(Wannabe) President Romney Can Thank Obama for His Permanent Robotic Death List

[unhappycamper]

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/disposition-matrix/




President Romney Can Thank Obama for His Permanent Robotic Death List
By Spencer Ackerman
October 24, 2012

It’s a good thing that Mitt Romney endorsed President Obama’s counterterrorism agenda. Should he win the election in two weeks, Romney will inherit an institutionalized, bureaucratic machine for using lethal robots to target and kill suspected terrorists and their allies. Killing Osama bin Laden was a one-time event; this “Disposition Matrix” is Barack Obama’s real national-security legacy.

The Matrix, as detailed in a blockbuster Washington Post expose, is a master list maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center of suspected terrorists around the world, matched with methods for dealing with them. Most often, that means killing them; and most often, that means using an expanding fleet of armed drones to do so, taking off from hubs in the Arabian Peninsula, eastern Afghanistan and Djibouti’s Camp Lemonnier. Despite bin Laden’s death and the supposed disruption of al-Qaida’s old leadership, the Matrix keeps adding names, as fast or faster than the drones drop bodies.

Maybe the White House still believes, as Obama aide Ben Rhodes recently contended, that the Arab Spring will “undercut the al-Qaida narrative.” But the constellation of U.S. counterterrorism agencies is settling in for the long haul: a war that expands worldwide and shows no sign of ending. “We’re not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, ‘We love America,’” one tells the Post’s Greg Miller.

There’s a rhetorical consensus in Washington that, as Romney said at Monday’s debate, the U.S. “can’t kill our way out of this mess.” It’s spoken so often it’s a cliche. But in practice, killing appears to be the mainstay of U.S. efforts: nearly 3,000 people have been slain by drone strikes, according to a Post online database, including an undisclosed number of civilians. And the security agencies are preparing for even more.

[geckosfeet]

1. "President Romney" - are you serious? I know it's the title in the artlice but it makes me gag.

And the article is a backhanded swipe at national counter terrorism policy in Pakistan.

Wired Magazine - The Danger Room

At the nearby National Counterterrorism Center, teams of analysts and officials compile the targeting lists compiled by JSOC and the CIA, and match them to unspecified standards for dealing with terror suspects. They review the Disposition Matrix every three months before passing it along to the White House for approval of specific actions outside the well-entrenched Pakistan drone campaign. There, John Brennan, Obama’s trusted chief counterterrorism deputy, runs an interagency meeting that passes selected targets for killing to Obama for approval.

I guess the first thing I would ask is, are we supposed to believe that there is a wired magazine keyboard jockey sitting in on this process? Or is this an "artists rendering"?

Also, as distasteful as destroying terrorists is, someone has to do it. My suggestion would be to not plant the American flag over every drone strike. However the bad guys should just be made ineffectual by whatever means possible. Getting detailed accurate intelligence before acting covertly makes more sense to me than dropping a drone on a suspected target and making more enemies than you kill.

Finally, the overall strategy needs to shift towards diplomatic efforts and they need to be drastically increased and supported with proper security and intelligence. Military detachments if necessary. It will take generations before the violence and destruction becomes less of an open wound, even if we stop the drones today.

But the phrase "President Romney" is a frightening prospect.

[unhappycamper]

2. I was still on my second cuppa joe?

The article was from wired.com and I neglected to put (Wannabe) in the header.

[white cloud]

3. Please edit

look terrible TIA

[geckosfeet]

4. Thanks a bunch for the edit!

Wasn't sure about the [blockquote style="display:inline; margin:0 2px;"]® rules but that looks much better.