• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drone strikes counterproductive, says secret CIA report

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Drone strikes and other "targeted killings" of terrorist and insurgent leaders favoured by the US and supported by Australia can strengthen extremist groups and be counterproductive, according to a secret CIA report published by WikiLeaks.
According to a leaked document by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, "high value targeting" (HVT) involving air strikes and special forces operations against insurgent leaders can be effective, but can also have negative effects including increasing violence and greater popular support for extremist groups.

The leaked document is classified secret and "NoForn" (meaning not to be distributed to non-US nationals) and reviews attacks by the United States and other countries engaged in counter-insurgency operations over the past 50 years.

The CIA assessment is the first leaked secret intelligence document published by WikiLeaks since 2011. Led by Australian publisher Julian Assange, the anti-secrecy group says the CIA assessment is the first in what will be a new series of leaked documents relating to the US agency.
Click to expand...



Read more @: Drone strikes counterproductive, says secret CIA report

Wait! Say it aint so? Drone strikes actually are counterproductive and lead to more terrorists and terrorist attacks?
 
Whether they are unproductive depends on what the goals are. If the goal is maintaining an endless supply of enemies in order to justify endless war, huge defense and intelligence expenditures, keeping defense and intelligence contractors wealthy and continuing the constant erosion of our civil liberties, drones and related tactics are a big success. Not to be cynical or anything.
 
So the Obama administration has been engaging in counterproductive practices regarding terrorism? What a shock that is! I'm surprised to see Obamaphiles bashing him for that. When hardcore Obamaphiles are bashing Obama for his counterproductive policies, you know democrats are in serious trouble.
 
Papa bull said:
So the Obama administration has been engaging in counterproductive practices regarding terrorism? What a shock that is! I'm surprised to see Obamaphiles bashing him for that. When hardcore Obamaphiles are bashing Obama for his counterproductive policies, you know democrats are in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

The use of drone warfare is not unique with Obama. Believe the first strike in the War on Terror began in 2004. Its true to say that Obama however increased the amount of drone strikes. But to make this a simple partisan issue is pointless.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The use of drone warfare is not unique with Obama. Believe the first strike in the War on Terror began in 2004. Its true to say that Obama however increased the amount of drone strikes. But to make this a simple partisan issue is pointless.
Click to expand...

I was actually congratulating you two on your non-partisan criticism of Obama. It's another one of those mistakes that Obama is making that he doesn't seem interested in fixing and I'm glad that it's not just conservatives that see it and criticize him for it.

But I probably should also mention that nothing in the article actually supports the assertion that drone strikes ARE counterproductive. It merely CONTENDS that they MIGHT be and I think it's a weak contention. In order to make the case, there would have to be proof that droning creates more high ranking terrorists than it kills - or that the numbers of terrorist recruits gained JUST because high ranking terrorists get whacked are so high that the benefit to the terrorist groups is so great that it offsets the losses of high ranking officials whacked. Of course the article didn't come close to proving that. But I still applaud you and Hard Truth for your criticism of Obama's drone campaign. I'd have thought you two were too partisan to ever criticize "The Messiah" but I'm glad to see I'm wrong. :)
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
...But I still applaud you and Hard Truth for your criticism of Obama's drone campaign. I'd have thought you two were too partisan to ever criticize "The Messiah" but I'm glad to see I'm wrong. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks but I don't consider myself an Obamaphile. I liked his positions as a candidate in 2008 but I also knew he couldn't be too good with all the support from Wall Street that he had. In too many cases his positions as candidate were not his positions as President. I nearly always vote for Democrats because they are the lesser evil, not because they are all that great. I am happy with my congressional representative and most of the local office holders, but on a national level most are too centrist.

I have very mixed feelings about drones, they are problematic, but the alternatives to drones use could be even worse. My main concern is that they are making killing without due process or risk to our side too easy, which could encourage expanding their use, including to domestic use.
 
Hard Truth said:
Whether they are unproductive depends on what the goals are. If the goal is maintaining an endless supply of enemies in order to justify endless war, huge defense and intelligence expenditures, keeping defense and intelligence contractors wealthy and continuing the constant erosion of our civil liberties, drones and related tactics are a big success. Not to be cynical or anything.
Click to expand...

It would be more cynical if this wasn't the track record of the past 15 + years.
 
But apparently torturing is productive. Right, CIA? :doh
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The use of drone warfare is not unique with Obama. Believe the first strike in the War on Terror began in 2004. Its true to say that Obama however increased the amount of drone strikes. But to make this a simple partisan issue is pointless.
Click to expand...

Drones were developed as a tool of war and first used in the field under President Bush, but only in the theater of war. President Obama and his administration decided to use the drone program for state sponsored assassinations outside of war zones and in sovereign countries with or without those countries' approval. To deny that is partisanship and pointless.
 
Papa bull said:
So the Obama administration has been engaging in counterproductive practices regarding terrorism? What a shock that is! I'm surprised to see Obamaphiles bashing him for that. When hardcore Obamaphiles are bashing Obama for his counterproductive policies, you know democrats are in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Maybe if people like you had been criticizing Obama for the right reasons, instead of scandal dandruff like Benghazi or his Birth Certificate, you would have had liberal partners on your side from the beginning. Obama's continued use of drone strikes is a disgrace to his presidency, and he will not be remembered well for it. We've been saying this since almost day one.
 
Amadeus said:
Maybe if people like you had been criticizing Obama for the right reasons, instead of scandal dandruff like Benghazi or his Birth Certificate, you would have had liberal partners on your side from the beginning. Obama's continued use of drone strikes is a disgrace to his presidency, and he will not be remembered well for it. We've been saying this since almost day one.
Click to expand...
It would also help if the left didn't become a group of hypocrites... hating on bush for everything he was doing, and then using bush's actions as justification for more of the same when Obama came on the scene.

(Not saying the right are not equally hypocrites for different reasons)
 
CanadaJohn said:
Drones were developed as a tool of war and first used in the field under President Bush, but only in the theater of war. President Obama and his administration decided to use the drone program for state sponsored assassinations outside of war zones and in sovereign countries with or without those countries' approval. To deny that is partisanship and pointless.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Pakistani_position

For at least some of the initial drone strikes, in 2004 and 2005, the US operated with the approval of Pakistan's ISI. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told The New Yorker in 2014 that he allowed the CIA to fly drones within Pakistan and that in exchange the US supplied helicopters and night-vision equipment to the Pakistanis. Musharraf wanted the drones to operate under Pakistani control, but the US wouldn't allow it.[101]

Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks as an infringement of its sovereignty and because civilian deaths have also resulted, including women and children, which has further angered the Pakistani government and people.[85][102][103][104] General David Petraeus was told in November 2008 that these strikes were unhelpful.[105] However on 4 October 2008 The Washington Post reported that there was a secret deal between the US and Pakistan allowing these drone attacks.[106] US Senator Dianne Feinstein said in February 2009: "As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base."[107] Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi denied that this was true.[108]
Click to expand...

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan protest to US ambassador

Pakistan has summoned the US ambassador in Islamabad to protest at a US missile attack deep inside Pakistani territory on Wednesday that killed five people.

The attack, in Bannu district, killed five local militants, officials say.

The protest comes as a top Taleban commander says he will pull out of a peace deal with Pakistan's military if there are more US missile strikes.

Hafiz Gul Bahadur, the main commander in North Waziristan, has been at peace with the army since 2006.
Click to expand...

Pakistan was protesting unauthorized drone strike deep within Pakistani territory as far back as early 2008.

Pakistan fury as CIA airstrike on village kills 18 - Telegraph

Angry Pakistani officials have condemned an American airstrike on a remote village near the Afghan border which the US said was aimed at Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command.

Pakistan is preparing to lodge a formal diplomatic protest over the attack, which killed at least 18 people, because it was launched from four pilotless aircraft which intruded 30 miles into Pakistani air space from Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Sure, Obama expanded the program (as in, did more of it), but the practice had been in effect much earlier. To deny that is to try and rewrite history. The way it stands, the Pakis allowed this at one point or another in the mid 2000s, then for some reason turned against from 2007 to 2008. So yeah, the Obama administration didn't really start it. It continued it and the evidence is in the words/actions of the Pakis in regards to drone attacks.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
But Obama loves drone bombing people!
Click to expand...

Drone bombing Muslims gives people the impression that he's fighting the War on Terror (still popular among centrists and the right-wing) without sacrificing troops. Seems like a sad political calculation more than anything...
 
Amadeus said:
Drone bombing Muslims gives people the impression that he's fighting the War on Terror (still popular among centrists and the right-wing) without sacrificing troops. Seems like a sad political calculation more than anything...
Click to expand...

He's a Republocrat, of course it's a political calculation. Republocrats have long been killing civilians in far away lands for one reason or another. And now that the infinity war is on, well it's even easier to do. How many civilians has Obama gotten killed with his strikes? But we have to bomb someone...apparently.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Drones were developed as a tool of war and first used in the field under President Bush, but only in the theater of war. President Obama and his administration decided to use the drone program for state sponsored assassinations outside of war zones and in sovereign countries with or without those countries' approval. To deny that is partisanship and pointless.
Click to expand...

Frist drone strike in Yemen was in 2002. First drone strike in Pakistan was in 2004. That pretty much throws that talking point out the window.
 
Hard Truth said:
Whether they are unproductive depends on what the goals are. If the goal is maintaining an endless supply of enemies in order to justify endless war, huge defense and intelligence expenditures, keeping defense and intelligence contractors wealthy and continuing the constant erosion of our civil liberties, drones and related tactics are a big success. Not to be cynical or anything.
Click to expand...

This right here. The fact that drone strikes radicalizes people and creates more enemies than it kills is basic common sense that many of us have been saying for a long time. Our politicians may not be the smartest people in the world but they are smart enough to understand that. And they understand that there is a HELL of a lot more money in war than there is in peace.
 
Hatuey said:
Drone strikes in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan protest to US ambassador



Pakistan was protesting unauthorized drone strike deep within Pakistani territory as far back as early 2008.

Pakistan fury as CIA airstrike on village kills 18 - Telegraph



Sure, Obama expanded the program (as in, did more of it), but the practice had been in effect much earlier. To deny that is to try and rewrite history. The way it stands, the Pakis allowed this at one point or another in the mid 2000s, then for some reason turned against from 2007 to 2008. So yeah, the Obama administration didn't really start it. It continued it and the evidence is in the words/actions of the Pakis in regards to drone attacks.
Click to expand...

I agree - the mountainous border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in my view, were part of the war zone and subject to the Congressional authorization to go to war with Afghanistan. As the Taliban and Al Qaeda scurried into the mountains, the US and coalition forces followed them, drones being necessary to find and weed them out. Pakistan, as a military ally of the US, was consulted and agreed to the US requests to follow the Taliban and Al Qaeda into these regions. Their opposition began when the strikes started taking out innocents, including women and children.

I stand by my statement that Bush began using drones as a military tool in the Afghanistan war and Obama expanded the program to make it a tool of assassination in sovereign nations not at war with the US.
 
Seems the only defense Obamaphiles have is "but but but Bush". Between that and "you're racist" they have all bases covered.
 
Amadeus said:
Maybe if people like you had been criticizing Obama for the right reasons, instead of scandal dandruff like Benghazi or his Birth Certificate, you would have had liberal partners on your side from the beginning. Obama's continued use of drone strikes is a disgrace to his presidency, and he will not be remembered well for it. We've been saying this since almost day one.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!! Thanks for sharing that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom