Armed U.S. Drones Flying Over Baghdad

[morningfog]

Primary mission is to defend Americans on the ground

Armed U.S. drones are flying over the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, an American official said Friday, primed to defend U.S. troops and diplomats on the ground—or to attack insurgents challenging the Iraqi government if President Barack Obama orders such strikes.

“We have the necessary forces not only to protect our own forces, but to be prepared should the President make a decision to do something more,” a senior Pentagon official said Friday. “We’ve got both manned and unmanned over Iraq, and it shouldn’t surprise anybody that some of our drones have armaments.”

The drone flights don’t necessarily portend a change in policy from Obama, who has sent military advisers to help the struggling Iraqi army fight Sunni militants taking control of swaths of the country but has said they’ll only be involved in training, not combat.

“This doesn’t mean necessarily that were going to use them—the President hasn’t made a decision to use any sort of direct action—but could the armed ones be used for protection of our advisers on the ground, of course they could be,” the military official said of the drones. “They’re also there looking for targets of opportunities. If the President decides they merit striking, sure, they’re there for that, too, but the President hasn’t made any of those decisions.”

* * *

MQ-1 Predators, outfitted with Hellfire missiles, have begun flying missions over Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq from an airbase in Kuwait, a military official said.

http://time.com/2933508/iraq-drones-isis-obama/

[randys1]

1. sigh, thank you George W criminal fuck Bush and Dick the greed Cheney

[morningfog]

2. Uh, thank you President Obama. Sure, the initial blame is with Bush and Cheney.

The disintegration of security in Iraq is a result of Bush's illegal war.

The current actions, and any military actions in Iraq from now until Jan. 21, 2017 are attributable to Obama.

[randys1]

3. deleted

i am done arguing here, i will get reported, banned

etc


etc


go ahead, blame Obama...if that works for you

I wonder if he is concerned with the people who will surely die there directly because of what bush did, if he does nothing now

[morningfog]

5. Read my post.

I am not blaming Obama for the current state of Iraq. That is Bush's fault. His illegal war cause this mess.

What we do from here is Obama's choice. If he orders strikes, the aftermath of those strikes, civilians killed and any further military escalation is on Obama.

[840high]

15. Absolutely.

[randys1]

16. Yes, he has terrible choices to make, and we all will live with the aftermath of them...

America needs to stay out of others business and then we need to dramatically change our trade policies...

But neither of those issues help the 1%, and as we all know and George Carlin told us about it as early as 1994, the 1% aint our buddies...

I actually heard him mention the one percent in a 1994 video...

[karynnj]

8. As long as you account for any good the diplomats may be able to do

The US policy, whether articulated by Obama or Kerry, is much cleared than the media opts to report. Over and over again, they have called for an inclusive government - defined by the Iraqis themselves. They just had an election and, under their constitution, they must form a government. (Their Constitution differs from ours where the legislature and Presidency are directly determined by the election.) Maliki's party did get the most votes, but nowhere near 50%.

Now, they COULD put together a unity government, including Maliki or excluding him. They could also ignore the crisis and put together a sectarian Shiite government giving little power to anyone. That is there choice. The US push is that they opt to make the hard political decision to create an inclusive government. At this point, Maliki (not surprisingly) is against this. The question is whether he has the power to either create a government that is not inclusive or if others have the ability to unite in enough numbers to form a government that is inclusive --- or will there be a long term stalemate with no new government.

The US is also trying to persuade the Sunni governments to not allow their people to fund ISIS and to persuade the Iraqi Sunnis to fight ISIS. Obviously, it will be hard to see if the first part is happening, but the Iraqi Sunnis have so far said they will not stand against ISIS.

Meanwhile, Syria bombed ISIS positions near the border in Iraq and Maliki thanked him. Iran has also backed Maliki, but I haven't read of any overt military actions. Though Lindsey Graham may think this is good, this really could end very very badly for the entire region and world. (Not to mention that cheering on two factions you hate killing each other -- and the people around them -- is pretty immoral.) Here, the US obviously has no control over what Iran or Syria do.

A political solution to both Iraq and Syria might be the only way to reduce the violence and the threat -- and it is hard to see what political solution could satisfy enough people. It is worth at least trying to find a political solution, however it may be within months (or weeks) that we will know whether that is not possible. If they do not form an inclusive government and the Sunnis do not reject ISIS, it is not clear that we should do anything. The Obama administration has said that air strikes without a government would be irresponsible. (I assume you agree here)

[morningfog]

10. Absolutely. I think the ONLY role for the US should be diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

And, anything that can be accomplished towards that end, I would support and praise.

But, Obama has already gone too far with the US military, in my opinion. We should not have advisers there getting involved. The armed drones (and armed manned jets) should not be flying. We should not be arming Syrian rebels. I am concerned that the US military role will only escalate and expand, despite, and perhaps at the exclusion of, any diplomatic efforts.

[bigtree]

4. Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End, Panel Concludes in Report

JUNE 26, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s embrace of targeted killings using armed drones risks putting the United States on a “slippery slope” into perpetual war and sets a dangerous precedent for lethal operations that other countries might adopt in the future, according to a report by a bipartisan panel that includes several former senior intelligence and military officials.

The group found that more than a decade into the era of armed drones, the American government has yet to carry out a thorough analysis of whether the costs of routine secret killing operations outweigh the benefits. The report urges the administration to conduct such an analysis and to give a public accounting of both militants and civilians killed in drone strikes.

The findings amount to a sort of report card — one that delivers middling grades — a year after President Obama gave a speech promising new guidelines for drone strikes and greater transparency about the killing operations. The report is especially critical of the secrecy that continues to envelop drone operations and questions whether they might be creating terrorists even as they are killing them.

“There is no indication that a U.S. strategy to destroy Al Qaeda has curbed the rise of Sunni Islamic extremism, deterred the establishment of Shia Islamic extremist groups or advanced long-term U.S. security interests,” the report concludes.

The panel includes a number of former Pentagon and C.I.A. officials and is jointly led by retired General John P. Abizaid, the former head of United States Central Command, and Rosa Brooks, a fellow at the New America Foundation and a law professor at Georgetown University. Other members of the group are Philip Mudd, a former deputy director of the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center; Jeffrey Smith, who served as the C.I.A.’s general counsel during the Clinton administration; and John B. Bellinger III, the legal adviser to the National Security Council and the State Department during the administration of George W. Bush.


article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/world/use-of-drones-for-killings-risks-a-war-without-end-panel-concludes-in-report.html

report: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/26/world/DRONES-document.html

[RKP5637]

6. Yep, my concern too, that this could well be a “slippery slope.” n/t

[polly7]

7. How many more nations are these chickenshit drones going to

'accidentally' reduce innocents to dust? Or, does it even matter anymore?

[TwilightGardener]

9. Good.

[morningfog]

11. Why do you say good?

[TwilightGardener]

12. Unlike most of DU, I don't have a problem with drone strikes as long as the

targeting is accurate and collateral damage/civilian killings are avoided as much as possible.

[morningfog]

13. So, you accept killing some civilians. What is the number of innocents killed by US you accept?

What is the exchange ratio for innocent to suspected insurgent?

And why should the US be in the busy of killing anyone in Iraq?

[1000words]

14. Let's have U.S. law enforcement use drones domestically.

With accurate targeting, collateral damage/innocent bystander killings will be avoided as much as possible.

[randys1]

17. I have been against drones from day one, and some of lib buddies argue with me

about it, but I dont care, drones bad.

Once you remove the human element or risk and make killing an easy proposition, nothing good will come

There was an excellent original Star Trek tv series episode about exactly that...

[wyldwolf]

18. Don't pull the thang out, unless you plan to bang (drones over Baghdad!)

Sorry, OP title made me think of the song.