certainly more than 4, almost certainly more than 8) in rooting out people from powerful positions. Both would in all likelihood have even less support in Congress than Obama does (although former GOP member of Congress and Governor Johnson has an advantage here), because they have no meaningful national party infrastructure or representation, and therefore are far more likely to have their vetoes overridden. As far as I can tell, neither of them have any sort of ideas about Cabinet members--let alone ones with any sort of experience in the appropriate areas--and can therefore be easily steamrolled by the aforementioned people in powerful positions. Of the two, only Johnson has the history (see above) that would have given any meaningful access to national security information or connections to people that know exactly what is going on. I can't see anything that says that either one of them have a potential transition team including people with national security expertise, something Obama actually had in place before the election. I can't imagine either one of them coming out of their first major national security briefing with exactly the same convictions they had going in. And, very importantly, at the moment neither of them has the support of a significant majority (or even a plurality AFAIK) of Americans on drone strikes or similar anti-terrorism measures.
In the end, if you think that Obama is a murderer, then it's pretty much inevitable that a President Green or President Johnson would end up murderers too. Sadly, the position of President pretty much guarantees it at this point. They might have less blood on their hands by your metrics, but it would still be there. This can change, but a protest vote for a single guy at the top of the ticket won't be how it's done.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:51 AM on October 26, 2012 [8 favorites]
The political and military structures already in place means that either one would have to expend significant energy and their currently non-existent political capital over several years (certainly more than 4, almost certainly more than 8) in rooting out people from powerful positions. Both would in all likelihood have even less support in Congress than Obama does (although former GOP member of Congress and Governor Johnson has an advantage here), because they have no meaningful national party infrastructure or representation, and therefore are far more likely to have their vetoes overridden. As far as I can tell, neither of them have any sort of ideas about Cabinet members--let alone ones with any sort of experience in the appropriate areas--and can therefore be easily steamrolled by the aforementioned people in powerful positions. Of the two, only Johnson has the history (see above) that would have given any meaningful access to national security information or connections to people that know exactly what is going on. I can't see anything that says that either one of them have a potential transition team including people with national security expertise, something Obama actually had in place before the election. I can't imagine either one of them coming out of their first major national security briefing with exactly the same convictions they had going in. And, very importantly, at the moment neither of them has the support of a significant majority (or even a plurality AFAIK) of Americans on drone strikes or similar anti-terrorism measures.
In the end, if you think that Obama is a murderer, then it's pretty much inevitable that a President Green or President Johnson would end up murderers too. Sadly, the position of President pretty much guarantees it at this point. They might have less blood on their hands by your metrics, but it would still be there. This can change, but a protest vote for a single guy at the top of the ticket won't be how it's done.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:51 AM on October 26, 2012 [8 favorites]
By the way, to give you an idea of just the tip of the iceberg of what they'd be up against from a structural point of view, here's the (extremely long) list of presidential appointments requiring confirmation hearings in front of either the Senate or the full Congress. Note how many are in the areas of the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence. That doesn't even begin to get into some of the little bits and pieces in other Committees (like nuclear regulations under Energy or intelligence research under Science), and of course doesn't cover any of the many relatively powerful career positions spread throughout the government. And all of that is just for the Executive branch, which means we haven't even gotten to judicial appointments that also require Congressional approval, and who aren't beholden to the Administration.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:16 AM on October 26, 2012
posted by zombieflanders at 5:16 AM on October 26, 2012
I don't think anyone is arguing that anyone except first-term President Obama ever had a chance to change this aspect of U. S. security policy, zf. The game's over.
posted by mwhybark at 6:32 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by mwhybark at 6:32 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Bin Laden came from a rich family and received a fairly decent education. He had opportunities and privilege. The idea that economic development and education alone will stop this is not correct.
posted by humanfont at 6:39 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 6:39 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
instituting democratic processes that're harder for powerful minorities to circumvent, like proportional ranking voting system and deliberative opinion polls,
And exactly where will the US of A get the moral authority to tell other Nations to do the above?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:56 AM on October 26, 2012
And exactly where will the US of A get the moral authority to tell other Nations to do the above?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:56 AM on October 26, 2012
You cannot really recognize the exceptional work at the present moment in time of course.
That is why I have others who have a research staff make the case on the "Great Works".
STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.
OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:04 AM on October 26, 2012
That is why I have others who have a research staff make the case on the "Great Works".
STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.
OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:04 AM on October 26, 2012
I don't think anyone is arguing that anyone except first-term President Obama ever had a chance to change this aspect of U. S. security policy, zf. The game's over.
I don't think he had much of a chance to change things, either, or at least not within one term. For instance, for appointments, he had a nominally filibuster-proof Congress for all of seven months (between the seatings of Al Franken and Scott Brown), but thanks to the hawks in his own party that would not have held. NDAA 2011 passed by a veto-proof margin. He inherited most of Clinton's cabinet, many of whom were pretty much his only solid choices from a political standpoint. He definitely could have been better about it, that's a given, but the only difference would have been relatively smaller degrees of the problems, not an elimination of them.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:12 AM on October 26, 2012
I don't think he had much of a chance to change things, either, or at least not within one term. For instance, for appointments, he had a nominally filibuster-proof Congress for all of seven months (between the seatings of Al Franken and Scott Brown), but thanks to the hawks in his own party that would not have held. NDAA 2011 passed by a veto-proof margin. He inherited most of Clinton's cabinet, many of whom were pretty much his only solid choices from a political standpoint. He definitely could have been better about it, that's a given, but the only difference would have been relatively smaller degrees of the problems, not an elimination of them.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:12 AM on October 26, 2012
> Vote for that Green Party candidate for president.
> posted by wrapper at 2:18 AM on October 26 [+] [!]
In 2008 I lived in a state where one more vote for Obama couldn't possibly make any difference. I voted for him anyway, just for the pleasure of doing so and for the lifetime memory "Yeah, I voted for the United States' first Black president."
This year I live in the same state, and again one more vote for Obama won't make a bit of difference. My county (Clarke, where UGA is and a pinprick of blue in an ocean of red) will go for O and my state (GA) will go for Romney. I will be in the booth voting because of a long list of state and local candidates, but the presidential section will come up. When it does it will be my pleasure to vote for Jill Stein.
> A President Green or President Johnson would in all likelihood not be able to govern significantly
> different than President Obama on these issues.
Probably true. If there's nothing for a vote to express but a slender hope, that will have to do.
posted by jfuller at 8:56 AM on October 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
> posted by wrapper at 2:18 AM on October 26 [+] [!]
In 2008 I lived in a state where one more vote for Obama couldn't possibly make any difference. I voted for him anyway, just for the pleasure of doing so and for the lifetime memory "Yeah, I voted for the United States' first Black president."
This year I live in the same state, and again one more vote for Obama won't make a bit of difference. My county (Clarke, where UGA is and a pinprick of blue in an ocean of red) will go for O and my state (GA) will go for Romney. I will be in the booth voting because of a long list of state and local candidates, but the presidential section will come up. When it does it will be my pleasure to vote for Jill Stein.
> A President Green or President Johnson would in all likelihood not be able to govern significantly
> different than President Obama on these issues.
Probably true. If there's nothing for a vote to express but a slender hope, that will have to do.
posted by jfuller at 8:56 AM on October 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
Which is fine in a safe state, not so much in a swing state.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:15 AM on October 26, 2012
posted by zombieflanders at 9:15 AM on October 26, 2012
I agree that a single President can only do so much in a single term.
But he can set the tone. Parading around with the skull of your enemy (or just doing nothing to correct your supporters when they cheer when it's raised on a pike) sets the tone for a very dangerous future. It's hard to talk about retaining civil liberties and supporting extrajudicial murder in the same sentence.
It's like Truman campaigning on the execution of the Rosenbergs and then making a movie about it.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:34 AM on October 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
But he can set the tone. Parading around with the skull of your enemy (or just doing nothing to correct your supporters when they cheer when it's raised on a pike) sets the tone for a very dangerous future. It's hard to talk about retaining civil liberties and supporting extrajudicial murder in the same sentence.
It's like Truman campaigning on the execution of the Rosenbergs and then making a movie about it.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:34 AM on October 26, 2012 [2 favorites]
Parading around with the skull of your enemy (or just doing nothing to correct your supporters when they cheer when it's raised on a pike) sets the tone for a very dangerous future.
When has this really happened? The only times I can remember either Obama or his supporters doing anything even remotely like parading OBL's skull around are the week it happened, the convention, and during one debate. And those last two, they were essentially mentioned in passing, relatively speaking. Hell, even the week it happened there was hardly any triumphalism, certainly nothing compared to Bush and his supporters when Saddam was found and executed.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:54 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
When has this really happened? The only times I can remember either Obama or his supporters doing anything even remotely like parading OBL's skull around are the week it happened, the convention, and during one debate. And those last two, they were essentially mentioned in passing, relatively speaking. Hell, even the week it happened there was hardly any triumphalism, certainly nothing compared to Bush and his supporters when Saddam was found and executed.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:54 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
> Which is fine in a safe state, not so much in a swing state.
Understood. I have no idea what to recommend to someone in a swing state who doesn't want a Republican president and who also doesn't want to endorse permanent drone warfare and permanent kill lists. I got nothing.
posted by jfuller at 10:26 AM on October 26, 2012
Understood. I have no idea what to recommend to someone in a swing state who doesn't want a Republican president and who also doesn't want to endorse permanent drone warfare and permanent kill lists. I got nothing.
posted by jfuller at 10:26 AM on October 26, 2012
Understood. I have no idea what to recommend to someone in a swing state who doesn't want a Republican president and who also doesn't want to endorse permanent drone warfare and permanent kill lists. I got nothing.
Vote Obama now, vote for the lefty Dem or 3rd party in the primaries, work with your local and state Dems to put up more lefty candidates in those elections, rinse and repeat. It's worked for the GOP for years now, as evidenced by the state-level successes in outlawing abortion and providing a good stable of candidates for their 1994 and 2010 sweeps at the national level.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:32 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Vote Obama now, vote for the lefty Dem or 3rd party in the primaries, work with your local and state Dems to put up more lefty candidates in those elections, rinse and repeat. It's worked for the GOP for years now, as evidenced by the state-level successes in outlawing abortion and providing a good stable of candidates for their 1994 and 2010 sweeps at the national level.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:32 AM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Charles P. Pierce: There's a Reason for Civil Libertarians to Vote for Obama
posted by homunculus at 11:40 AM on October 26, 2012
posted by homunculus at 11:40 AM on October 26, 2012
A President Green or President Johnson would in all likelihood not be able to govern significantly different than President Obama on these issues.
I believe this. When I hear so many different but exceedingly complicated issues talked about in simple terms, often by people who think they know better but don't have a clue regarding the enormously critical details involved, I am reminded of something I think Glenn Greenwald quoted at one point, something about a document that a newly elected president is given to read. A super secret thing. That would probably terrify most people.
I can't even imagine. I really hope Mittens doesn't get to read it. But so many things are extra depressing these days. Or maybe I've just heard more, recently, about the evil things powerful people continually do. (And I don't mean Obama. I mean the real powers behind the throne.)
posted by Glinn at 11:45 AM on October 26, 2012
I believe this. When I hear so many different but exceedingly complicated issues talked about in simple terms, often by people who think they know better but don't have a clue regarding the enormously critical details involved, I am reminded of something I think Glenn Greenwald quoted at one point, something about a document that a newly elected president is given to read. A super secret thing. That would probably terrify most people.
I can't even imagine. I really hope Mittens doesn't get to read it. But so many things are extra depressing these days. Or maybe I've just heard more, recently, about the evil things powerful people continually do. (And I don't mean Obama. I mean the real powers behind the throne.)
posted by Glinn at 11:45 AM on October 26, 2012
*hides cigarette*
Well... the four drones involved in the strike that killed the American born cleric originated from a secret CIA base on the Arabian peninsula, as well as a US military base in Djibouti, and maybe in our world there lives a happy little tree over there, that'll be our little secret. Let's build us a happy, little cloud that floats around the sky, like the busiest predator drone facility, Camp Lemonnier. Let's put a nice little drone strike there.... there we go.... yes... how nice... and some body parts.... let's blend this little rascal some red with the good smoke here...you can use a brush or scraper... Whatever you want... It's your world... Well, the little clock on the wall says we're just about out of time. From all of us here I'd like to wish you happy targeted killing painting."
*beardy 'fro smile*
"Over opposition from the agency, he has argued that it should focus on intelligence activities and leave lethal action to its more traditional home in the military, where the law requires greater transparency."
The windup is the same. Most COIN is predicated on the sort of judo advocated by Galula: force the insurgent to be the oppressor instead of the government, make them the enemies of the people they say they're championing.
The simplest way to do this is to provoke them into it. In the current case through targeted killing and drone strikes.
Unfortunately, the Petraeus doctrine (essentially the popular COIN field manual) while drawing from sources like Galula, Nagl, etc, rests on building, or rebuilding, a political machine from the population up.
This often requires a kind of unity of purpose. Sometimes this is achieved by first making things bad enough for people to care. Sometimes there are other considerations like ideology, religion, ethnicity.
However the big enemy is political apathy. 9/10 it's the guy who cares more who wins. Even if they're greatly in the minority. Even if they're outclassed. Unity of purpose and commitment to the cause can overcome even seemingly overwhelming odds.
Here in the U.S. we're fractious. Nearly schizophrenic in governing. But most importantly, we don't really care.
Certainly some of us do, but we're not the majority.
And among those of us who do care, there again are factions.
Most of this is because the information is so diverse. And some too is ideology.
But most of is is because apathy works both ways. The less people care, the less relevant information there is to base a reasoned decision on and the more noise there is about Justin Timberlake or whomever.
And many people feel disconnected to the political process in the U.S., and all the more so are they disconnected to foreign affairs.
The pattern of comments here are similar to the comments in the video.
Some discussion of the material in nuts and bolts, but it devolves almost immediately into a political discussion.
That's not a criticism. Nor do I think it's merely because the election is so close. But it's because of that feeling of disconnect.
Which is one reason why Brennan's push is important, since greater oversight over targeted killing is absolutely crucial.
Even as the debate over the nature of warfare and the ethical discussion over targeted killing is political in nature - it's connected to the apathy (and to some degree the fractiousness and fanboyish politics) the Bush admin was counting on to move what is essentially an act of war out from under the power of Congress.
And they seem to have dropped the ball, to some degree for the reasons zombieflanders points out, but also because of the incestuous relations between the defense industry and political appointees.
In short: there's money to be made.
Drain that from defense and we'll have a more cogent, or at least publicly explainable, COIN program.
As it is, the rank and file types seem to hold with Brennan. They don't want the power, much less the responsibility, not because they're honorable and committed to the principles of a free society (although almost all the ones left are, the more despicable types emigrate to private sector intelligence where the money is) but because it's so obviously going to lead to a catastrophic political/government system failure. Such that we'd inevitably wind up with another Caesar.
And the age of that being at all useful is well over. Democracies are far better equipped to withstand terrorism and extreme ideas than autocracies. There are more and more constructive outlets for grievances and opportunities for political engagement and upward mobility ... not so much lately in the U.S., but y'know, we still have a more effective and robust system than we would be as a dictatorship.
One of the things that bugs me about the political race is the idea that a businessman would have superior governing abilities.
This couldn't be, on the whole, more wrong.
Government, most particularly the military, is about redundancy and oversight, not efficiency.
Where you have great efficiency you have less fail-safe.
Most field people like to feel like they maybe have some back up and aren't left to twist in the wind for making decisions they didn't ask to make in the first place.
And that's the sort of false deniability we have had built in to the apparatus from the political side.
F'rinstance, in the run up to the Iraq war, the Bush admin, et.al, said there was great intel from CIA, et.al, regarding WMDs, ties to al qaeda, high fructose corn syrup, cat juggling, etc. etc. After the fiasco the admin blamed the CIA for screwing up while still championing the idea that maybe there was WMDs and whatever, blah blah blah, until it devolved and got folded into the paradigm that "government" can't get it right, etc.
So how does CIA defend themselves? Well, they can't. In part because, who would believe them anyway? But also because they can't really talk about it. Like raping a whore. What options are there for redress? (Other than external to the process, and then you're immediately worse than what you're fighting).
Ultimately it's our own apathy and disengagement that leads people to become insurgents.
Certainly there are the terrorists/fanatics and those people are never going to change. But their cadre come from people who have been polarized - and for whatever reasons - the means by which they seek to achieve (whatever) ends is essentially a rhetorically sophisticated method to capture public attention.
One of the best initiatives of the Obama admin was EO 13584 (.pdf - long one, sorry) thus far most of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications stuff has been hacking. But part of it is listening and interacting, which will lead to greater understanding and hopefully adoption of policies that address some of the legitimate grievances that exist beyond simply looking to combat the fanatic rhetoric.
Hell, you can only do so much with trolls. Someone willing to 'splode, whole other ball game.
But what is important about it is that it integrates diplomacy with Special Ops. That is at least some recognition of the most successful counterterrorism tactic (talking/listening) and a game changer in terms of integration.
(Hil) Clinton is all over this. The whole "smart power" thing. Diplomacy, development, defense. What's critical there is she's on board with putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts.
We're really in flux right now. Old-style warfare is mostly a thing of the past. Hopefully it will stay there (unless we get another set of defense industry players in office) and low-intensity, highly focused, minimal collateral operations become standard.
Not that this is ideal either, but it beat the hell out of saturation bombing and burning cities to embers.
There's no way to prosecute or develop or have diplomatic relations in that kind of environment.
One could argue that with the drones what we have is a sort of slow motion bombing campaign.
But they will most likely continue to be used because they eliminate risk of raids by troops, which lowers casualties, which keeps public apathy up, since the money is hidden. Money is more fungible than troops (to misquote Rumsfeld).
And one of the sacred cows of spending (for all the talk of "cutting the budget") is defense.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:02 PM on October 26, 2012 [5 favorites]
Well... the four drones involved in the strike that killed the American born cleric originated from a secret CIA base on the Arabian peninsula, as well as a US military base in Djibouti, and maybe in our world there lives a happy little tree over there, that'll be our little secret. Let's build us a happy, little cloud that floats around the sky, like the busiest predator drone facility, Camp Lemonnier. Let's put a nice little drone strike there.... there we go.... yes... how nice... and some body parts.... let's blend this little rascal some red with the good smoke here...you can use a brush or scraper... Whatever you want... It's your world... Well, the little clock on the wall says we're just about out of time. From all of us here I'd like to wish you happy targeted killing painting."
*beardy 'fro smile*
"Over opposition from the agency, he has argued that it should focus on intelligence activities and leave lethal action to its more traditional home in the military, where the law requires greater transparency."
The windup is the same. Most COIN is predicated on the sort of judo advocated by Galula: force the insurgent to be the oppressor instead of the government, make them the enemies of the people they say they're championing.
The simplest way to do this is to provoke them into it. In the current case through targeted killing and drone strikes.
Unfortunately, the Petraeus doctrine (essentially the popular COIN field manual) while drawing from sources like Galula, Nagl, etc, rests on building, or rebuilding, a political machine from the population up.
This often requires a kind of unity of purpose. Sometimes this is achieved by first making things bad enough for people to care. Sometimes there are other considerations like ideology, religion, ethnicity.
However the big enemy is political apathy. 9/10 it's the guy who cares more who wins. Even if they're greatly in the minority. Even if they're outclassed. Unity of purpose and commitment to the cause can overcome even seemingly overwhelming odds.
Here in the U.S. we're fractious. Nearly schizophrenic in governing. But most importantly, we don't really care.
Certainly some of us do, but we're not the majority.
And among those of us who do care, there again are factions.
Most of this is because the information is so diverse. And some too is ideology.
But most of is is because apathy works both ways. The less people care, the less relevant information there is to base a reasoned decision on and the more noise there is about Justin Timberlake or whomever.
And many people feel disconnected to the political process in the U.S., and all the more so are they disconnected to foreign affairs.
The pattern of comments here are similar to the comments in the video.
Some discussion of the material in nuts and bolts, but it devolves almost immediately into a political discussion.
That's not a criticism. Nor do I think it's merely because the election is so close. But it's because of that feeling of disconnect.
Which is one reason why Brennan's push is important, since greater oversight over targeted killing is absolutely crucial.
Even as the debate over the nature of warfare and the ethical discussion over targeted killing is political in nature - it's connected to the apathy (and to some degree the fractiousness and fanboyish politics) the Bush admin was counting on to move what is essentially an act of war out from under the power of Congress.
And they seem to have dropped the ball, to some degree for the reasons zombieflanders points out, but also because of the incestuous relations between the defense industry and political appointees.
In short: there's money to be made.
Drain that from defense and we'll have a more cogent, or at least publicly explainable, COIN program.
As it is, the rank and file types seem to hold with Brennan. They don't want the power, much less the responsibility, not because they're honorable and committed to the principles of a free society (although almost all the ones left are, the more despicable types emigrate to private sector intelligence where the money is) but because it's so obviously going to lead to a catastrophic political/government system failure. Such that we'd inevitably wind up with another Caesar.
And the age of that being at all useful is well over. Democracies are far better equipped to withstand terrorism and extreme ideas than autocracies. There are more and more constructive outlets for grievances and opportunities for political engagement and upward mobility ... not so much lately in the U.S., but y'know, we still have a more effective and robust system than we would be as a dictatorship.
One of the things that bugs me about the political race is the idea that a businessman would have superior governing abilities.
This couldn't be, on the whole, more wrong.
Government, most particularly the military, is about redundancy and oversight, not efficiency.
Where you have great efficiency you have less fail-safe.
Most field people like to feel like they maybe have some back up and aren't left to twist in the wind for making decisions they didn't ask to make in the first place.
And that's the sort of false deniability we have had built in to the apparatus from the political side.
F'rinstance, in the run up to the Iraq war, the Bush admin, et.al, said there was great intel from CIA, et.al, regarding WMDs, ties to al qaeda, high fructose corn syrup, cat juggling, etc. etc. After the fiasco the admin blamed the CIA for screwing up while still championing the idea that maybe there was WMDs and whatever, blah blah blah, until it devolved and got folded into the paradigm that "government" can't get it right, etc.
So how does CIA defend themselves? Well, they can't. In part because, who would believe them anyway? But also because they can't really talk about it. Like raping a whore. What options are there for redress? (Other than external to the process, and then you're immediately worse than what you're fighting).
Ultimately it's our own apathy and disengagement that leads people to become insurgents.
Certainly there are the terrorists/fanatics and those people are never going to change. But their cadre come from people who have been polarized - and for whatever reasons - the means by which they seek to achieve (whatever) ends is essentially a rhetorically sophisticated method to capture public attention.
One of the best initiatives of the Obama admin was EO 13584 (.pdf - long one, sorry) thus far most of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications stuff has been hacking. But part of it is listening and interacting, which will lead to greater understanding and hopefully adoption of policies that address some of the legitimate grievances that exist beyond simply looking to combat the fanatic rhetoric.
Hell, you can only do so much with trolls. Someone willing to 'splode, whole other ball game.
But what is important about it is that it integrates diplomacy with Special Ops. That is at least some recognition of the most successful counterterrorism tactic (talking/listening) and a game changer in terms of integration.
(Hil) Clinton is all over this. The whole "smart power" thing. Diplomacy, development, defense. What's critical there is she's on board with putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts.
We're really in flux right now. Old-style warfare is mostly a thing of the past. Hopefully it will stay there (unless we get another set of defense industry players in office) and low-intensity, highly focused, minimal collateral operations become standard.
Not that this is ideal either, but it beat the hell out of saturation bombing and burning cities to embers.
There's no way to prosecute or develop or have diplomatic relations in that kind of environment.
One could argue that with the drones what we have is a sort of slow motion bombing campaign.
But they will most likely continue to be used because they eliminate risk of raids by troops, which lowers casualties, which keeps public apathy up, since the money is hidden. Money is more fungible than troops (to misquote Rumsfeld).
And one of the sacred cows of spending (for all the talk of "cutting the budget") is defense.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:02 PM on October 26, 2012 [5 favorites]
The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 which was during Ike's first term.
posted by humanfont at 3:57 PM on October 26, 2012
posted by humanfont at 3:57 PM on October 26, 2012
STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened
Warrantless Eavesdropping Before Supreme Court
posted by homunculus at 4:06 PM on October 26, 2012
Warrantless Eavesdropping Before Supreme Court
posted by homunculus at 4:06 PM on October 26, 2012
U.N. Investigator To Probe Legality Of U.S. Drone War
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:08 PM on October 26, 2012
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:08 PM on October 26, 2012
the Petraeus doctrine (essentially the popular COIN field manual) while drawing from sources like Galula
Previously, btw.
posted by homunculus at 4:37 PM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
Previously, btw.
posted by homunculus at 4:37 PM on October 26, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Yemen Model: Drones And Permanent War
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:20 AM on October 27, 2012
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:20 AM on October 27, 2012
U.S. Expands Secretive Drone Base for African Shadow War
posted by homunculus at 9:35 AM on October 27, 2012
posted by homunculus at 9:35 AM on October 27, 2012
Watch a Robotic Navy Boat Shoot Missiles for the First Time Ever
posted by homunculus at 9:35 AM on October 27, 2012
posted by homunculus at 9:35 AM on October 27, 2012
Imran Khan detained and 'interrogated over drone views' by US immigration
posted by homunculus at 9:41 AM on October 27, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 9:41 AM on October 27, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Coming Drone Invasion - 'This short documentary gives an overview of the state of drone technology (short version: further along than you might think) and how its use on civilians is about to explode. Commercial use of drones becomes legal in the US in September 2015. “Copdrones” are one of the targeted uses.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:19 AM on October 28, 2012
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:19 AM on October 28, 2012
Pakastani Politician Imran Khan detained by US over opposition to drone strikes
posted by jeffburdges at 1:37 AM on October 29, 2012
posted by jeffburdges at 1:37 AM on October 29, 2012
Pakastani Politician Imran Khan detained by US over opposition to drone strikes
Detained in the U.S.: Filmmaker Laura Poitras Held, Questioned Some 40 Times at U.S. Airports
posted by homunculus at 9:29 AM on October 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
Last April, I reported on the serial harassment of Laura Poitras, the Oscar-nominated documentarian who produced two films - one from Iraq and the other from Yemen - that showed the views and perspectives of America's adversaries in those countries. For four years, she was detained every single time she reentered the US, often having her reporters' notebook and laptop copied and even seized. Although this all stopped once that article was published - demonstrating that there was never any legitimate purpose to it - that intimidation campaign against her imposed real limits on her work.Laura Poitras was also on Democracy Now with Jacob Appelbaum back then:
Detained in the U.S.: Filmmaker Laura Poitras Held, Questioned Some 40 Times at U.S. Airports
posted by homunculus at 9:29 AM on October 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
Most U.S. Drones Openly Broadcast Secret Video Feeds
posted by homunculus at 7:13 PM on October 30, 2012
posted by homunculus at 7:13 PM on October 30, 2012
SkyGrabber: the $26 software used by insurgents to hack into US drones
Because that signal was unencrypted, anyone who tuned their satellite dish to the correct frequency and location in the sky could pick up the signal, and decode it. And because any satellite downlink signal spreads a little, the area where it can be picked up is potentially huge.
You don't have to keep an online internet connection. Just customize your digital satellite TV tuner card (DVB-S/DVB-S2) to satellite provider and start accepting free to air data.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:42 PM on October 30, 2012
Because that signal was unencrypted, anyone who tuned their satellite dish to the correct frequency and location in the sky could pick up the signal, and decode it. And because any satellite downlink signal spreads a little, the area where it can be picked up is potentially huge.
You don't have to keep an online internet connection. Just customize your digital satellite TV tuner card (DVB-S/DVB-S2) to satellite provider and start accepting free to air data.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:42 PM on October 30, 2012
How US Drone Assassinations all Began.
posted by adamvasco at 5:05 PM on November 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by adamvasco at 5:05 PM on November 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
The Permanent Militarization of America
posted by homunculus at 11:49 AM on November 5, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 11:49 AM on November 5, 2012 [1 favorite]
4 More Drones! Robot Attacks Are on Deck for Obama’s Next Term
posted by homunculus at 12:35 AM on November 8, 2012
posted by homunculus at 12:35 AM on November 8, 2012
'A Period of Persistent Conflict': Why the United States will never have another peacetime president.
posted by homunculus at 12:37 AM on November 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:37 AM on November 8, 2012 [1 favorite]
Military Stats Reveal Epicenter of U.S. Drone War
posted by homunculus at 12:37 PM on November 9, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:37 PM on November 9, 2012 [1 favorite]
Droning On: MIT Fights The Boredom Of Piloting Robot Spy Planes
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:48 AM on November 16, 2012
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:48 AM on November 16, 2012
What High School Taught Millennials About the War on Terrorism: The threat can be eliminated, the Patriot Act was uncontroversial, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
posted by homunculus at 11:53 AM on November 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 11:53 AM on November 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
Silent but Deadly: How the State Department tried and failed to force Obama’s drone program into the open.
posted by homunculus at 8:19 PM on November 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 8:19 PM on November 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
Killer Robots: HRW and Nobel Laureate Jody Williams Urge Ban on Modern Warfare’s Next Frontier
Losing HumanityThe Case against Killer Robots
posted by homunculus at 9:49 AM on November 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Losing HumanityThe Case against Killer Robots
posted by homunculus at 9:49 AM on November 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Leon Panetta Has A Few More Drone Wars Ready To Go: Nigeria, Mali, Libya
Forget Drones, Beware Of Killer Robots: autonomous weapons systems like Phalanx and Iron Done.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:43 AM on November 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Forget Drones, Beware Of Killer Robots: autonomous weapons systems like Phalanx and Iron Done.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:43 AM on November 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety and Privacy Concerns
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:06 AM on November 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:06 AM on November 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Pentagon Wants to Keep Running Its Afghan Drug War From Blackwater’s HQ
posted by homunculus at 10:05 AM on November 25, 2012
posted by homunculus at 10:05 AM on November 25, 2012
« Older Bluesman Tommy Johnson gets some respect | "When the lights go out for good, my people will... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by slater at 8:37 PM on October 25, 2012