White House Won't Address Drone Strike Debate

The Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge whether it is revisiting or even addressing its policy of predatory drone strikes after the Times Square bomber cited the tactic as a catalyst for his decision to launch the near-attack.

Asked what kind of discussions (if any) had taken place internally following a reported admission by Faisal Shahzad that drone strikes in Pakistan had compelled him to a life of terrorism, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was mum.

"None that I will get into publicly," he said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post.

The policy of launching drone strikes in Pakistan as a way of targeting and killing terrorist suspects was controversial well before Shahzad attempted to blow up a car in Times Square. Civilian deaths as a result of those attacks are believed to have caused a rise in anti-American sentiment within the country: spurring the question as to whether they are creating more terrorists than they are eliminating.

The White House has refused to discuss the matter at all, citing national security implications. But before Gibbs spoke, Gen Stanley McChrystal -- the top US commander in Afghanistan -- did stress that keeping civilian deaths at a minimum is a strategic priority in his domain of responsibility.

"I obviously can't address things in Pakistan," McChrystal said. "I can tell you that inside Afghanistan the importance of reducing those causalities and convince the Afghanistan people that we are here for their welfare is absolutely strategic and so we give it that effort."

Comments

[PlasticDexter]

10:20 PM on 05/10/2010

They may as well be fighting a war on the surface of the sun for all I know. We have a Tiger Woods to look after.
Now that would be a cool war.

[KLordsha]

10:09 PM on 05/10/2010

People aren't very bright if they expect the Obama administration to discuss this.

[terry63]

10:03 PM on 05/10/2010

There is an old rule of war, When you go to war you go all the way WW,2 is a good example You send everybody. start at one end and destroy everything on youre way to the other end, until youre enemy either surrenders or goes extinct, All that will happen with a Political war of policies is that you will make a stronger enemy.
Does anyone know the address to the white house, I would like to send the President a book called The Art Of War.by Sunzi Sun Tzu, I doubt the last President could read it. This one really should.

[chrisberge72]

10:20 PM on 05/10/2010

I'm sure he already has read it.

[Old Claudius]

10:26 PM on 05/10/2010

You don't have to go back to Sun Tzu for example how your all out war works out, you need go only to WWII Germany, whose tactics were those, from Guernica to blitzkrieg to retaliatory executions of civilians for guerrilla, or partisan, or "enemy combatant" caused casualties, and back to Guernica, the V-1 and V-2 random-blitzing of London. Guernica and the V-blitzing were both panned by German experts as counter-productive, as was retaliatory executions of civilians by a broad base of Germans with good sense, in and out of the military. The result in all such cases is hardening of hatred toward your occupying forces and increase of actions against yourself and your nation, and increase of acceptance of aid from any and all who are your enemies.
As for Sun Tzu, readers of his Art of War overlook that he was a general and so was focused to battles. His saying you have to go all out was in reference to a battle in a war. In that context Sun Tzu was correct: To win a battle you have to be more ferocious and go all out all the way to surrender or annihilation. If you undertake to annihilate in war, rather than battle, you advance to genocide. For how that works, look to the Balkans, where the Serbs and Croats have attempted it again and again for centuries.

[Waiting4Hope]

09:58 PM on 05/10/2010

"Refusing to discuss or address", means they have things to hide.
Means they don't answer to the American people.

[rbryanh]

09:52 PM on 05/10/2010

"The Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge whether it is revisiting or even addressing its policy of predatory drone strikes after the Times Square bomber..."

Refusing to allow the actions of terrorists to have any visible effect on policy is arguably among the most effective deterrents available to us. That and ignoring hostage-takers.

That said, murdering civilians is obscene and it's the American people who should be objecting to it.

[Pandaforum]

09:09 PM on 05/10/2010

of course during President Bush's administration, bureaucratic traitors would have leaked the policy to the liberal press for our enemies to check out.

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

08:48 PM on 05/10/2010

The White House isn't saying anything because they know the drone strikes are indefensible

The # of civilians to Al-Q killed is somewhere between 10:1 and 50:1, depending on who's counting the bodies.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/up-to-320-civilians-killed-in-pakistan-drone-war-report/

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

First it was Afghanistan. Then Iraq. Now Pakistan. Where's next, Yemen? Somalia?

Endless GROUND wars will not end terrorism. Terrorism is ended with good police work and foreign policy that doesn't leave millions of Muslims around the world hating America.

[Pandaforum]

09:11 PM on 05/10/2010

explain that foreign policy. It seems really pretentious of you to think we have it within our power to keep people from hating us. Are you willing to embrace islam? or have you already? when an innocent person is killed by a criminal, do you blame the victim?

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

02:22 PM on 05/11/2010

Sure, I'll 'splain it for ya. We quit giving Israel $3B a year unless they quit building settlements in the occupied territories, quit using Willy Pete against urban areas, and, waddya say, sign the NPT like all the other responsible countries.

We could quit supporting the Saudi Princes, who sent us 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11.

And we might also have NOT invaded Iraq on false pretenses, since by DEFINITION an unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime.

Does that give you enough "foreign policy" to go on that would keep Arabs and Muslims from hating us....as much?

[OpposingViewpoint]

10:17 PM on 05/10/2010

We are already "doing our thing" in Yemen and to a much lesser extent, in Somalia as well.

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

02:23 PM on 05/11/2010

Ya walked right into it. Thanx. I was hoping someone would mention those little "problems" of US special forces incursions into those countries.

[GuiltD]

08:03 PM on 05/10/2010

Remember Bhutto? Heres her saying Bin Laden was killed a long time ago by hmmmm I wonder...maybe people who didn't want her talking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uLdmct8_E&feature=related

[GuiltD]

07:47 PM on 05/10/2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbKyr4O-nzc&feature=related

[Fred Hood]

08:06 PM on 05/10/2010

thanks I try to spread this around also.......like judge Judy says if it does not make sense its a lie

[GuiltD]

08:34 PM on 05/10/2010

Thanks. I feel it is important that people do a little digging around and understand a hell lot more is going on than what the controlled US media allows us to see.

[terry63]

09:56 PM on 05/10/2010

Rossie ? Is that you ?

[Zanubiyah]

07:44 PM on 05/10/2010

Now the whole thing with this Shazad is starting to make sence to me. Regardless of what the media says, or unnamed people who claim anonimity because they are not authorized to speak to the press say...and people in the White House who have to CYA.

I belive that the White House is using this man's actions to 'soften' the American public to the idea of these drone strikes because Americans have killed so many civilians, then lied about the victims reputations, rather than admit it was an accident.

I think the man acted alone I dont belive he had ANY terrorist attachements or contacts, and made his bomb based on a description he heard in the media. I think he was angry about the drone strikes, and perhaps knew someone who was killed or injured, and instead of handling it in a civil manner, he made the bomb.

Now...I am not condoning his actions...he was wrong, and he deserves what he gets for his crime. However it makes sence to me now why he did it.

[OmnesOmnibus]

07:31 PM on 05/10/2010

These drone strikes are probably our best chance to avoid another 9/11. They are working, pinning down the terrorists, making it very hard for them to accomplish much. This is a war we're in, a real war. Just because Bush was the first one to call it a war, doesn't mean he was wrong. The epicenter of world terrorism is Pakistan. This is where the fight is. That's where the drones go. Until they've finally wiped out the Al Qaeda leadership, these will continue. The botched attack was not a sign of the "reach" of the terrorists. The poor quality of the attack, the low caliber and capability of the person doing it, is in truth a tribute to the way we've degraded their ability to train and deploy. More please.

[Zanubiyah]

07:49 PM on 05/10/2010

The man who made the bomb is proof that the drone strikes are NOT WORKING. In fact, killing one innocent person angers 10 more people, and it is more likely that there will be another terrorist attack.

In fact, killing an innocent person is a sure way of getting an angry realitive to join the al Quid'a ranks, and not belive that Americans are there to help them...especially when they kill by accident, slander the reputation in public of the victim by calling them terrorists, or using 'sterotypes' to describe them.

This man had never recieved any bomb making training, has no terrorist ties, or associates. He made his bomb based on media descriptions, and was angry at something done to his family by Americans.

[OnAndOnSOH]

08:03 PM on 05/10/2010

... And turning US citizens against our own country.

yay.

[frmadistance]

07:13 PM on 05/10/2010

Dark, sick, evil.

[ennis438]

06:50 PM on 05/10/2010

It is not drone strikes. It is American occupation of several nations in this area that is making the recruitment of new terrorists so easy. I thought maybe Obama had more sense than Bush on this subject, but they both act like idiots. The USA must get out of this area, not just because American money and military lives are being wasted, but also because the hatred of Americans will continue until all occuping forces are out of these countries.

[Huffingbrownbag]

06:39 PM on 05/10/2010

Apparently President Obama doesn't believe the public to has a right to know if the US is dropping bombs on the sovereign nation of Pakistan.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-seeks-information-predator-drone-program

ACLU Seeks Information On Predator Drone Program
March 16, 2010
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas.

"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. "The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far."

[Carl Caroli]

06:38 PM on 05/10/2010

If a government, Pakistan or otherwise, refuses to acknowledge the fact that they have terrorists or their training facilities withing their countries then we do not need their approval to use drones to counter destroy them, period.

[Amryxx]

06:42 PM on 05/10/2010

Can Latin America countries use their drones to destroy the School of the Americas?

[innervoice]

07:53 PM on 05/10/2010

The issue is that the drone strikes are radicalizing people who wouldn't otherwise be so. Initial reports suggest this was a motivating factor in the recent Times Square attempt, but time will tell.

Pakistani officials have long admitted that Al Qaeda are on their soil (that's where they were founded as well). The issue is convincing those still loyal to the extremists that they need to change their allegiances. Overall, the Pakistani people turned against the extremists after some of Al Qaeda's propaganda killings were broadcast on state TV. There have even been some key defections within the ISI, which has led to the capture of some of the highest ranking Al Qaeda members.

Force is counter productive when civilian lives are on the hook.