DRONE WARFARE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OUR WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

WEAKNESS IN OUR LEADERS AND MILITARY OVER-REACH

I heard on the TV news today (April 30, 2012) that for the first time President Obama has attempted to rationalize, through his spokesperson, counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan, his frequent use of aerial drones in the war in Afghanistan as well as elsewhere in places that are not war zones. Perhaps this is a result of the ramp up of attacks by the Romney camp who claim that Mr. Obama is "spiking the football*" in regard to his so called military successes. But for whatever reason, they claim, Brennan and Obama are dead wrong. They both should revisit the idea of what is a morally justified war and proportional response.

(By the way, John Brennan is the US official who claimed that the US has a "clean record" on the use of unmanned drones and a "year-long string of perfect assassinations with zero collateral deaths." Even hardened professionals who heard that statement winced at it's impossibility. So we must take what this man states--who is a charter member of the anti-terrorist mini industry--with a large grain of sand.)

The use of drones in a war of defense against a legitimate foe who is actually capable and poised to launch attacks on our homeland is of course justified--as a form of self defense. That is not the case in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and Yemen..one of our latest undeclared "war" zones. In Afghanistan, the Taliban (frequent targets of drones) are a home grown, local force defending their native land and way of life from invasion by a foreign occupying force. I do not agree with their policies, politics or their treatment of their womenfolk, or their support of Bin Laden prior to the 9-11 attack, but I can not legitimately claim that they are today a "threat" to our homeland. They just want us out of there.

In regard to the few al Qaida remaining in Afghanistan, (which the US government publications estimate recently to be in the range of 100 or so individuals. The President himself stated that to date we have "neutralized 20 out of 30 of their top leadership.") the Obama Administration would like to have their cake and eat it too. They would have us believe that after all the hundreds of drone air strikes (now, under Obama about one every four days) that they have decimated al Qaida, and they would like to take credit for the elimination of the "terrorist threat". But they do not want to have this handy and useful "threat" disappear completely. So somehow, miraculously, according to them, there are still more al Qaida cropping up everywhere, more al Qaida "associated", al-Qaida "related" more al Qaida "franchise" groups and more "threats to our homeland". In regard to Yemen, one must completely disengage our senses from our intellect to believe that the impoverished, desertified, sand-blown, politically fractured, wasteland called Yemen could ever stitch together a legitimate threat against the USA. If you believe that, there is a bridge in Brooklyn....that I think you might be interested in purchasing. Thus the ghoulish counting of al Qaida "takedowns," "kills", "neutralisation" continues and reminds me of the old-style military "body count" game which was used by our military (for a while) so effectively in Vietnam War days. Now with modern unmanned drone attacks the "kills" are even more secretive and unverifiable, and thus so much more effective (temporarily) to maintain unwarranted support for questionable military action.

The war in Afghanistan, it is essentially over. And tonight, May 1, 2012 the President, speaking from Kabul stated just that. The Taliban have won. But the President has signed an agreement which would keep us there for more than another decade. His so called "strategy" is to beat the Taliban up a bit with drone attacks so that when their survivors reach the negotiating table, they would be more amenable to our demands for permanent Afghan bases, and lucrative

inside deals for our corporate elites to exploit Afghan natural resources after our main forces leave. Or perhaps, the reason is so that our troops and allies will not have to fight each other as they climb into the open doorway of a whirring helicopter hovering above the rooftop of the US embassy in Kabul when we depart as we did in Vietnam, or sneak off surreptitiously in the dark of night as we did in neighboring Iraq. Furthermore, President Obama has already established his politically-motivated 2014 departure date--now extended to 2024. But be forewarned all details of course are still on the table.

But we stay on and probably will continue to use drones to kill innocents for the next decade. No one, least of all a President of the USA in a tight reelection race would want to pull up stakes and leave a war zone....and let the Republicans blame him for "losing", even losing an already "lost war". No, that is political suicide. Thus, we remain at "war" in Afghanistan, and will remain apparently until 2024, as our troops urinate on dead Taliban, burn Quarans in open fires, go on enraged killing sprees like Sargent Robert Bales who gunned down sixteen innocent women and children as they cowered in their homes, and in turn, our boys (and girls) get shot at, wounded, and killed, as the increasingly bold Taliban fight on, even now after ten years of our efforts and billions of dollars expended, as they surge back into the streets of Kabul from which we extirpated them ten years ago.

But is such a war a justified war with proportional response and taken up in the defense of our homeland? Hardly. The Taliban are no threat to us or our interests. Can they attack our homeland? No. Do they want to? No. Is our response to the threat proportional. No. Or is this just a political "situation" which the President must pace out to extend a phony war to more effectively "end" it when domestic political condition permit him to finally wrap-up and leave at an opportune time? And now he states it will not end until 2024--if ever.

Thus the war in Afghanistan, and its metastasized sub-wars in other nations, is NOT justified. It wears on not for our nation's defense, but for Mr. Obama's political survival and for that reason does not approach the minimum standard for a just war. Thus for that same reason the use of Predator drones which kill more innocent bystanders than it does our 'political' enemies is not justified either.

Of course the killing of our own citizens abroad by Presidential fiat such as the cold-blooded assassination of Arizona-born-and-bred, Anwar al Awlaki who may have had alien and objectionable ideas and perhaps sympathies with the enemy---but as a US citizen, the Constitution should have protected him from summary execution, and a death at the hands of his own countrymen without judicial review or input. Assassination of a US citizen at the hands of President Obama is a threat to us all and makes Awlaki's culpability or possible innocence unknowable. The death of his sixteen-year-old-Denver, USA-born son, Abdulrahman al Awlaki, is another case all together. He was an innocent US civilian who was certainly too young to have had fully formulated political ideas that would have been a threat to us. He was killed after his father in a subsequent Obama-ordered drone strike. That act is certainly a verifiable "Murder 2" charge (recall the Trayvon Martin case of a youngster of similar age) in any international court. This will remain a black mark on this President's Nobel Peace Prize reputation (and rightly so) for the rest of his life.

In summary, President Obama is using drone attacks as a form of high-tech political assassination to decapitate political groups he and his advisors presently see as "their" enemy, not necessarily the enemy of our state. The use of drones so freely by Obama also provides a form of political insurance for the President against a charge of military weakness. Rash unnecessary use of this form of warfare permits him to claim that he is "strong on defense".

A measure of just how much the President's use of drone warfare is a form of simple political insurance (and with little military value) can be gauged by the difference in use of this form of killing by the two Presidents who used it. George Bush, a leader not likely to be charged with "military wimpishness" used drone attacks more judiciously, about one in every forty-three days on average. Obama on the other hand, in very similar geopolitical and domestic circumstances, has used them ten time more frequently or about one in every four days. That difference in use of the two men in similar military circumstances is a clear measure of just how useful the drone kills have been as a "domestic political tool" to control and deflect internal political attacks by Republicans and not an element necessarily used to satisfy a justifiable military objective.

Finally, there lies the question of the efficacy of this new, drone-war technology. The idea of their use is to kill and weaken the enemy, frighten them into submission and decapitate the leadership cadre by assassinations. To a large degree, over time, such policies only inflame and exacerbate the conditions and political situations they are employed to control. They incite the populace against the foreign invader/colonial power. Furthermore, the process eliminates leaders who have the experience and authority to lead the insurgency and these are the very persons needed to eventually negotiate with the colonial (or neo-colonial) power. Eliminating these leaders interrupts, abrogates or delays the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Israel's experience with targeted assassinations ended up eliminating the moderate Palestinian leadership in the insurgency with the very same strategy and unfortunate results which continue to haunt that troubled state to this day. Killing off the leadership also tends to speed up the radicalization of the insurrection.

Thus, I'm sorry Mr. Obama, there is no justification for your continued war in Afghanistan, and therefore none for the use of unmanned drones there and elsewhere. Your politically motivated and unfortunate recent decisions have made you as much a war criminal as Mr. George Bush.

MORE POLITICAL MUSINGS

As a nation, we seem to be stuck on the horns of a national election dilemma. After a questionable election, and a national tragedy, the nation went off half-cocked, led by a "cowboy" tough-guy president like George Bush, who misrepresented his way into two foreign wars which have become an international disaster, and helped to usher in the second Great Depression. Then we elected what we all seemed to see as a George Bush mirror image--an intellectual, a thoughtful, and cool, cautious black President. But once in office he morphed into a "black" Bush. The electorate soon learned that in this nation, in the 21 st Century the President's race was a weakness which had to be dealt with, and all of his intellect and ability could not overcome. Had Obama been a white Protestant no one could have slugged him with that particular cudgel. Perhaps he would have smacked Netanyahu in the nose, and said NO to the troop surge, pulled out of Afghanistan now, and fought for the single payer option, etc. etc. We learned that he could not make those tough decisions, but was forced to compromise and give in to a tough opponent. To insulate himself from attacks he had to compromise and over-react and over-reach and make sometimes even more foolhardy acts than "the White Bush." Many of his foreign policy actions were designed just so he could insulate himself from charges of "wimpishness". But the lack of respect this nation gave him and the intolerance which simmered just below the surface weakened this leader.

So from this perspective we've had a long stretch of bad leadership. Without going back before most readers memory, we can start with Clinton. We elected this self-centered, sex-obsessed, white, scoundrel, who presented himself as a progressive but who governed from the right of center. He signed far-right banking legislation which helped to ushered in the Geat Depression of 2007-2008. He sullied the reputation of the White House and the Oval Office with his Huck Finn behavior. His actions aroused the far right. His failure to leave office gracefully and hand over the reins to Al Gore a strong leader, when he was impeached led to a a confused election in which the Supreme Court intervened to usher in a conservative, dullard cowboy, who was led through his eight years by a Rasputin-like reactionary VP, who conspired to involve the nation in two disastrous wars that ended in economic upheaval. The nation reacted again to elect a black, centrist, of intellect and talent. We dumped him into the most challenging foreign policy, economic and political circumstances probably ever faced by any President. His race and over conciliatory temperament prevented him from effectively facing down the forces of the right which mercilessly pummeled him throughout his term. We have had a long series of bad and weak or ineffective leadership.

Is there something wrong here? Is this some kind of Groundhog Day process going on? Perhaps our political system has some inherent weakness that drives us like a pendulum from right to left but never out of the same blasted-out fox hole, whomever we elect.

Woe for us if we elect a woman next time. What will she have to do to establish her military bona-fides? Start WW III?

One must think, at this juncture, after seeing President Obama's inability to change the nation's course away from a format established by George Bush and watch as he falters and falls into the same behavior patterns as Bush---that perhaps we do NEED a man of business, a non-ideologue, a nuts and bolts man, like a Romney who perhaps CAN somehow change our course. But is a Romney capable of thinking of what is best for the nation? Can he make the necessary changes?Would he hang on to and tame the crazy, whip lashing helm of this nation's wild ship of state.

Or will a reelected Obama, reborn by winning a second term somehow develop a calcification in his supple back which will permit him to face up to the challenges of a divided confused and suffering nation. I always had great optimism for this man. Give a smart man a chance, let him stew a bit and learn, and since he can learn he can change and soon he will see the light of day and make the necessary changes. Can he do it?

There is a bad dream I have now and again. It is that we have had a "White Bush" and a "Black Bush", and there seems a good chance that we can expect from the next election...a "Mormon Bush"! I care not about the Mormon part...but it is the Bush part that scares me. Will there be another "Bush style Presidency" and will still be in Afghanistan in 2024?

Get the picture?

rjk

*Spiking the Football. A term derived from late 20th Century American football. In American football, when a player makes a run that results in the player carrying the ball over the goal line of the opposing team, the ecstatic and overly demonstrative (victory dance) player throws the ball with force down into the ground, so that it bounces up into the air in an act of defiance and threat to the opposing team. It is looked on as poor sportsmanship.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: TWO EXAMPLES OF THE UNWISE USE OF LETHAL FORCE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

I. Killing School Kids in Kunar

The headline in the LA Times on December 31, 2009 was arresting: US special forces kill eight school children aged 12-17 and one adult in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. See: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghanistan-civilians31-2009dec31,0,3311323.story

I read the original report in Le Monde, which described the event as a “slaughter” of ten civilians…all of the same family. See here: http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2009/12/30/afghanistan-kaboul-confirme-la-mort-de-dix-civils-dans-une-operation-de-la-coalition_1286103_3216.html#xtor=RSS-3208

“Une unité des forces internationales basée à Kunar est descendue d'un avion dans le district de Narang de cette province, a fait sortir dix personnes de
trois maisons – dont huit écoliers de 13 à 17 ans et le reste de la même famille
– et les a abattues", indique le chef des enquêteurs afghans, Asadullah Wafa,
cité par le communiqué de la présidence afghane.”

[My translation: “A unit of the international forces based in Kunar Province, descended from a plane in the district of Narang in this province, and forced ten persons to exit three houses—of these(the ten)eight were schoolchildren of 13- 17 years old, and rest members of the same family—then slaughtered them”, indicated the head of Afghan inquiry, Asadullah Wafa, and cited by a communiqué of the Afghan president.”]

Apparently, US special-forces operating in Kunar district, landed from a helicopter and forced all the male members of the compound from their homes. Reports indicate the victims were killed in cold blood. Whatever happened, this was not an accidental “strike” by an unmanned drone, as some papers (as the Los Angeles Time) continued to suggest.

What is happening in Afghanistan? Why kill school kids? Was it revenge? A mistake? The probable answer: Our military has a not-so-secret policy of fighting terror with terror. This is well known fact, but little reported: that our special forces function as an "antidote" to the teror tactics of the Taliban. Their goal (USA Special Forces) is to keep the civilian population more fearful of the US, than of the Taliban. It has always been this way. Wring your hands in anguish, but that is just what we bought into when we supported an unjustified war of imperial aggression.

Write the President, your congressman and senator to urge them to stop the senseless killing and bring all our troops home. With our forces back in the US, we will have far fewer “terror” incidents such as the deaths of school kids in Kunar. Our actions in Yemen and Afghanistan only create the circumstances for more terror.

2. Another Case of Misuse of Military Might-The Christmas Bomber From Yemen

On or before December 17, 2009, freshman President Barak Obama met with his military advisors. The staff was eager and flush with “hot” new information about a little-known al Qaida operative, one Qasim al-Raymi, who it was just learned was to hold a rally that day in far-off Yemen. Here was a chance to “liquidate” a political adversary who had the potential to make trouble for a close ally, in neighboring Saudi Arabia. The view of the military in the room was that the elimination of this individual was necessary to "send a message" and be “quick and clean”. The general sitting accross from Obama, jerked his jaw upward, as he spoke, to stretch his neck skin away from his too-tight shirt collar.

“A cruise missile from our fleet in the Gulf of Aden, a short flight, and “poof!—problem solved,” smiled, the general whose stiffly-starched olive-drab shirt was studded with ribbons and polished brass insignias.

The young president looked around the table at the rugged, cleanly-shaved faces. He tapped his long thin finger on the circular gold escutchen of his Presidential Blackberry. It was set on the desk in fornt of him, its customary five-centimeters away from his leather-bound daily intelligence log book. He stared at the round Presidential seal for a few seconds. Then looked up:

“Do it!”, he said, firmly.

The men around the table turned to look at each other and each smiled knowingly.

The President arose, picked up his Blackbery and log book and turned to depart. As he moved from the table the men at the table stood up, the sounds of scraping boots and sliding chairs filled the still room. They remained at respectful attention as the President passed through the door.

"We got 'im!", whispered the general with the tight collar, to a man next to him.

A few hours later, in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Yemen, a destroyer slowly steamed a five mile-wide circular course as it waited for orders. The big gray ship slowed turned into the faint south-west wind as a long tubular missile rose out of the hold. With little action of the small knot of sailors on the forward deck, the missile blasted off the ship’s gently swaying deck. The shiped rocked slighlty as it rose off the deck leaving a billow of trailing white smoke. The long gray tube flew straight up into the blue sky to its cruising altitude, then it leveled off, as its internal gyroscopes hummed and its tail fins and stabilizers smoothly moved to correct its course toward Sanaa in Yemen.

On the foredeck, a lone junior officer stood away from a group of sailors . He craned his neck to watch the white contrail of the missile slowly twisting as it was distorted by the upper winds. The condensate dissolved in the dry air leaving behind a thin line of cirrus clouds in the deep blue sky. The sailor took a deep breath, his heart full of pride, as he thought of how he would describe this event to his buddies back home. He'd tell how he was on the board the very ship that sent a “strong message” to the Yemeni terrorists.

Minutes later, the blunt nose of the cruise missile, following its pre-programmed GPS signal turned earthward. It nose-dived toward a small cluster of homes and buildings in a narrow treeless valley. Eighty-two (82) civilians, mostly women and children were blown to bits as the nearly two-tons of high explosives detonated. Two hundred and thirteen (213) other individuals were injured, among them a few al Qaida sympathizers. The US and western press virtually ignored this mass killing of innocents in distant Yemen.

But later that day, a local paper, the Yemen Times ran a story on the “US aerial attack on a suspected al-Qaida training camp in southern Yemen”. The reporter quoted a local source who indicated that indeed 82 civilians had died and 213 were injured by the massive bomb. The source noted that most of them were women and children from a nomad community residing in the district…and that most of the casualties were located between one and two kilometers away from the jihadist’s camp.

Four days later—on Monday—two unmasked al-Qaida militants (showing their faces to prove that the US strike did not kill them) appeared at a rally at the very bomb site where so many were killed. They need not have collected fragments of the crusise missile with "made in USA" on it to show the locals. They knew where the massive bomb had come from. But the militants blamed the attack on the Americans anyway. The men vowed revenge for the killing of innocents by the "Crusaders".

Five days later, Time Magazine in a piece by Abagail Houslohner in a December 22, 2009 issue, wrote a prophetic commentary which essentialy stated that the action in Yemen was counterproductive. Indeed for President Obama the action would be highly counterproductive. The report stated that the American attack had weakened the official Yemen government and strenthened the insurgency-- and stirred up more anti-American hatred. See: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1949324,00.html

”At least 34 people died last week, when Yemeni forces hit suspected al-Qaeda targets in the southern governorate of Abyan and in Ahrab, a district northeast of the Yemeni capital Sana'a. Western and Yemeni media outlets reported that the United States provided Yemen with key intelligence and firepower to carry out the strikes, but to what extent is unclear. Yemeni state media reported that President Obama phoned Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to congratulate him on a job well done, and ABC News said that U.S. cruise missiles had been used.

But regardless of who did what, a primary target in the attacks — Qasim al-Raymi, the al-Qaeda leader who is believed to be behind a 2007 bombing in central Yemen that killed seven Spanish tourists and two Yemenis — is still at large. And reports of a U.S. role, and mass civilian casualties at the sites of the attacks, have sparked a public outcry and added to anti-American sentiments across the country. "They missed that individual," says Johnsen of the targeted al-Qaeda chief. "And at the same time, they ended up killing a number of women and children in the strike on Abyan. So now you have something where there are all these pictures of dead infants and mangled children that are underlined with the caption 'Made in the USA' on all the jihadi forums. Something like this does much more to extend al-Qaeda."

Indeed through the backlash that followed, the attacks have started to look like more of a boon than a bust for Yemen's al-Qaeda revival, as well as for other opponents of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh's regime. Iran — which Yemen accuses of backing the Shi'ite Houthi rebellion in the north — headlined the attacks on its state-sponsored Press TV with: "Obama ordered deadly blitz on Yemen."
"The al-Qaeda threat in Yemen is real, but now after this operation, it will be greater," says Mohammed Quhtan, a member of Yemen's opposition Islamist al-Islah party. "Al-Qaeda will be able to recruit a lot more young people, at least from the tribes that were hit. And it will have reasonable grounds to attract more people from Abyan governorate, and from the Yemeni population in general."

That's a frightening prospect for a country on the brink of collapse. Yemen's economy is in tatters; its population complains of neglect and development woes; and Yemeni children suffer from a 50% malnutrition rate. Observers warn that poverty and unemployment are prime recruitment factors for al-Qaeda, something they say the U.S. government and other foreign powers should have done more to address. "If you're going to carry out [an attack] like this, you have to have done a great deal of field work, where you've sort of undermined al-Qaeda through development and aid so that when something like this happens, al-Qaeda can't easily replace the individuals that it has lost," says Johnsen. "But if you don't take those steps then the pool of recruits just starts to multiply exponentially."

More troubling still is that last week's assault doesn't necessarily indicate a renewed Yemeni commitment to fighting al-Qaeda. Analysts say Yemen has been slow to confront the al-Qaeda threat with the gusto that the U.S. has been pushing for, in large part because going after the Islamist group hasn't always been in the government's best interests. "If the government wants to fight [al-Qaeda] seriously, they can do it," says Ali Saif Hassan, the director of Yemen's Political Development Forum. But, he adds: "It's a matter of political decision — how much they will win, and how much they will lose." Sana'a has recently focused more of its attention on the rebel separatist movement in the south and on the recent Houthi uprising in the north than it has on al-Qaeda".

In a review of the Time Magazine article (December 22, 2009) Henry Adams of "United for Peace in Pierce County" an e-jounal at:
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9253-commentary-us-strike-in-yemen-will-ultimately-prove-counterproductive.html summarized the story and added the following:

"Commentary: US strike in Yemen 'will ultimately prove counterproductive'

"C'est plus qu'un crime, c'est une faute," as Napoléon Bonaparte is supposed to have said of the assassination of the duc d'Enghien. -- On Tuesday Time magazine took a critical position vis-à-vis the U.S.'s failed attempt on Dec. 17, 2009, to kill with cruise missiles Qasim al-Raymi, an al-Qaeda leader in Yemen. -- The attack "appears to have resulted in a number of civilian casualties," Abigail Hauslohner said.[1] -- (That's putting it mildly.) -- As a result, it has "started to look like more of a boon than a bust for Yemen's al-Qaeda revival, as well as for other opponents of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh's regime," she said. -- Princeton University Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen is predicting that the attacks will ultimately prove counterproductive. -- "Immediately after 9/11, a combined U.S.-Yemeni effort to decapitate the Islamist group's leadership in the country and dismantle its infrastructure met with considerable success, Johnsen says. But since 2006, al-Qaeda has managed to regroup and grow stronger as Yemen's government struggles to hold on to its territory amid multiple rebellions and rising poverty. Now, Johnsen adds: 'You can't just kill a few individuals and the al-Qaeda problem will go away.'"

Princeton expert, Mr. Gregory Johnsen's prediction was proved to be correct--only a short week after its publicaiton.

The Yemeni al-Qaida leader, Qasim al Raymi had no cruise missiles to respond to the US attack, but he did have a number of angry and well-motivated suicide bombers.

Thus, a week to the day after the cruise missile attack in Yemen, which killed 82 people, a young Nigerian man who had been in Yemen, prepared for jihad by sewing a condom filled with a white crystalline solid explosive known as PETN, (a highly explosive ingredient found in explosives such as Semtex or “Plastique”) into his underwear, and purchasing a flight on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 and headed for Detroit Michigan on Christmas Day. Mr. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to ignite the charge as the plane approached Detroit. But there were three hundred people on that flight…one could only imagine the tragic results had he been "successful".

So understand this--in near-contemporaneity Mr Obama sent a half-a-million dollar, 20-foot long, US cruise missile with a ton and a half of high explosives into Yemen to kill and maim. In response, Qasim al Raymi sent a 23 year-old Nigerian out of Yemen with a few ounces of explosives sewn into his underdrawers to kill and maim. We killed and maimed nearly three-hundred innocents, he burned a hole in his underpants. The scenario is fitting for a Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon. That is how silly this so called "war on terror" is. One could almost laugh at it if one blocks out the horrible level of death and destruction.

Though Abdulmutallab failed, and no one save the bomber himself was injured, the political fall-out for Mr. Obama's was heavy. The irony is that Mr Obama's wish for keeping his aggressive persona under wraps regarding the December 17th Yemen attack was one of the factors that hurt him in the eyes of some of his fiercest detractors on the right. Obama's fall into Bush-style cowboy shoot-em-up behavior acted to motivate and galvanize a prompt revenge attack by the Yemeni militants. But the public was unaware of Mr. Obama's war-like actions preceeding the Christmas bomb attempt on a plane full of holiday travelers. But those of Abdulmuttalab were everywhere very big news.

The Obama Administration continues to be strongly criticized over its failure to intercept the young Nigerian. Other factors that helped stir criticism of Mr Obama are the fact that the young man’s worried father had alerted the American CIA in Nigeria about his son’s disappearance and “radicalization”, and as well, the fact that young Abdulmutallab had been placed on a “watch list”, all added to Mr. Obama’s embarrassment.

Our young President got burned. But has he learned anything from his too-close and cosy association with his “generals”. I think not. Obama appears to want to continue as a "good soldier" to his military subordinates. The facts: two days after his failed attempt to kill al-Raymi, he agreed to a second launch of cruise missiles (or a drone attack) on December 24th to asassinate a Moslem cleric (and native-born US citizen) known as Anwar al-Aulaqi. It is this cleric who had reputed e-mail contact with Major Nidal Hassan, the US army psychiatrist who killed thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood .
(See Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122400536.html?hpid=topnews)

The attack on Aulaqi--who has no record as an active terrorist--was an act of national revenge for Alaqi's undefined and unproved involvement in the Fort Hood massacre. I can understand the military command at Fort Hood wishing for revenge, but that the President agreed to what is in effect an extrajurical execution--no facts, no jury, no judge is what we have here. Another question that should be raised here is was the extra-juridcal execution-attempt on al-Aulaqi legal in the US, or internationally? I think not. Would the killing of al Aulaqi be a US or international crime? The strike in Yemen on al-Aulaqi's house killed thirty people--of course, they were all described as “militants”. Noteworthy, is a more recent report which indicates that al Aulaqi was not home at the time and has survived. So all these deaths were for naught. See: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/12/31/152724/55.

So what about Mr. Obama, whose unwise and counterproductive use of lethal force, has cut a bloody swath of death and destruction across the Middle East in only a week? Eight kids in Afghanistan, eighty civilians in one strike in Yemen and another thirty in a house-attack to asassinate (a not-at-home US citizen, Moslem cleric who might have had contact with a home-grown terrorist) in another part of Yemen. Yet he has not been successful, has not made us safer (no more likely the opposite result) and has aroused a great cloud of damaging politcal opposition on his right. Plainly he has lost respect and hurt himself politically.

As they say Florida, "If'n you catch a ‘gator by the tail, you better be certain-sure he don’t turn around and bite you in the ass.”

To my sights, it looks like Obama got "bit in the ass" by acquiescing to the demands of his military advisors...It's time for him to throw his hands like President Kennedy, and take a long lonely look at his foreign policy and military options. Change is needed.

Get the picture?

rjk