MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
is the very good question that Dan Murphy is asking.
It's hard to avoid the thought that those particular drone attacks were based on some things this guy said.
There was also the arrest and interrogation of Ahmad Siddiqui in July.
There are other things going on, like this.
As I was trying to point out here in 3 comments on Wolfram's news thread of October 1, the U.S. CIA director does not fly to Islamabad to defend most drone strikes. And ordinarily, when a country you are working with is angry at you about something, and something you do is causing them trouble, you ratchet things down some and make nice nice for a while, not have the CIA director fly in to harange them further and ratchet things up. It seemed to me something major was up, which was being judged worth causing major trouble.
I might add more in comments as I find them.
Comments
________________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:08am
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:01am
He asks a good question, though I think the title is misleading, or else I'm reading wrong. The evidence that shared intelligence is helpful is good to hear. Drone strikes in response are not helpful, IMO, in any but the shortest run. It's the part of the White House's master plan on Pakistan (according to Woodward, anyway) that I find so incredibly flawed. The notion that you can bomb away safe havens to prevent the rage that causes rage against the west simply bumfuzzles me.
Lots of info there, thanks Artie.
by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 8:48am
"The notion that you can bomb away safe havens to prevent the rage that causes rage against the west simply bumfuzzles me."
I don't disagree that bombing in and of itself doesn't promote peaceful and productive international relations. On the other hand I also think that there are all kinds of things that promote "rage against the west." So I think that rage has to be taken into account before we use a drone (which I guess I prefer using as opposed to a real, live American boy or girl to attack a target that we have genuine reason to believe poses a real threat to Americans), but I don't think it's fair or helpful to presume that, but for that drone (or that real live American son or daughter), there wouldn't be rage against the United States or the west.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 9:37am
This is in line with what uyou posted at Wattree's thread, Bruce, Can't say I think you're right, but you may find this at FP of interest:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/04/reading_woodward_in_karachi
by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 10:15am
But drones are not bombs, they are actually an alternative to them. You can certainly be against them both, but grouping them together for a facile antiwar argument isn't really going to convince anyone where that convincing matters. I myself recall that some antiwar people used to make the opposite argument--i.e., why are we always going to war (and bombing) in order to get one or two terrible guys--why not just assassinate them.
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 3:16pm
Some drones carry bombs, AA.
by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:14pm
AA, I didn't take the time yesterday, but here's this on drones and bombs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/us/politics/12blackwater.html?_r=1
by we are stardust on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 6:52am
If the strategy is to pick off our assailants one by one as our intelligence manifests itself, that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. It's also basically law enforcement with predator drones, almost akin to putting SWAT team snipers on the top of every building in New York and telling them to pick off criminals as they witness the acts. We'd be far better off with a more cohesive, global, on the ground law enforcement effort, though we're well past the point we're talking about terrorism as the criminal act that it is has become an acceptable part of our serious discourse.
by Michael Maiello on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 9:37am
Art, this is good. In truth, except for the body bags, (a real big "except") Af-Pak is turning out to be much worse than Vietnam. Certainly the fallout for the US is going to be worse in the long run, I'm sure.
I did a video on the drones once. Unlike TPM, we can share videos here, here it goes.
by David Seaton on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 1:55pm