Categories
2016 October

Obama’s Favored Tactics of War…

Barack Obama has claimed that drone and other airstrikes, his favored tactics of war, have killed between 64 and 116 civilians during his administration, a tally which was criticized as undercounted even before Friday’s announcement.”

“To critics, the secrecy has for years permitted Obama to conceal the damage in human lives inflicted by what he calls “targeted killing”, insulating him politically from the consequences of lethal decisions that the president has decided can occur anywhere on earth for an indefinite duration.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths%3f0p19G=e?client=safari

mike

 

3 replies on “Obama’s Favored Tactics of War…”

Of course it is!!

A 10 – 100 fold increase in effectiveness from your alternatives which are fraught with political and military nightmares (e.g. watch Blackhawk Down).

What does that have to do with FS-GREEN?

The “war on terrorism” is partly a manhunt war, which is where drones are especially used (e.g. CIA program). Used on specific targets in remote locations inaccessible to US troops without extraordinary risk. Think what they did to get Bin Laden. And the risks associated with that.

If you want to go down the FS-GREEN rabbit hole with it here is a perhaps a starting point for you…The Moral Case for Drones. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html

[I found this tagged onto Alicia’s note but I didn’t get this reply straight-up and I’ve noticed that my email working between outlook on my iOS and the app are being selective about what emails are left in my inbox…this a bit perplexing–does anyone else have this combination working?]

In reply, my contention is that FS-GREEN is an indirect system, both in using the manner of propriety, or what’s PC (peace, don’t kill outright as OVER-simplified examples = no troops on the ground, end war), but indirectly prosecuted quietly (an attempt to not raise the ire of others?)–effectiveness never entered into the valuing of indirect (hidden indiscriminate) killing with “surgical” precision.

So directly, it’s all about diplomacy, no troops on the ground directly, but a. sadly accelerated program around the world which politically is causing the world to hate us as we hide what we are doing in the face of terror, but directly we can claim all the moral high ground.

THAT’s what has to do with FS-GREEN and in the hundreds of posts I’ve made on this topic over time leading up to how FS-GREEN works it’s indirect magic vs. the DIRECT BUSH ER-ORANGE in your face strategy with largely IRAQ–it’s all about oil–Halliburton, et al.

Vs the Reagan/Bush “late” (exiting) DQ-BLUE, don’t depose the guy but cripple his external power, respect the way he keeps people inline–control red.

In the FS-GREEN approach taken by (H)Clinton/Obama of arming/supporting others/drones vs boots on the ground we get “another” kind of mess(es) which are a direct result of the same failed policy coming out of a similar direct strategy that was used in Bush 2.

Of course, Assad having the benefit of generational experience (father) saw it coming and muted the indirect approach long enough that now everyone is fighting everyone and Russia has caused Obama to back off boots although we have already inserted 6000 advisors, a la Vietnam into Syria…and we are making a case that RUSSIA’s DIRECT (Putin) is part of the problem but our indirect strategy is not….

It’s all a political quagmire now which is why I suggested that we leave the Middle East, STOP nation building and make the full pivot they claimed was necessary, now…we have really screwed that up by dissing Duterte and now the only reason we are in there is because we have to be but are getting ready again to go it alone–at least setting that up for the next administration to have to deal with.

While I have no business continuing to talk about military strategy, or anything else for that matter, it does provide interesting (to me)…ways to see how the memes are gaining/losing density and frequency to support particular lines of development and behavior in the masses.

[My contention that we regress freedom back to building density and frequency with the police “state” is the really tricky gambit, but for me “is” a way to voluntarily make the case for more DQ-BLUE density/frequency with a more obliquely sophisticated DQ-BLUE than a pure regresssion back to an earlier “much less” sophisticated form, yet it is a regression nonetheless.]

While oversimplified, it does allow us to study, or perhaps remark about how values function in broader context.

Right now, FS-GREEN is peaking and this election will tell us if in spite of all that’s taking place–it peaks and dims, or peaks and continues to build density and frequency because if nothing else, it’s revealing a lot of “differences” AND momentum in memetic formation.

What’s really happening is a test of the theory because according to theory, GT-YELLOW is forming–has formed according to some, and is “informing” …integrating the formation of memes.

I’ll stop there for now, I’m sure that is enough lack of coherency for now;)

mike

My probably uninformed take.

If war is a necessity– both for defense and offense– then it will have a default and tenor to it that is consistent with the values basin. Green is puzzling because the values basin includes ideals like humaneness, acceptance, altruism, and harmony. How do those values shape necessary acts of violence? It sounds like a trick question.

The Moral Case for Drones article does a decent job of explaining why precise drone strikes are one answer to that question and why.

Excerpt:
“We never said, ‘Let’s build a more humane weapon,’ ” Mr. Crumpton said. “We said, ‘Let’s be as precise as possible, because that’s our mission — to kill Bin Laden and the people right around him.’

Alicia

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *