Obama Drones On. Bush Doesn't

 

 

Writing in the Guardian newspaper Mehdi argues that far from being a peace loving type of American President, deserving of a Nobel Prize, Barack Obama is a cold blooded hawk who has dramatically escalated covert CIA drone attacks inside Pakistan. This has led to a wave of anti Americanism in Pakistan, acted as a recruiting tool for the Taliban, and killed hundreds of innocent men women and children.

Medhi doesn't make the following point - but I would argue that if the above is correct, then Mr Obama has got away with this as far as most of the Western media is concerned for one reason. His name is Barack, not George

The current President authorized more drone strikes inside Pakistan in his first 9 months in office than George Bush did in his final 3 years in the White House. The 'Not Called George' argument also applies to why President Obama has avoided the heat for going after Julian Assange.

If Bush had authorized the scale of attacks inside Pakistan the statistics would be better known. America bombs Pakistan on average every three days. Estimates of how many civilians are killed for each militant taken out vary from four civilians for each insurgent to up to 50 civilians per insurgent. I'm unsure of these stats but do know that in many instances it is only insurgents who are killed.

Before resuming normal service and completely disagreeing with Mehdi it's worth repeating one of his paragraphs

'Speaking at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in May, Barack Obama spotted teen pop band the Jonas Brothers in the audience. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but, boys, don't get any ideas," deadpanned the president, referring to his daughters. "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming." The crowd laughed, Obama smiled, the dinner continued. Few questioned the wisdom of making such a tasteless joke; of the US commander-in-chief showing such casual disregard for the countless lives lost abroad through US drone attacks.'

Agreed - it ill behoves a leader to make light of loss of life and it is telling the President's tasteless joke impacts on poor people thousands of miles away. But now we part company.

Medhi argues the drone strikes are 'illegal and self defeating' He's probably right on the legality issue, the last time I looked America was not at war with Pakistan and Pakistan remained a sovereign nation with borders which should not be violated. On the second point I'm less sure. The drone strikes are having a huge effect on the ability of the Taliban to mount attacks against both the Pakistan state and across the border in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Queda are constantly kept on the move, and I' m convinced many terror plots aimed at the West have been disrupted.

It's true that the bombing ensures little popular support for the USA in Pakistan, but I don't believe there is much overt support to be had anyway. The Pakistani population appears to dislike the Taliban, the Americans, and their own government, in equal measures.

Medhi also quotes Faisal Shahzad who appears to draw a moral equivalence with drone attacks and terrorism. The would be Times Square bomber, asked how he could justify planting bombs near innocent people replied that the US strikes "don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody."

I take the point about the 'Play Station War' aspect of the drone policy, but fundamentally disagree that there is a moral equivalence. The drone strikes are targeting known insurgents. The Americans attempt to hit them whilst causing minimum civilian casualties. You could argue that there is no difference in so far as they do not always succeed in that aim, but I can't see how trying to kill a combatant, and avoid civilians, is the same as setting out to deliberately place a bomb in a crowded civilian area in order to kill as many children as possible.

o