AL QAEDA _ and it’s ‘affiliations’

An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2012 (map)

PREAMBLE
On 30th January 2012 the social network Google+ and its ‘affiliate’ Youtube carried out “the first-ever completely virtual interview from the White House” with US President Barack Obama _
In what many viewers have since described as “not much more than a publicity stunt” the man who promised in his 2008 election victory speech to ‘always be honest with you… listen to you when we disagree‘ answered questions from the public and a panel of six US citizens who were there specifically ‘to ask further questions based upon the President’s answers’ _
Sadly the only elements of the 50 minute interview worthy of note neither reflect well upon the White House or indeed on Google’s obvious manipulation of the questions and the panelists_ whose responses were clearly cut short if they didn’t immediately appear to be supportive of US policy_ either foreign or domestic _
The details of such matters must however be the provender of another article elsewhere_ the focus of this post is upon one question which was asked by a ‘man in the street’ called Evan_ and_ more specifically_ upon the answer that Obama gave him (indirectly) _

Evan’s question
“Mr President since you took office you ordered more drone attacks in your first year than your <unclear> (possibly ‘predeceesor’) did in his entire term These drone attacks caused a lot of civilian casualties _  I am curious to know how you think they help the nation and whether you think they are worth it“

Your Interview with the President – 2012 
(reference to Evan’s question from 26.30min and onwards)

GENERAL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA’S RESPONSE
Whilst the President’s response could not be accurately defined as ‘deceptive’_ there was a definite air of ‘shadiness’ about it _  Obama looked away from the camera several times and even contradicted himself as he fumbled defensively through an answer that jumped from one incomplete point to the next _   It was_ without doubt_ his most evasive answer during the entire interview _
For the sake of brevity his ‘ramblings’ are not written here verbatim_ though all of the following quotes were a part of them _

“drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties_ for the most part they have been precison strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates“

“we are very careful in terms of how it (the use of drones) has been applied“

“a targetted_ focussed effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists who are trying to go in and harm Americans _ hit American facilities and American bases and so on“

“it’s important for everyone to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash“

“it’s not a bunch of folks in a room somewhere just making decisions _ it is part and parcel of our overall authority when it comes to battling Al Qaeda _ it is not something that is being used beyond that“

These quotes from Obama’s response are themselves worthy of several separate articles _
At the very least there should be a concerted inquiry into WHO EXACTLY is “very careful” in terms of just how this “tightly leashed” “targetted focussed effort” is applied_ because if it’s NOT ‘a bunch of folks sitting in a room somewhere’ making the decisions to use attack drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan_ then just who is it ?!?

"a bunch of folks in a room somewhere" _ making the decision NOT to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice

As to the President’s assertion that civilian casualties from drone strikes are not ‘huge’ _ that largely depends upon anyone’s defintion of that particular qualification _  Certainly they are not ‘huge’ if they are compared to the civilian body count from the Iraq war_ assessed by various agencies to be anywhere between 103,000 to more than a million
Casualties of the Iraq War

But whether ‘huge’ or not_ there is no denying that ‘death by drone’ is a measurable portion of civilian deaths (aka ‘collateral damage’) in Afghanistan_ which_ after all_ number in thousands ‘only’ (sic)
Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Meanwhile_ whilst the CIA asserts that drone attacks inside Pakistan have killed 600 militants and no civilian casualties at all_ a claim described as ‘patently absurd’ by pretty much everyone else who has any real knowledge of these matters_ Daniel L. Byman from the Brookings Institute suggests that drone strikes probably kill “10 or so civilians” for every militant killed _
Even if this ratio was only half the amount that Byman postulates_  there is a convincing argument that the term ‘huge’ IS a valid description of them_ and_ equally convincingly_ that Obama is  ‘wrong’ when he says otherwise _
Drone attacks in Pakistan

Statistics aside_ the fact that more than 160 children have been killed by drones in Pakistan is not just ‘data’ that can be measured or disputed in terms of quantative evaluations _
By any standard the US President might choose_ these tragic deaths ARE HUGE!  Claims to the contrary or assertions about ‘precision strikes’ are both ignorant of the destruction and misery inflicted upon the innocent and obscene in the level of their callousness_ and wherever his  ‘expertise’ on such matters comes from_ it is certainly NOT based on personal experience!

a record of 'military expertise' that speaks for itself

AL QAEDA AND ITS ‘AFFILIATES’
The term ‘terrorist’ has many variations_ the use of these usually says MUCH more about the political position of the ‘describer’ than it does about the ‘militants’ they are describing _
Take for example the BBC_ once globally renowned for their impartiality_ who these days betray their pro-Zionist leanings and indeed their own geo-political ignorance_ by using the word ‘Islamist’ to define a group comprised of all kinds of people that Western ‘authority’ disapproves of_ regardless of whether those so described support the use of political violence or not _   the intention is clear_ to create in the gullible minds of the media-driven social ‘mainstream’ a deepset belief that everything ‘Islamist’ is violent and anti-Western_ to be avoided if not shunned by BBC viewers _

In his own answer_ during his public interview_ Obama states that ‘terrorists’ “are trying to go in and harm Americans _ hit American facilities and American bases and so on” _  Thus stated_ and based upon the President’s definition_ ‘terrorists’ should be more accurately defined as ‘enemy combatants’ _  Indeed statistics show us that ‘suicide bombers’ in Afghanistan are indeed responding to US aggression in the form of drone attacks _

and this argument is further substantiated by the FBI definition of ‘terrorism’ _
“Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)”
FBI defines terrorism

Here the operative word is ‘unlawful’ _ for who would describe the hostile actions of an enemy as ‘lawful’?  Indeed the question must arise_ just how ‘lawful’ could it ever be_ to rain down lethal explosive devices onto the territory of another sovereign nation?
Whether or not there was some kind of ‘entente cordiale’ between the United States and Pakistan over the ‘War on Terror’_ nevertheless there have been a large number of violent incidents in Pakistan wherein Pakistani authorities have afterward either vehemently protested or claimed that they had no warning of_ and if the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011 weren’t ‘pre-meditated’ then logically the ‘accidental’ massacre that occurred in the Mohmand province was not carried out with any kind of ‘mutual consent’ with Pakistani authorities _
23 Jan 2012  _ Pakistani military accuses US of intentionally killing troops in Mohmand

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ???
Whilst ‘agreement’ concerning the use of drone attacks in the ‘War on Terror’ might have been made between their respective governments_ it is continually and consistently obvious that THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN DO NOT AGREE that these ‘acts of violence’ carried out by the US are lawful _
According to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in  July 2011_ only 17% of Pakistanis have a positive view of the US and only 11% see it as a useful partner in the ‘War on Terror’ _ and whilst those figures may reflect the ‘uneducated’ view of the ‘man in the street’_ 67% of Pakistani journalists who might have more ‘inside knowledge’ of such matters_ still describe US drone attacks as ‘acts of terrorism’

June 2011 _ 19 Pakistani villagers massacred in a drone attack

CONCLUSIONS
In his election victory speech in 2008 Barack Obama had a message supposedly for those beyond the shores of the United States_ wherein he promised to show that
“the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope _ For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow“
Within those ‘fine words’ it is clearly apparent that whilst Obama appeared to be addressing ALL those around the globe who were awaiting the news of his victory that night_ he was actually speaking to his American audience_ not to the rest of the world_ in much the same way as during the ‘first-ever completely virtual interview from the White House’ on 30th January_ wherein he argued that civilian casualties from drone-attacks are “not huge”

Regretfully Barack Obama’s own actions in the last three years have made a complete mockery of such empty assertions_ when he spoke those words in 2008 and when he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize ‘for his potential to do good’ and yet again_ now in 2012 _
Indeed the ONLY aspect of United States foreign policy that has actually changed in the last 30 years is its ‘theatre of operations’ _ from Latin America to the Middle East _
In all other respects_ and despite Obama’s hollow assurances_ the US still continues to push its ‘might’ around the world_ whether by using its undemocratic veto at the United Nations or by using ‘force of arms’ against the untold hundreds of thousands of ‘foreign’ victims that have been displaced or injured or slain_ because they just happened to be ‘in harm’s way’ _