“I'm
really frustrated right now because I think we blew it,” said
retired Air Force General Charles Wald, exhibiting perfect 20/20 hindsight. If you read far enough into the article, you find that
Ms. Huddleston gave three reasons for blocking the proposed air
strike: (1) Belmokhtar had never attacked Americans; (2) ten years
ago, he was considered only a “minor figure;” and (3) it was
“unclear” whether he was actually in the proposed target
area. I'm not a terrorism expert, but those sound like three very good reasons not to bomb somebody. The article, however, presents this
as a huge blunder by Ms. Huddleston.
The
first thing to note about this article is that it is unlikely to have
resulted from an independent investigation by the Post
reporter. It is there because
somebody leaked it. The Pentagon is proposing to expand American
strikes into Africa by unmanned aircraft (drones). The article
implies that our only mistake is not doing targeted assassinations of
Africans soon enough. This story is a public relations triumph for
the Pentagon under any circumstances, but it appears in the context
of several recent developments related to American military policy.
- A memo giving a “legal defense” of the American policy of assassinating U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism has been leaked to NBC reporter Michael Isikoff. The defense can be charitably described as inadequate, and raises more questions than it answers. Here is Rachel Maddow interviewing Isikoff. It is well worth watching.
- President Obama has claimed the right to unilaterally engage in acts of cyberwarfare (computer sabotage) against American enemies, including the right to carry out preemptive cyberstrikes.
- The Senate will hold a confirmation hearing Thursday on the President's appointment of John Brennan to head the CIA. Brennan is strongly identified with support for drone strikes against enemy targets. He will almost certainly be questioned about the policy—but probably not very aggressively.
This
Just In . . .
The British government has just awarded a $31 million contract to Prox
Dynamics of Norway for development of a nano-drone,
to be used for surveillance in Afghanistan. The miniature helicopter
is four inches long and weighs 16 grams. It is part of a trend
toward ever smaller drones.
Use of
a nano-drone for surveillance is outrageous enough, but equipping
them with powerful nano-bombs is said to be only months away. How
long will it be possible to keep these devices out of the hands of
private citizens? Will a future U. S. president be assassinated by a
nano-drone?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.