White House admits to Obama 'secret' wars

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9335382/White-House-admits-drone-campaign-against-al-Qaeda-in-Yemen-and-Somalia-for-first-time.html

White House admits drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia for first time

The existence of President Barack Obama's drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia has been acknowledged by the White House for the first time.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02039/drone-aircraft_2039093b.jpg
US Air Force image of a Predator drone


Officials confirmed in the White House's semi-annual report to Congress on the state of US combat operations abroad that "direct action" was being taken against terrorists in the two countries.

The report, which described the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as "the most active and dangerous affiliate of al-Qaeda today", comes amid fury among Republicans over alleged national security leaks to the media by the Obama White House. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has appointed federal prosecutors to investigate whether classified information may have been deliberately leaked to reporters and authors in order to boost Mr Obama's foreign policy credentials.

A New York Times article last month disclosed the existence of a "kill list" of terror suspects over which the President has the final say. Mr Obama has denied allegations that details of the list were intentionally leaked, calling the suggestion "offensive". It also comes weeks after John Brennan, Mr Obama's counterterrorism chief, gave the first formal confirmation that the US used drones against terror suspects overseas.

The report said that in Somalia the US armed forces have been working to combat al-Shabaab, the region's most prominent al-Qaeda affiliate. "In a limited number of cases, the US military has taken direct action in Somalia against members of al-Qaeda, including those who are also members of al-Shabaab, who are engaged in efforts to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States and our interests," it said. The report covers the activities of the US military but not those of the CIA, which has its own fleet of drones and whose actions remain secret.

You know what I can't understand, Obama essentially declares wars on numerous nations (Libya, Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen by drone bombings without permission making it an act of war) and continues the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... yet somehow he is idolised whereas George W. Bush was absolutely loathed? I can bet if I made a thread today asking 'Obama or Romney' Obama would have many votes against Romney, but if it was Bush and Obama? Obama would be ahead in that as well.

I can't understand why people don't look at these things and judge by what people do, not what they say at election time. If you're going to be honest and judge on foreign policy, then Bush/Obama and Romney are all as equally bad as one another. Why pretend otherwise?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ANv-eMaRY

Thoughts?

[Puma!]

Yeah, I can understand what you mean - unlike Dubya though, Obama does things a on a "hush hush" scale - the White House likes to neither confirm or deny what Obama actually does. He's been going after the medical marijuana growers through the DEA for some time, despite it being legal at state (but not at federal level). With Bush, he had a lot of stigma for becoming president in the first place - he's rich and had the political connections (nepotism at its best). Also, the Republican party in the states have had three governments previously in some sort of war - Nixon and Vietnam, Regan and Iran/Iraq + Bush and the 'War on Terror'. So they basically pro-war. With Obama being a Democrat (and generally more anti-war), coupled with a load of false promises and a lack of stupidity from governmental agencies (i.e - not being like the previous Dubya government).

Also Dubya brought in the Patriot act, which wasn't popular (although Obama kept it on..).

His point is maybe to actually wipe Al Qaeda out full stop - Yemen/Somalia are like the two countries left with a significant terrorist organisation (although Somalia has Al Shabab.. which are pretty much Al Qaeda but with some Somali nationalism/clan tribe culture thrown in). But I agree, he must be breaking a lot of UN laws/protocols.

Interesting how you have a Ron Paul video at the end. He's got some really good policies, but other ideas (disbanding of the US military, coming out of Afghanistan etc) don't really make sense.

[GommeInc]

Interesting, so in essence Obama is being undemocratic by not being open to his people on his actions? He's acting out without the public knowing and/or being for or against it. It seems Obama is taking the role of Great Commander - or whatever the US call the President and being in charge of the military - seriously, because he does seem to be acting more as a commander than a President at the moment.

It seems cowardly to use drones too, and will only add fuel to the problems, rather than actually extinguish anything - as we have seen so far with these drones. Like you said, that must go against so many UN procedures and laws.

I might of interpreted that all wrong but then again the US presidency has always been a foggy spot :P

[Ardemax]

Interesting, so in essence Obama is being undemocratic by not being open to his people on his actions? He's acting out without the public knowing and/or being for or against it. It seems Obama is taking the role of Great Commander - or whatever the US call the President and being in charge of the military - seriously, because he does seem to be acting more as a commander than a President at the moment.

It seems cowardly to use drones too, and will only add fuel to the problems, rather than actually extinguish anything - as we have seen so far with these drones. Like you said, that must go against so many UN procedures and laws.

I might of interpreted that all wrong but then again the US presidency has always been a foggy spot :P

In comparison, George Bush Jnr used the executive order 6 times I believe and this is the first time Obama used it. (Is my point relevant, or am I thinking of a totally different story xD?)

And although I agree the drones may seem cowardly, they are completing more missions than any ground infantry have done.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah, I can understand what you mean - unlike Dubya though, Obama does things a on a "hush hush" scale - the White House likes to neither confirm or deny what Obama actually does. He's been going after the medical marijuana growers through the DEA for some time, despite it being legal at state (but not at federal level). With Bush, he had a lot of stigma for becoming president in the first place - he's rich and had the political connections (nepotism at its best). Also, the Republican party in the states have had three governments previously in some sort of war - Nixon and Vietnam, Regan and Iran/Iraq + Bush and the 'War on Terror'. So they basically pro-war. With Obama being a Democrat (and generally more anti-war), coupled with a load of false promises and a lack of stupidity from governmental agencies (i.e - not being like the previous Dubya government).

But that's the point, he's not anti-war again - he's actually extending the wars and starting new ones.


Also Dubya brought in the Patriot act, which wasn't popular (although Obama kept it on..).

Indeed you're totally correct, he's even built on it with the NDAA!


Interesting, so in essence Obama is being undemocratic by not being open to his people on his actions? He's acting out without the public knowing and/or being for or against it. It seems Obama is taking the role of Great Commander - or whatever the US call the President and being in charge of the military - seriously, because he does seem to be acting more as a commander than a President at the moment.

I might of interpreted that all wrong but then again the US presidency has always been a foggy spot :P

Well the issue is not even the United Nations (UN) because the UN has no authority in relation to the US constitution. The US constitution (as Ron Paul explains in the video below, apologies for another video) states that the President needs the authority of Congress to commit acts of war/declare a war - and both Bush and Obama have totally ignored this - even if the UN 'authorises' military action, to override the US constitution is illegal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R325K6alVlA&feature=player_embedded#!

My point is, and we're sure to see it over the next few months on here, that people will support Obama when they were the same people who absolutely loathed Bush and called him a war monger/war criminal. I just wish people would analyse policy, not rhetoric.

[FlyingJesus]

Obama is literally the worst President I can think of in terms of overmilitarisation, economic disaster, and breaking the promises of his election campaigns. The reason he's still popular is that he's charismatic and people tend not to actually look into issues that require actual knowledge to understand when they can just jump around saying "OBAMA LIKES GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!! VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!!"

[Ardemax]

I may be sounding stupid here, but what wars has he started? (serious question)

[-:Undertaker:-]

I may be sounding stupid here, but what wars has he started? (serious question)

Offically he's started Libya in 2011.

Not offically (but still acts of war) he's used drones in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen.

He's continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He's continuing the diplomatic bullying of Iran.

....a war President who is giving Bush a run for his money.

[Ardemax]

Offically he's started Libya in 2011.

Not offically (but still acts of war) he's used drones in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen.

He's continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He's continuing the diplomatic bullying of Iran.

....a war President who is giving Bush a run for his money.

Though to be fair he has set a date to get the US troops out of Iraq + Afghanistan.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Though to be fair he has set a date to get the US troops out of Iraq + Afghanistan.

Initially President Bush also set a 'timetable' for both Afghanistan and Iraq, pledging that they would be mere military operations with 'no nation building', and that's going back to the year 2000 when he first ran for office. Both Bush and Obama ran on an anti-policeman ticket, both have been the complete opposite.

[Ardemax]

Initially President Bush also set a 'timetable' for both Afghanistan and Iraq, pledging that they would be mere military operations with 'no nation building', and that's going back to the year 2000 when he first ran for office. Both Bush and Obama ran on an anti-policeman ticket, both have been the complete opposite.

I don't think there are any US troops left in Iraq, which is a key difference between Obama and Bush in my eyes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't think there are any US troops left in Iraq, which is a key difference between Obama and Bush in my eyes.

There are a few hundred left in Iraq, so you're right - although a few thousand remain across the border in Kuwait.

Anyway, on the 'key difference' the war had come to an end, and come to an end on a date which George W Bush had previously agreed back in 2008 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16234723). The continuation of the Iraq war by President Obama along with agreeing to retain the Bush 2008 deadline is an exact continuation of the Bush policy meaning the only difference is the man who sits in the Oval Office - which was my entire point, they are both exactly the same.

And then we have everything else i've listed, indeed it looks as though Obama wanted them there even longer but Iraq was having none of it..


Washington had wanted to keep a small training and counter-terrorism presence in Iraq, but US officials were unable to strike a deal with Baghdad on legal issues including immunity for troops.