by William Skink
The use of drones is increasing, domestically. North Dakota, for example, became the first state to legalize armed police drones. Not with hellfire missiles, of course, so all you paranoid types just chill out. This is all being done for your security.
Sure, there are those who think that the use of drones abroad actually makes us less secure. When we blow up wedding parties, they say, it makes people angry at the United States. Survivors with dead family members may even turn to terrorism to exact revenge on the evil empire raining death and destruction from unmanned killing machines.
When it comes to Bernie Sanders, those obnoxious naysayers need to just shut up. Last Sunday Bernie said he wouldn’t end the drone program, he would just make it so that drones don’t kill innocent people because, you know, it’s that easy. From the link (The Hill, not Counterpunch):
In an interview on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Sanders indicated that he would limit the use of drones so that they do not end up killing innocent people abroad, but declined to say that he would end the targeted killing campaign completely.
“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said.
“What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective,” he added.
Boy, it sure would be nice if Bernie could point to a specific incident where a drone attack has been effective. I’m sure he’s not talking about those times Obama murdered American citizens without due process. Is it when those drone strikes take out leaders of Al Qaeda? Is that what he means?
Bernie says he’s going to be talking more about foreign policy. I can’t wait. Maybe he could address why a man who should be in prison for divulging secrets to his lover, David Petraeus, is now advocating for America to work WITH Al Qaeda in the fight against ISIS:
Members of al Qaeda’s branch in Syria have a surprising advocate in the corridors of American power: retired Army general and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria, four sources familiar with the conversations, including one person who spoke to Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.
The heart of the idea stems from Petraeus’s experience in Iraq in 2007, when as part of a broader strategy to defeat an Islamist insurgency the U.S. persuaded Sunni militias to stop fighting with al Qaeda and to work with the American military.
The tactic worked, at least temporarily. But al Qaeda in Iraq was later reborn as ISIS, and has become the sworn enemy of its parent organization. Now, Petraeus is returning to his old play, advocating a strategy of co-opting rank-and-file members of al Nusra, particularly those who don’t necessarily share all of core al Qaeda’s Islamist philosophy.
Well Bernie, how does that sound? I’ll wait for you to consult your zionist handlers before responding.
It astounds me that David Petraeus can even say what he’s saying without the American public batting an eye. We’ve allowed our constitutional rights to be decimated because Al Qaeda allegedly attacked us on 9/11. Our military has engaged in disastrous (and lucrative, for the MIC) wars of occupation because Al Qaeda allegedly attacked us on 9/11. American foreign policy has created the conditions for the rise of ISIS, and now Petraeus wants America to work with “moderate” Al Qaeda forces to combat the entity we helped create.
And what does the great white progressive hope have to say about this? More Saudi intervention, like the obscene war in Yemen, and continuing to violate national sovereignty to kill terrorists with drones.
Bernie Sanders can get away with this because there is no anti-war movement to speak of in this country. He can get away with this because Democrats are incapable of holding their party accountable for a destructive, self-defeating foreign policy that ensures warfare will continue and expand until the world is dragged in to another global conflagration.
Democrats will bash the other party, like this post mocking Ryan Zinke’s geopolitical expertise in opposing the Iran deal, but they won’t call out Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for taking essentially the same position.
For Democrats, it is probably a better strategy to remain mum on foreign policy specifics, because when they don’t, it becomes obvious (to those of us paying attention) how little difference there is between the two parties when it comes to how over half of the federal budget is allocated to waging war around the globe.