Democrats prefer killing Afghans to admitting Republicans had a good idea
Jul 17th, 2009 | By Wil Robinson | Read more in: Feature, InternationalThe stupidity and arrogance of our government has never ceased to amaze me, but the latest dust-up over secret CIA plans to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders is truly Orwellian.
Apparently, long ago, in an administration far, far away, some Bush adviser actually had a brain. Imagine this: instead of dropping bombs from unmanned drones on remote villages, blindly hoping a terrorist was around at the time, the CIA actually decided to try and find the terrorists and kill them “up close.”
Call them hit squads, assassination teams, or “targeted clean-up crews.” Call them whatever you want. The idea was to – brace yourself, because this is a novel concept – avoid civilian casualties as we fight the enemy.
“The goal was to assemble teams of CIA and special-operations forces and put bullets in [the al Qaeda leaders'] heads,” one former intelligence official said.
So what did Democratically-appointed CIA Director Leon Panetta do when he found out about this secret program to kill only terrorists?
He shut it down.
Better yet, the Obama administration re-emphasized the missiles-from-unmanned-drones idea that had worked so well for the last 8 years. Because, you know, we’ve made so many friends with all those attacks on villages, mothers, children, farmers, grandparents, and poor people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But the cherry on the top of the whole debacle is the Democrats’ outrage at being kept in the dark about this “secret” CIA plot. (Oh, the horrors – another Bush Administration secret that violated the Constitution!) Because rendition, torture, faux-Saddam & 9/11 links, and lies about WMDs wasn’t enough. Nope, now we’ve really got Bush doing something wrong – he was trying not to kill innocent Muslims…
So the indiscriminate bombing campaigns from unmanned drones gets a boost (as it has since Obama took office). More than 40 strikes just this year in Pakistan – a “sovereign” country – (all of which have been denied by the Pentagon). Hundreds of innocent civilians murdered. Thousands of potential “friends” turned into Taliban.
So what are Democrats really angry about? Because it’s obviously not the moral outrage at taking innocent human lives. It’s not the self-defeating Bush Administration policies that created more enemies than dead terrorists. It’s not the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis, nor the thousands of dead American soldiers.
Democrats are angry because they were left out of the party. They’re mad because the Republicans did things without consulting them first. In fact, it’s not anger at all. It’s petty vengeance.
If you ever needed a perfect example of dismissing good ideas because they came from the “wrong people,” this is it.
No one gives a shit if the CIA hit squads would have worked better. No one cares if they would have avoided collateral damage. No one minds that the alternative is a failed policy that creates innocent victims, widows and orphans.
![[...do the math. Just in Afghanistan, U.S.-led airstrikes killed 555 civilians (of those reported). Compare that to the 730 killed by Taliban suicide bombings...]](http://www.internationalpoliticalwill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/drone-deaths.jpg)
[...do the math. Just in Afghanistan, U.S.-led airstrikes killed 555 civilians in 2008 (of those reported). Compare that to the 730 killed by Taliban suicide bombings...]
All the idiot Democrats care about is that the idea came from Bush. From Republicans. From Neo-Conservatives. And we all know that they can’t have any good ideas.
Can we, for once, have leaders who think with their head and not with their campaign coffers? Is there a reason why politicians in Washington can’t move beyond partisanship and simply make an intelligent decision based on logic? Are we really going to sit here and feign outrage at the audacity of the Bush Administration while we actually increase indiscriminate murder of civilians who happen to be non-white or non-Christian?
A lawyer at American University who has researched “targeted assassinations” summed up why, in the end, the U.S. government chooses missiles over guns.
In legal terms, [the lawyer] said, there is no real difference between killing a terrorist with a missile or with a handgun. “In political terms…there’s a real difference. The missile feels more like regular warfare, even if it’s carried out by the C.I.A.”
So in legalese, it really doesn’t make a difference how we kill terrorists. We just like missiles that also kill innocent civilians because it eases our conscience.
Take a second and re-read that last sentence:
We just like missiles that also kill innocent civilians because it eases our conscience.
I’ll put that one right up there with “Ignorance is Strength.”
Wil RobinsonAWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
Thanks Wil. And I agree with everything you said about what we’re doing in Afghanistan. It’s wrong on so many levels, and it pisses me off to no end that our supposed “progressive” Dems are all behind it. At least very few are daring to speak up against it. It’s like the Iraq adventure all over again.
The only quibble I have is that I’m not yet convinced that we’ve heard the whole story about this program that Panetta ended. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me that if it were a simple assassination plot against al Qaeda leaders that wasn’t even fully functional, that (a) it woulda been kept from the new CIA director and (b) that he woulda immediately shut it down upon hearing of it. I think there’s more to the story.
[Reply]
Wil Robinson
Reply:
July 14th, 20092009-07-14T04:30:03ZF jS, Y at 12:30 am2009-07-14T04:30:03Zg:i a
It may be there is more to it – but in which case, the focus should be on “why wasn’t this program instigated on a level that was feasible to avoid 8 years of indiscriminate bombings…” – instead, the focus is on “we were lied to again.” Big surprise.
[Reply]
TAILBACK24
Reply:
July 15th, 20092009-07-15T13:15:09ZF jS, Y at 9:15 am2009-07-15T13:15:09Zg:i a
Will-That is exactly my question. The article praised the basic premise behind the program which was to avoid civilian casualties. My question is: Why wasn’t this great and noble plan implemented? This reeks of hypocrisy! This is the same administration that have been responsible for the death of over 3,400 American lives in Iraq-a war based on deceit and forgeries. Now they expect us to believe they gave a shit about collateral damage in Afghanistan and Pakistan-not buying it. I, too, believe there is much more to this story and anything that involves Cheney: I reserve the right to be skeptical.
[Reply]
thanks for venting, giving it good thought does life really need to be that way:kill or be killed?
[Reply]
Wil Robinson
Reply:
July 15th, 20092009-07-15T05:57:02ZF jS, Y at 1:57 am2009-07-15T05:57:02Zg:i a
It doesn’t have to be…but often those in power make it that way.
Thanks for stopping by.
[Reply]
Old Injun’s take, for what it’s worth. 2-cents would be grossly overpricing what’s on offer from him.
The ‘plan’ wasn’t new OR unique; what WAS was the Dumbya folks trying to hide it so they could ‘expand’ the scope. One of the REAL problems is that we’ve always been as bad as the British on foreign matters involving less powerful peoples. The Brits were great at the practice of arbitrarily assigning lands & borders without any thought as to the occupants, usually just prior to leaving a territory to govern itself as the newly minted countries.
Our weak point is our penchant for backing the less than reliable resistance groups in countries undergoing turmoil & change at the point of a rifle. We have few to blame for the present conditions in Afghanistan other than our overzealous leaders of every political stripe. Having been personally involved in execution (and often attempted correction) of those policies, the best example of this is likely Afghanistan. We pulled out all the stops as directed by the politicians in charge at the time and armed & trained the Mujahadeen against the Russians who were propping up the Afghan government, which was an acceptable excuse. And, may I add, AGAINST the advice and over the loud protestations of myself & most of my career (non-political) colleagues The real issues involved went, and still go far deeper.
After the Russians declared failure & quit, we buttressed our M-E presence to counter other ‘threats’. This angered many who originated there and saw us meddling there as they saw us as akin to the Russians in Afghanistan. These Afghan resistance fighters from the M-E saw backing the Taliban movement as a way to provide a safe haven for themselves. When their real goals were accomplished with the ascent of Al Quaeda, we finally realized, too late, the long-term consequences of our actions.
For any not convinced, reflect on: Shah in Iran followed by us backing Saddam in Iraq vs Iran; Vietnam, etc. In addition to every glaring example there exist numerous smaller examples on nearly every continent. We’re not only slow to learn, but quick to forget lessons learned the hard way by previous generations. We also tend to dismiss many voices of experience in favor of the ’sound bite’ of today’s version of Yellow Journalism etc of the past. Old Indian Fellah can attest to the results of failure to distrust the loudest voices and biggest armies. What they proclaim as their goals seldom are. There’s ALWAYS the ‘implied’ results they expect.
As for the ones who do the training on armaments, quietly render aid, and generally assist the ‘favored’ cause of the current Administration or any previous one, the realities are often worse than the rumors. But under ALL Administrations prior to Dumbya, the folks doing the messy parts were almost all highly ethical, moral, fair, cautious, and pragmatic professionals who refused to do illegal, immoral, or unethical things or to even tolerate them. One of the saddest thing I’ve seen in my years on earth has been the exodus by early retirement, quitting(even after working almost enough time to retire), or plain agenda driven (personal, financial, power-grabbing, or even political) dismissal of those with the guts to refuse to the bidding of the corrupt (morally, ethically, legally, etc) ones in power.
Old Injun go back to watching Tour de France on machine that grabs pictures from the air:)
[Reply]
new illuminati
Reply:
July 17th, 20092009-07-18T02:31:25ZF jS, Y at 10:31 pm2009-07-18T02:31:25Zg:i a
Thanks for that, old injun – but despite the (apparent) ethical heights attained by intelligence before dubya, this is still just more of the same old Amerikan arrogance that’s ALWAYS been in evidence. Previous engagements around the world (including central & south america) could hardly be viewed as ethical or moral.
Time to step back and take your hands off the reins, folks.
[Reply]
Great article – only slightly ruined by its partisan nature. Living on the other side of the planet the differences & similarities between elephants and donkeys pale into insignificance before the Amerikan use of force to maintain the wealth and power of corporation heads and profiteers.
Remind me again – why are you (and we in Oz) in Afghanistan again?
The reason certainly isn’t finding Al Q’aeda or Osama (what a laugh!), or stopping the production of opium and smack. It isn’t to free Afghani women or minorities from the yoke of the crazy fundamentalists.
Why are we there again?
Money. Oil pipeline routes. Drug pipeline routes. The Great Game’.
Time for the US to become a partner or world democracies, rather than an inept and evil leader. The petty party games hardly matter in light of the destruction of the ecosystem and world peace.
See http://newilluminati.blog-city.com
[Reply]
Wil Robinson
Reply:
July 18th, 20092009-07-18T11:43:14ZF jS, Y at 7:43 am2009-07-18T11:43:14Zg:i a
Funny that I’m being accused of being partisan (I assume you mean I’m pro-Republican?) and that my view is biased because I’m not on the ‘other side’ of the planet.
Because the entire point of the post was that parties don’t matter to real Afghans, and given that I base much of what I say on personal experience in Afghanistan and living in India, I would’ve thought I was actually being “non-partisan.”
[Reply]
New Illuminati; Ethics as seen by most in power means doing what THEY deem ethical. As a ‘Cog in the Machine’, whether President of USA, Senator, Agency Head, or lowest grade gov’t worker, never forget that you ARE only a ‘cog’ and subject to the whims and wishes of others, be it for good or evil. The only true power is that which is held by a collection of citizens unafraid to act despite the cost. This is true of every society, whether a Democracy, Dictatorship, Theocracy, Monarchy etc. Even the Armies supporting a ruthless dictator are composed of ordinary citizens and subject to collective actions.
In order for any organization to act with ethics & morality the rank and file support (or apathy) must be in place. Never mistake ‘apparent ethics’ for the genuine article. Sadly, we’re saddled with the shortcomings AND best qualities of the humans occupying the earth, each of which is a ‘nation unto itself’ on a small scale. Therefore, the most we can realistically strive for AND be able to achieve is a consensus of what is best for most and implement the same.
Man is by nature arrogant as it’s a survival technique as ingrained as the need to reproduce. Arrogance tempered by compassion, intellect, and fairness is a large component of leadership. Arrogance without these traits as a minimum guiding factor will lead to disruption of the social order. This can be from simple neighborhood disputes to all-out warfare. The key is to fight the battles with at least a chance of success, avoid engaging in lost causes, and working from within to change society in a positive way. I dread to think of the havoc any ‘intelligence’, police, military, or other powerful entity would cause if not comprised mainly of folks with the temperament necessary to rein in the excesses of those lacking in ‘basic humanity’. As evil and unpalatable as the image of such organizations can be, they ARE necessary to keep society safe from those who would use power without the restrictions imposed by conscience.
When an apathetic and ill-informed citizenry allows corruption to rise to the upper echelons of any society and gives them free reign over all aspects of the society, the result is often war, poverty, imperialism, and many other detrimental consequences. Without citizen oversight, involvement, and control, no society can long resist falling victim to the worst of human nature inflicted by those who would attain power and instill corruption. In the final analysis we’re ALL responsible for shaping society and EVERY human entity is, at its core, still comprised of individual human ‘cogs’ with the power to act or ignore how they live.
[Reply]
Wil….just reread to make sure I read correctly. You’re right that ‘parties’ as we in the west think of them don’t matter there. What I’ve experienced there is that the ordinary people are more subject to the whims, wishes, and goals of intervening entities than in a great deal of the world. The lack of an effective Afghan government, lust for power & wealth by other strong groups such as war-lords(name says a lot), Taliban, etc, and outside parties wanting their goals met allows ‘he with the mightiest armies’ to compete for control regardless of the wants, needs, and wishes of those who reside there. Unless there’s a way to disarm the various independent power groups, sheiks, war-lords, remove outside armed forces, and enable the Afghans the freedom and power to govern themselves however they decide to run their country, peace there will remain an elusive continuation of a centuries old quest. There have been bright spots in the country’s history, but like much else there, it was but a footnote in a long history of struggle by Afghans for fair governance in a challenging environment where survival is a struggle with nature.
[Reply]
Wil Robinson
Reply:
July 22nd, 20092009-07-22T08:35:27ZF jS, Y at 4:35 am2009-07-22T08:35:27Zg:i a
Mike–
You’re right, of course, that the region has been the playground of world powers for longer than most of us have been alive (depending on how far back you want to take the Great Game), and that we have added to the mess over the last 30 years. Reap what you sow – that kind of thing.
And yes, my main point is that Afghans don’t care who is in the White House (although they are happy about Obama, mostly from the Muslim/non-white perspective).
I once had an interesting conversation with my translator in Kabul. We got to talking about 9/11, and he said that 3 million Americans had died. I politely told him it was only about 3,000. He insisted – no, it was 3 million. Once I convinced him that it was only a few thousand, he just looked at me with a gaping mouth – stunned. I realized what he never said to me directly – he didn’t understand why his country was made to suffer for the last 8 years because of only 3,000 people.
Information, when it makes it to ordinary Afghans, is often diluted, altered, or flat wrong. That’s why dropping bombs has such a huge impact on them – it’s the one message that can’t be misinterpreted. It’s the one form of communication between them and us that is direct, unfiltered, un-propagandized. It’s not “accidental” casualties. It just IS.
How you win an insurgency with those kind of tactics – ones that directly cause innocent lives to be lost – I don’t know.
[Reply]