PDA

View Full Version : Trump’s War on Terror Has Quickly Become as Barbaric and Savage as He Promised




CPUd
03-30-2017, 04:18 PM
Trump’s War on Terror Has Quickly Become as Barbaric and Savage as He Promised

Glenn Greenwald
March 26 2017, 10:00 a.m.


FROM THE START of his presidency, Donald Trump’s “war on terror” has entailed the seemingly indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people in the name of killing terrorists. In other words, Trump has escalated the 16-year-old core premise of America’s foreign policy — that it has the right to bomb any country in the world where people it regards as terrorists are found — and in doing so, has fulfilled the warped campaign pledges he repeatedly expressed.

The most recent atrocity was the killing of as many as 200 Iraqi civilians from U.S. airstrikes this week in Mosul. That was preceded a few days earlier by the killing of dozens of Syrian civilians in Raqqa province when the U.S. targeted a school where people had taken refuge, which itself was preceded a week earlier by the U.S. destruction of a mosque near Aleppo that also killed dozens. And one of Trump’s first military actions was what can only be described as a massacre carried out by Navy SEALs, in which 30 Yemenis were killed; among the children killed was an 8-year-old American girl (whose 16-year-old American brother was killed by a drone under Obama).

In sum: Although precise numbers are difficult to obtain, there seems little question that the number of civilians being killed by the U.S. in Iraq and Syria — already quite high under Obama — has increased precipitously during the first two months of the Trump administration. Data compiled by the site Airwars tells the story: The number of civilians killed in Syria and Iraq began increasing in October under Obama but has now skyrocketed in March under Trump.

http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

What’s particularly notable is that the number of airstrikes actually decreased in March (with a week left), even as civilian deaths rose — strongly suggesting that the U.S. military has become even more reckless about civilian deaths under Trump than it was under Obama:

http://i.imgur.com/xpoAJYy.png

This escalation of bombing and civilian deaths, combined with the deployment by Trump of 500 ground troops into Syria beyond the troops Obama already deployed there, has received remarkably little media attention. This is in part due to the standard indifference in U.S. discourse to U.S. killing of civilians compared to the language used when its enemies kill people (compare the very muted and euphemistic tones used to report on Trump’s escalations in Iraq and Syria to the frequent invocation of genocide and war crimes to denounce Russian killing of Syrian civilians). And part of this lack of media attention is due to the Democrats’ ongoing hunt for Russian infiltration of Washington, which leaves little room for other matters.

But what is becoming clear is that Trump is attempting to liberate the U.S. military from the minimal constraints it observed in order to avoid massive civilian casualties. And this should surprise nobody: Trump explicitly and repeatedly vowed to do exactly this during the campaign.

He constantly criticized Obama — who bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries — for being “weak” in battling ISIS and al Qaeda. Trump regularly boasted that he would free the U.S. military from rules of engagement that he regarded as unduly hobbling them. He vowed to bring back torture and even to murder the family members of suspected terrorists — prompting patriotic commentators to naïvely insist that the U.S. military would refuse to follow his orders. Trump’s war frenzy reached its rhetorical peak of derangement in December 2015, when he roared at a campaign rally that he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS” and then let its oil fields be taken by Exxon, whose CEO is now his secretary of state.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8

Trump can be criticized for many things, but lack of clarity about his intended war on terror approach is not one of them. All along, Trump’s “solution” to terrorism was as clear as it was simple; as I described it in September 2016:

777882037877350400
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/777882037877350400

THE CLARITY OF Trump’s intentions regarding the war on terror was often obfuscated by anti-Trump pundits due to a combination of confusion about and distortions of foreign policy doctrine. Trump explicitly ran as a “non-interventionist” — denouncing, for instance, U.S. regime change wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria (even though he at some points expressed support for the first two). Many commentators confused “non-interventionism” with “pacifism,” leading many of them — to this very day — to ignorantly claim that Trump’s escalated war on terror bombing is in conflict with his advocacy of non-interventionism. It is not.

To the extent that Trump is guided by any sort of coherent ideological framework, he is rooted in the traditions of Charles Lindbergh (whose “America First” motto he took) and the free trade-hating, anti-immigration, über-nationalist Pat Buchanan. Both Lindbergh and Buchanan were non-interventionists: Lindbergh was one of the earliest and loudest opponents of U.S. involvement in World War II, while Buchanan was scathing throughout all of 2002 about the neocon plan to invade Iraq.

Despite being vehement non-interventionists, neither Lindbergh nor Buchanan were pacifists. Quite the contrary: Both believed that when the U.S. was genuinely threatened with attack or attacked, it should use full and unrestrained force against its enemies. What they opposed was not military force in general but rather interventions geared toward a goal other than self-defense, such as changing other countries’ governments, protecting foreigners from tyranny or violence, or “humanitarian” wars.

What the Lindbergh/Buchanan non-interventionism opposes is not war per se, but a specific type of war: namely, those fought for reasons other than self-defense or direct U.S. interests (as was true of regime change efforts in Iraq, Libya, and Syria). Lindbergh opposed U.S. involvement in World War II on the ground that it was designed to help only the British and the Jews, while Buchanan, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, attacked neocons who “seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests” and who “have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.”

The anti-Semitism and white nationalistic tradition of Lindbergh, the ideological precursor to Buchanan and then Trump, does not oppose war. It opposes military interventions in the affairs of other countries for reasons other than self-defense — i.e., the risking of American lives and resources for the benefits of “others.”

Each time Trump drops another bomb, various pundits and other assorted Trump opponents smugly posit that his doing so is inconsistent with his touted non-interventionism. This is just ignorance of what these terms mean. By escalating violence against civilians, Trump is, in fact, doing exactly what he promised to do, and exactly what those who described his foreign policy as non-interventionist predicted he would do: namely, limitlessly unleash the U.S. military when the claimed objective was the destruction of “terrorists,” while refusing to use the military for other ends such as regime change or humanitarianism. If one were to reduce this mentality to a motto, it could be: Fight fewer wars and for narrower reasons, but be more barbaric and criminal in prosecuting the ones that are fought.

Trump’s campaign pledges regarding Syria, and now his actions there, illustrate this point very clearly. Trump never advocated a cessation of military force in Syria. As the above video demonstrates, he advocated the opposite: an escalation of military force in Syria and Iraq in the name of fighting ISIS and al Qaeda. Indeed, Trump’s desire to cooperate with Russia in Syria was based on a desire to maximize the potency of bombing there (just as was true of Obama’s attempt to forge a bombing partnership with Putin in Syria).

What Trump opposed was the CIA’s yearslong policy of spending billions of dollars to arm anti-Assad rebels (a policy Hillary Clinton and her key advisers wanted to escalate), on the ground that the U.S. has no interest in removing Assad. That is the fundamental difference between non-interventionism and pacifism that many pundits are either unaware of or are deliberately conflating in order to prove their own vindication about Trump’s foreign policy. Nothing Trump has thus far done is remotely inconsistent with the non-interventionism he embraced during the campaign, unless one confuses “non-interventionism” with “opposition to the use of military force.”

Trump’s reckless killing of civilians in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is many things: barbaric, amoral, and criminal. It is also, ironically, likely to strengthen support for the very groups — ISIS and al Qaeda — that he claims he wants to defeat, given that nothing drives support for those groups like U.S. slaughter of civilians (perhaps the only competitor in helping these groups is another Trump specialty: driving a wedge between Muslims and the West).

But what Trump’s actions are not is a departure from what he said he would do, nor are they inconsistent with the predictions of those who described his foreign policy approach as non-interventionist. To the contrary, the dark savagery guiding U.S. military conduct in that region is precisely what Trump expressly promised his supporters he would usher in.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/26/trumps-war-on-terror-has-quickly-become-as-barbaric-and-savage-as-he-promised/

undergroundrr
03-30-2017, 04:32 PM
Greenwald's definition of non-interventionism is a little anachronistic here.

dannno
03-30-2017, 04:41 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

I'm seeing a lot of green and not much brown.

merkelstan
03-30-2017, 04:44 PM
and this new site 'airwars' is alleged soros tool

CPUd
03-30-2017, 04:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

I'm seeing a lot of green and not much brown.

That's because they are having a hard time separating body parts from wreckage and ID'ing the missing from the last strike on Mosul.

Swordsmyth
03-30-2017, 05:04 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

I'm seeing a lot of green and not much brown.

That comes close to "Damning with faint praise"

I don't care whether he is as bad as some people would like to claim or not, this is not an issue where we should lift a finger to defend him until he brings the Boys (and Drones) back home.

merkelstan
03-30-2017, 05:09 PM
Trump isn't running every strike of the US empire. This is probably more blood to smear on him by his opponents - in the MIC and Media.

CPUd
03-30-2017, 05:11 PM
Trump isn't running every strike of the US empire. This is probably more blood to smear on him by his opponents - in the MIC and Media.

True, he gave that power to the generals and CIA. Now the Iraqi military can call in air strikes using US planes.

Swordsmyth
03-30-2017, 05:12 PM
Trump isn't running every strike of the US empire. This is probably more blood to smear on him by his opponents - in the MIC and Media.

He could stop them, if he really wanted to.

merkelstan
03-30-2017, 05:16 PM
He could stop them, if he really wanted to.

and go back on his campaign promise to 'go after ISIS'?

undergroundrr
03-30-2017, 05:18 PM
and this new site 'airwars' is alleged soros tool

Good on them for getting Soros funding. No other organization seems to be even trying to assess the civilian toll. For each incident, Airwars tracks how good the reporting is, what is/isn't confirmed and come up with the best data available (to us) on war casualties.

Swordsmyth
03-30-2017, 05:24 PM
and go back on his campaign promise to 'go after ISIS'?

It wouldn't be his first or his last, but it could be his best flip flop.

merkelstan
03-30-2017, 05:24 PM
Good on them for getting Soros funding. No other organization seems to be even trying to assess the civilian toll. For each incident, Airwars tracks how good the reporting is, what is/isn't confirmed and come up with the best data available (to us) on war casualties.


You a fan of the White Helmets too?

Swordsmyth
03-30-2017, 05:25 PM
Good on them for getting Soros funding. No other organization seems to be even trying to assess the civilian toll. For each incident, Airwars tracks how good the reporting is, what is/isn't confirmed and come up with the best data available (to us) on war casualties.


That much less cash for his really bad projects.

twomp
03-30-2017, 05:29 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

I'm seeing a lot of green and not much brown.

That's because Trump uses neocon bombs that only kill bad guys and leave good guys unscathed. Obama, John McCain and Lindsey Graham agree with you assessment.

dannno
03-30-2017, 05:33 PM
That's because Trump uses neocon bombs that only kill bad guys and leave good guys unscathed. Obama, John McCain and Lindsey Graham agree with you assessment.

Uh, I doubt it, they are probably stoked more people are dying. Just call me skeptical of ANYTHING the media tries to blame on Trump.

undergroundrr
03-30-2017, 05:36 PM
You a fan of the White Helmets too?

Anybody who saves lives rather than taking them. I'd rather they didn't get funding from USGov.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2017, 05:44 PM
Uh, I doubt it, they are probably stoked more people are dying. Just call me skeptical of ANYTHING the media tries to blame on Trump.

Did you feel the same about the media and other presidents?

rpfocus
03-30-2017, 05:46 PM
Just call me skeptical of ANYTHING the media tries to blame on Trump.

Oh, that's MORE than obvious by now.

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/keep-calm-and-blame-media-jpg.png?w=182

Zippyjuan
03-30-2017, 05:47 PM
Anybody who saves lives rather than taking them. I'd rather they didn't get funding from USGov.

How much money do they get from the US government? List of their top donors: http://www.maydayrescue.org/content/donors


Funding for Maydays programmes comes from generous grants from the Governments of:

United Kingdom – Conflict Security and Stability Fund.

Kingdom of Denmark – Ministry of Foreign Affairs


Kingdom of The Netherlands – Ministry of Foreign Affairs


Germany – Ministry of Foreign Affairs


dannno
03-30-2017, 05:51 PM
Did you feel the same about the media and other presidents?

Yes, I feel the same way about the media now as I have always felt about the media as well as past Presidents. Do not trust.

klamath
03-30-2017, 05:51 PM
Greenwald was one of the few progressives to stand up and attack Obama. He definitely holds credibility to me.

dannno
03-30-2017, 05:53 PM
Greenwald was one of the few progressives to stand up and attack Obama. He definitely holds credibility to me.

Yes he does, and I do trust him and the data he is receiving could be totally correct, but I am just skeptical. I mean, George Soros is telling us this information, right?

Zippyjuan
03-30-2017, 05:53 PM
Yes, I feel the same way about the media now as I have always felt about the media as well as past Presidents. Do not trust.

So when they criticized Obama you supported Obama since the media always lies about those things.

merkelstan
03-30-2017, 05:54 PM
How much money do they get from the US government? List of their top donors: http://www.maydayrescue.org/content/donors

Zippy- they are Al-Quaeda

dannno
03-30-2017, 05:57 PM
So when they criticized Obama you supported Obama since the media always lies about those things.

Hahahahaha, that's really funny.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2017, 05:59 PM
Zippy- they are Al-Quaeda

They are local volunteers. Not Al Quaeda. Russia and Assad are pumping that disinformation.

http://time.com/syria-white-helmets/


Enter the White Helmets. Ordinary Syrians emerged from the dust that hangs over the rubble of cities like Aleppo, double-*timing it into some of the most dangerous places on earth to do what the world has refused to do—save Syrian lives.


They drew volunteers from a wide spectrum of Syrians: there were teachers and tailors, firefighters who defected from regime-*controlled fire departments. (Saleh, the group’s chief, was an electronics salesman.) Even militants who had fought in the armed rebellion set aside their weapons to join the White Helmets. From that disparate set of local groups grew a unified national organization that now claims more than 3,000 volunteers in rebel-held areas across the country. (Media associated with Assad or Russia have accused the White Helmets of links with militant groups, but the group’s leaders say all their staff are civilians, and the White Helmets’ code of conduct forbids taking up arms.) With initial funding from the U.S., the U.K. and Japan, a consulting firm called ARK began organizing training for the rescue teams in neighboring Turkey in March 2013.

TheCount
03-30-2017, 06:17 PM
Zippy- they are Al-QuaedaAl-Qaeda is in the business of pulling people out of the rubble of destroyed buildings in Syria now? That seems a little far out of their usual tactics.

Zippyjuan
03-30-2017, 06:19 PM
Al-Qaeda is in the business of pulling people out of the rubble of destroyed buildings in Syria now? That seems a little far out of their usual tactics.

They prefer making rubble.

Ender
03-30-2017, 06:50 PM
Greenwald was one of the few progressives to stand up and attack Obama. He definitely holds credibility to me.

Same with me. He also supported Snowdon.

CPUd
03-30-2017, 06:59 PM
Same with me. He also supported Snowdon.

He and Jeremy Scahill started The Intercept, they are one of the few outlets still doing hard reporting on the MIC and war activity in the Middle East.

VICE News is another:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MwvaA0VYqE

Zippyjuan
03-30-2017, 07:08 PM
War on Terror to expand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/world/africa/trump-is-said-to-ease-combat-rules-in-somalia-designed-to-protect-civilians.html?_r=0


Trump Eases Combat Rules in Somalia Intended to Protect Civilians


WASHINGTON — President Trump has relaxed some of the rules for preventing civilian casualties when the American military carries out counterterrorism strikes in Somalia, laying the groundwork for an escalating campaign against Islamist militants in the Horn of Africa.

The decision, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations, gives commanders at the United States Africa Command greater latitude to carry out offensive airstrikes and raids by ground troops against militants with the Qaeda-linked Islamist group Shabab. That sets the stage for an intensified pace of combat there, while increasing the risk that American forces could kill civilians.

Mr. Trump signed a directive on Wednesday declaring parts of Somalia an “area of active hostilities,” where war-zone targeting rules will apply for at least 180 days, the officials said.

The New York Times reported the Pentagon’s request for the expanded targeting authority on March 12, and Gen. Thomas D. Waldhauser, the top officer at Africa Command, publicly acknowledged that he was seeking it at a news conference last Friday.

“It’s very important and very helpful for us to have little more flexibility, a little bit more timeliness, in terms of decision-making process,” General Waldhauser said. “It allows us to prosecute targets in a more rapid fashion.”

In a statement issued several hours after The New York Times first published news of the directive, Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, acknowledged that Mr. Trump had approved the Pentagon’s proposal to expand its targeting authority “to defeat Al Shabab in Somalia” in partnership with African Union and Somali forces.

“The additional support provided by this authority will help deny Al Shabab safe havens from which it could attack U.S. citizens or U.S. interests in the region,” he said.

Previously, to carry out an airstrike or ground raid in Somalia, the military was generally required to follow standards that President Barack Obama imposed in 2013 for counterterrorism strikes away from conventional war zones, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those rules, known as the Presidential Policy Guidance, required high-level, interagency vetting of proposed strikes. They also said that the target must pose a threat to Americans and that there must be near-certainty that no civilian bystanders would die.

Under the new guidelines, Africa Command may treat Somalia under less-restrictive battlefield rules: Without interagency vetting, commanders may strike people thought to be Shabab fighters based only on that status, without any reason to think that the individual target poses a particular and specific threat to Americans.

In addition, some civilian bystander deaths would be permitted if deemed necessary and proportionate. Mr. Trump’s decision to exempt much of Somalia from the 2013 rules follows a similar decision he made for parts of Yemen shortly after taking office.

jmdrake
03-30-2017, 07:48 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

I'm seeing a lot of green and not much brown.

Spoken like a true George W. Bush Donald J. Trump supporter.

jmdrake
03-30-2017, 07:49 PM
Hahahahaha, that's really funny.

Glenn Greenwald criticized Obama. Quit being an idiot.

dannno
03-30-2017, 07:53 PM
Glenn Greenwald criticized Obama. Quit being an idiot.

I have no problem with Glenn Greenwald, at all.. Citizen Four is one of my favorite docs. I think the source for his data here might be a little shakey, his source is closely tied to the mainstream media cabal.

That doesn't mean Trump hasn't stepped things up, he probably has, and it's not my favorite part of his candidacy but if when all is said and done we are over this invading sovereign countries to try and topple governments business then that would be great.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-30-2017, 07:57 PM
War on Terror to expand.







Just like your boy Obama expanded it. Your favorite paper, the NY Times, even said Obama laid the groundwork for the next president:



Obama Expands War With Al Qaeda to Include Shabab in Somalia





WASHINGTON — The escalating American military engagement in Somalia has led the Obama administration to expand the legal scope of the war against Al Qaeda, a move that will strengthen President-elect Donald J. Trump’s authority to combat thousands of Islamist fighters in the chaotic Horn of Africa nation.

The administration has decided to deem the Shabab, the Islamist militant group in Somalia, to be part of the armed conflict that Congress authorized against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to senior American officials. The move is intended to shore up the legal basis for an intensifying campaign of airstrikes and other counterterrorism operations, carried out largely in support of African Union and Somali government forces.

The executive branch’s stretching of the 2001 war authorization against the original Al Qaeda to cover other Islamist groups in countries far from Afghanistan — even ones, like the Shabab, that did not exist at the time — has prompted recurring objections from some legal and foreign policy experts.

The Shabab decision is expected to be publicly disclosed next month in a letter to Congress listing global deployments. It is part of the Obama administration’s pattern of relaxing various self-imposed rules for airstrikes against Islamist militants as it tries to help its partner forces in several conflicts.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Suit Calling War on ISIS Illegal Is Rejected NOV. 21, 2016
In Somalia, U.S. Escalates a Shadow War OCT. 16, 2016
NEWS ANALYSIS
Is the U.S. Now at War With the Shabab? Not Exactly MARCH 14, 2016
White House Invites Congress to Approve ISIS Strikes, but Says It Isn’t Necessary SEPT. 10, 2014
White House Weighs Limits of Terror Fight SEPT. 15, 2011

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

In June, the administration quietly broadened the military’s authority to carry out airstrikes in Afghanistan to encompass operations intended “to achieve strategic effects,” meaning targeting people impeding the work of Afghan government forces, officials said. Previously, strikes in Afghanistan were permitted only in self-defense, for counterterrorism operations targeting Qaeda or Islamic State forces, or to “prevent a strategic defeat” of Afghan forces.

Later in the summer, the administration deemed Surt, Libya, an “area of active hostilities,” after the Libyan prime minister asked for assistance in dislodging Islamic State militants from that city. The move exempted the area from 2013 rules that restrict drone strikes and other counterterrorism operations away from battlefield zones, which President Obama had announced in a major speech that year that sought to turn a page in the long-running war against Al Qaeda.

As of last week, the Pentagon had carried out 420 airstrikes against militants in Surt since August.

In Somalia, the 2013 rules limiting airstrikes away from “areas of active hostilities” still apply for now. But in practice, restrictions are being eased there in another way: Over the past year, the military has routinely invoked a built-in exception to those rules for airstrikes taken in “self-defense,” which can include strikes to help foreign partners even when Americans are not at direct risk.

The Shabab grew up as an Islamist insurgency after 2007, when Ethiopia, with American support, invaded Somalia to overthrow an Islamist council that had briefly taken control of much of the long-chaotic country.

The officials familiar with the internal deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity. In a statement, Lisa Monaco, Mr. Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, emphasized that the terrorist threat “is constantly evolving and requires an adaptable response.”

The administration’s strategy, Ms. Monaco said, “recognizes that we must more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks take hold, enabling and empowering these partners to share the burden of combating these threats to our mutual interests.”

“Because the threats and enemies we face evolve and adapt,” she continued, “we must be flexible in confronting them where they are — always doing so consistent with our laws and our values.”

But some experts criticized the administration for using a 15-year-old congressional authorization as a justification to go to war with the Shabab.

“It’s crazy that a piece of legislation that was grounded specifically in the experience of 9/11 is now being repurposed for close air support for regional security forces in Somalia,” said Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Under the 2001 authorization, the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with a specific organization, not every Islamist militant in the world. But that authority has proved elastic.

In 2014, for example, Mr. Obama declared that the 2001 law authorized him to battle the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. An Army captain rejected that claim and argued that the Islamic State war was illegal because Congress had never explicitly approved it. Last week, a judge dismissed that lawsuit, without ruling on its merits.

In Somalia, the United States had long taken the position that a handful of Shabab leaders, as individuals, had sufficient ties to Al Qaeda to make them wartime targets. But it has debated internally for years whether the Shabab as a whole, including their thousands of foot soldiers, can or should be declared part of the enemy.

To qualify as an “associated force,” a group must be an organized armed body that has aligned with Al Qaeda and entered the fight against the United States or its partners. Officials declined to discuss whether there were specific new reasons to justify declaring that the Shabab could meet that standard.
Morning Briefing

Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

See Sample Privacy Policy

For now, the administration intends to continue its strategy in Somalia of primarily helping partner forces battle the Shabab — including carrying out airstrikes to defend them when they get into trouble during missions. It is not declaring Somalia an “area of active hostilities,” which would free up the American military to carry out airstrikes targeting low-level militants more expansively.

In particular, officials said, Somalia — unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Surt — will continue to be subject to the Presidential Policy Guidance, the set of 2013 rules for drone strikes and other counterterrorism operations outside conventional war zones.

The 2013 rules apply restraints on the use of lethal force outside areas of active hostilities. They include high-level interagency review of proposed strikes and requirements that the target pose a threat to Americans — not just to American interests — and near certainty that no civilians would be killed.

But the military always retains an inherent right to carry out strikes in its own defense, officials said, and it has conducted “collective self-defense” strikes to aid partners in Somalia with growing frequency over the past year.

On March 5, the military carried out a huge airstrike in Somalia that killed over 150 people said to be Shabab fighters planning to attack an African Union base where American advisers were stationed. The military undertook the strike without consulting Washington policy makers, calling it a matter of self-defense.

The enormous death toll raised internal questions, officials said, about whether the self-defense exception in the 2013 rules had become a loophole permitting more unconstrained warfare. The dilemma sharpened in the following months as American-trained Somali government forces got into trouble and required “collective self-defense” airstrikes to bail them out, even though no American advisers faced direct threat.

The emerging pattern, officials said, brought to the surface an inherent conflict between two principles of Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism strategy: his effort to impose constraints on airstrikes outside war zones, as reflected in the 2013 rules, and his “light footprint” approach of building up and working with partner forces rather than using American forces to occupy countries.

One problem, the officials said, is that the 2013 rules were written against the backdrop of operations at the time in Yemen, in which drones based abroad flew over the country, took planned shots and flew out again. But when American advisers are on the ground working with partners, as they are in Somalia, both the Americans and their partners attract fire or get into combat situations and need to be defended.

“I think it’s a real tension,” said Luke Hartig, who was the senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council until this year. “We ask countries to go into the fight against our counterterrorism adversaries, but we have a stated policy of not using force against groups unless they pose a continuing and imminent threat to Americans.”

“At the same time, we don’t want to just be everyone’s air force,” said Mr. Hartig, who is now a fellow at New America, a think tank in Washington.

The administration decided against exempting Somalia from the 2013 rules because its adherence to limits intended to avoid civilian casualties was seen as helping to maintain partner support for American operations.

Another aspect of the dilemma the administration faces, the officials said, centers in part on the War Powers Resolution, a post-Vietnam War law that limits combat deployments that Congress has not authorized to 60 days.

After the March 5 airstrike, the administration argued that the War Powers Resolution limits did not apply to strikes made both to aid African Union forces battling the Shabab and to defend American advisers. The idea was that Americans had been deployed to Somalia in part to counter Qaeda-linked Shabab elements, so the 2001 authorization covered their presence and strikes to defend them from any threat.

But as American partners have been going after the Shabab in general more often without any particular focus on individuals linked to Al Qaeda, it has been harder to point to any congressional authorization for such airstrikes that would satisfy the War Powers Resolution.

As the election neared, the administration decided it would be irresponsible to hand off Somali counterterrorism operations to Mr. Obama’s successor with that growing tension unresolved.

Now, as Mr. Zenko pointed out, “this administration leaves the Trump administration with tremendously expanded capabilities and authorities.”

A version of this article appears in print on November 28, 2016, on Page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama Expanding War With Al Qaeda to Include Somalia. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Continue reading the main story
From Our Advertisers





https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/obama-expands-war-with-al-qaeda-to-include-shabab-in-somalia.html?_r=0

jmdrake
03-30-2017, 07:59 PM
Just like your boy Obama expanded it. Your favorite paper, the NY Times, even said Obama laid the groundwork for the next president:

Yep. Each president gets worse and worse. Glad we agree.

Swordsmyth
03-30-2017, 08:02 PM
Yep. Each president gets worse and worse. Glad we agree.

That remains to be seen, Dump has done a few good things, things obummer would never have done.

jmdrake
03-30-2017, 08:08 PM
That remains to be seen, Dump has done a few good things, things obummer would never have done.

On the GWOT (global war on terror) each president gets worse and worse. So far Trump has been worse than Obama on the war on drugs. Trump has been much worse with the TSA. It remains to be seen what happens to healthcare. Hopefully Rand and the Freedom Caucus will pull Trump in the right direction even if they have to do it with him kicking and screaming.

enhanced_deficit
03-30-2017, 08:13 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qcvWj3c.png

I'm seeing a lot of green and not much brown.

Trump administration has been involved in at least two foreign policy blunders in Yemen/Iraq so far, not a good start.

It's true that Iraq bombing with 200 plus cvilian deaths was being contested but US tax payers funded Iraq officials not the most credible folks when it comes to wars toll:

Iraq gov claim implicates 'Obama founded' group in civilians deaths in Mosul Iraq (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509026-Iraq-gov-claim-implicates-Obama-founded-group-in-civilians-deaths-in-Mosul-Iraq&)

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-30-2017, 08:27 PM
Glad we agree.


Well, possibly to probably, depending on how you measure it. We might agree, but people like ZippyJuan and TheCount are hardly like the people here. They look to be staunch Obama supporters. That's the difference between liberty and the left-right continuum.

asurfaholic
03-30-2017, 08:45 PM
True, he gave that power to the generals and CIA. Now the Iraqi military can call in air strikes using US planes.

Seriously?? Source?

TheCount
03-30-2017, 08:48 PM
That remains to be seen, Dump has done a few good things, things obummer would never have done.On defense or in general?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-30-2017, 08:53 PM
Dump has done a few good things, things obummer would never have done.


On defense or in general?


I hear he's eliminating some environmental regulations. He stuck it to the traditional media. I think he eliminated that executive order on LG-BBQ-something something.

I guess that upsets you?

twomp
03-30-2017, 09:21 PM
Zippy suckered again by the MSM...


They are local volunteers. Not Al Quaeda. Russia and Assad are pumping that disinformation.

http://time.com/syria-white-helmets/




How a Syrian White Helmets Leader Played Western Media

In the days following the attack, news media coverage relied heavily on accounts provided by the White Helmets. The head of the organization in Aleppo, Ammar Al-Selmo, was offering them a personal on-the-scene account.

Selmo’s version of the story turned out to be riddled with falsehoods; however, many journalists approached it without an ounce of skepticism, and have continued to rely on him for information on the ongoing battles in and around Aleppo.

The first detail on which Selmo’s testimony revealed itself as dishonest is his claim about where he was located at the moment the attack began. Selmo told Time Magazine the day after the attack that he was a kilometer or more away from the warehouse where the aid convoy trucks were parked at that point – presumably at the local White Helmet center in Urm al-Kubra. But Selmo changed his story in an interview with the Washington Post published September 24, stating he was “making tea in a building across the street” at that moment.

Even more dramatically, Selmo claimed at first that he saw the beginning of the attack. According to the story published by Time on September 21, Selmo said he was drinking tea on the balcony when the bombing began, and “he could see the first barrel bombs falling from what he identified as a Syrian regime helicopter.”

But Selmo could not have seen a barrel bomb falling from a helicopter or anything else at that moment. In a video shot early the next morning, Selmo declared that the bombing had started at about 7:30pm. In later statements, the White Helmets put the time at 7:12pm. But sunset on September 19 was at 6:31pm, and by roughly 7pm, Aleppo was shrouded in complete darkness.

Read the whole thing here:

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/11/29/syrian-white-helmets-leader-played-western-media/

merkelstan
03-31-2017, 07:46 AM
Al-Qaeda is in the business of pulling people out of the rubble of destroyed buildings in Syria now? That seems a little far out of their usual tactics.

Well maybe it is propaganda. Or they're propaganda. I'm not gonna argue. I shouldn't have stated it as an undisputed fact. If you're curious, use the internet.

TheCount
03-31-2017, 08:49 AM
Well maybe it is propaganda. Or they're propaganda. I'm not gonna argue. I shouldn't have stated it as an undisputed fact. If you're curious, use the internet.The White Helmets, similar to other antiwar groups, often exaggerate their claims of civilian casualties. However, the reason why there's so much propaganda against them is because the Syrian and Russian governments don't like it when they post recordings of dead children being pulled out of the rubble of their homes. Similar to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or whatever, they are inconvenient obstacles to warmongers.

Athan
03-31-2017, 10:23 AM
It has happened. A damn topic of interest I am genuinely concerned about over Trump's handling has just been deflated because of the idiot user that brought up the topic.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/5US.gif

Never have our mods been so useless and absent.

TheCount
03-31-2017, 10:33 AM
Zippy suckered again by the MSM...

Read the whole thing here:

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/11/29/syrian-white-helmets-leader-played-western-media/Which part of the article said they were al-Qaeda members? I'm having trouble finding it.

GunnyFreedom
03-31-2017, 10:53 AM
Spoken like a true George W. Bush Donald J. Trump supporter.
I just never seem to have enough rep for you. 5682

CPUd
03-31-2017, 04:30 PM
Seriously?? Source?

Trump gives CIA power to launch drone strikes: report (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508600-Trump-gives-CIA-power-to-launch-drone-strikes-report)

New Rules Of Engagement: More Authority To The Generals (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508569-New-Rules-Of-Engagement-More-Authority-To-The-Generals)

Ender
03-31-2017, 05:06 PM
Just like your boy Obama expanded it. Your favorite paper, the NY Times, even said Obama laid the groundwork for the next president:

Thought the NYT was fake news. ;)

Obama DID do a good thing with Iran and this is something Trump wants to destroy.

CPUd
03-31-2017, 05:10 PM
Pentagon responds to criticism over civilian deaths in Mosul blast


By Idrees Ali | WASHINGTON

The Pentagon on Thursday said it would soon release a video showing Islamic State militants herding civilians into a building in the Iraqi city of Mosul and then firing from it, the U.S. military's latest response to an outcry over a separate explosion thought to have killed scores of civilians.

The U.S. military has acknowledged that the U.S.-led coalition probably had a role in the March 17 explosion, but said Islamic State also could be to blame.

Local officials and eyewitnesses have said as many as 240 people may have died in the Al-Jadida district when a blast made a building collapse, burying families inside.

Rights group Amnesty International and Pope Francis have both called for better protection for civilians caught in war zones in Iraq.

The Pentagon does not regularly release images or videos from operations. However, it has had to do so once already this month after it denied striking a mosque in Syria, releasing an aerial image to show the mosque was intact. That incident is under investigation.

A spokesman for the U.S-led coalition fighting Islamic State told reporters on Thursday he was working to declassify a video showing militants hiding civilians in a building in west Mosul to "bait the coalition to attack."

"What was see now is not the use of civilians as human shields ... For the first time we caught this on video yesterday as armed ISIS fighters forced civilians into a building, killing one who resisted and then used that building as a fighting position against the (Counter Terrorism Service)," Colonel Joseph Scrocca said. He was using an acronym for Islamic State.

Scrocca said Islamic State tactics have led to adjustments in procedures, adding that about 1,000 Islamic State fighters remained in west Mosul, but did not give details on these changes. He added than an in-depth investigation into the strikes had been opened on March 17.

On Tuesday, Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters by teleconference it was "a little disappointing" that questions during the briefing focused on U.S.-led air strikes.

"ISIS is slaughtering Iraqis and Syrians on a daily basis. ISIS is cutting off heads. ISIS is shooting people," he said.

Amnesty International has said the high civilian toll in Mosul suggests U.S.-led coalition forces have failed to take adequate precautions to prevent civilian deaths.

Pope Francis on Wednesday said it was "imperative and urgent" to protect civilians in Iraq.

At his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square, Francis said he was "concerned about civilian populations trapped in the neighborhoods of western Mosul".

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-airstrike-idUSKBN17137N