(edit title) A Note to Oslo Peace Committee: Warrior in Chief Obama, Most Aggressive President in Decades Options

[*Trowbridge H. Ford*]

Opinion
Warrior in Chief
By PETER L. BERGEN
Published: April 28, 2012

THE president who won the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration has turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.

A Sample of Obama’s Military Decisions

Obama Trumpets Killing of Bin Laden, and Critics Pounce (April 28, 2012)

Liberals helped to elect Barack Obama in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and probably don’t celebrate all of the president’s many military accomplishments. But they are sizable.

Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Ironically, the president used the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an occasion to articulate his philosophy of war. He made it very clear that his opposition to the Iraq war didn’t mean that he embraced pacifism — not at all.

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” the president told the Nobel committee — and the world. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason.”

If those on the left were listening, they didn’t seem to care. The left, which had loudly condemned George W. Bush for waterboarding and due process violations at Guantánamo, was relatively quiet when the Obama administration, acting as judge and executioner, ordered more than 250 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009, during which at least 1,400 lives were lost.

Mr. Obama’s readiness to use force — and his military record — have won him little support from the right. Despite countervailing evidence, most conservatives view the president as some kind of peacenik. From both the right and left, there has been a continuing, dramatic cognitive disconnect between Mr. Obama’s record and the public perception of his leadership: despite his demonstrated willingness to use force, neither side regards him as the warrior president he is.

Mr. Obama had firsthand experience of military efficacy and precision early in his presidency. Three months after his inauguration, Somali pirates held Richard Phillips, the American captain of the Maersk Alabama, hostage in the Indian Ocean. Authorized to use deadly force if Captain Phillips’s life was in danger, Navy SEALs parachuted to a nearby warship, and three sharpshooters, firing at night from a distance of 100 feet, killed the pirates without harming Captain Phillips.

“GREAT job,” Mr. Obama told William H. McRaven, the then vice admiral who oversaw the daring rescue mission and later the Bin Laden operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The SEAL rescue was the president’s first high-stakes decision involving the secretive counterterrorism units. But he would rely increasingly upon their capacities in the coming years.

Soon after Mr. Obama took office he reframed the fight against terrorism. Liberals wanted to cast anti-terrorism efforts in terms of global law enforcement — rather than war. The president didn’t choose this path and instead declared “war against Al Qaeda and its allies.” In switching rhetorical gears, Mr. Obama abandoned Mr. Bush’s vague and open-ended fight against terrorism in favor of a war with particular, violent jihadists.

The rhetorical shift had dramatic — non-rhetorical — consequences. Compare Mr. Obama’s use of drone strikes with that of his predecessor. During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike there every four days. And two years into his presidency, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president was engaged in conflicts in six Muslim countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. The man who went to Washington as an “antiwar” president was more Teddy Roosevelt than Jimmy Carter.

1 2 3 Next Page »
Peter L. Bergen is the director of the New America Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book “Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden — From 9/11 to Abbottabad.”

[entry]

Obama's reputation with US troops is such that his Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was afraid to be in the same room with his own troops.

Soldiers asked to disarm during Leon Panetta speech in Afghanistan - Telegraph
US soldiers were asked to disarm during a speech by Leon Panetta, the American
defense secretary, in a sign of grown concern over spates of seemingly
random violence in Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...tta-speech.html

[cogito]

How many innocent (women, children, bystanders) casualties resulted from the Bush administration's three water boardings?
Zero.
How many innocent casualties have Obama's drone attacks caused? Countless.

[AW1]

How many innocent casualties did the Bush administration cause when they decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Countless.

[Gamla Hälsingebock]

If a Republican did it, he would be bad.

If a Democrat did it, he would be bad.

A neutral would condemn both of them.

Both sides are equally evil and don't represent the people they are supposed to serve.

Remember:

Under under Republicans..."It's man exploits man!"

However...under Democrats... it's the opposite!

You don't need too much time to figure that out...do you?

[axiom]

How many innocent (women, children, bystanders) casualties resulted from the Bush administration's three water boardings?Zero.How many innocent casualties have Obama's ... (show full quote)

How many innocent (women, children, bystanders) casualties resulted from the Bush administration's three water boardings?
Zero.
How many innocent casualties have Obama's drone attacks caused? Countless. ... (hide full quote)

Where do you get these casuality numbers from?

Wasn't the "enhanced interrogation" the source of "intelligence" for the wars?

The wars have killed hundreds of thousands.

What about those those rendition flights?

Check again.

[cogito]

Where do you get these casuality numbers from?

Will not do your homework for you (heard of Google?), but will try to clear up some of your confusion.
Iraq was a war zone. Bush's, if you like.
Afghanistan is a war zone. Obama's (he campaigned on Afg. being the "good war.")
All wars have non-combattant casualties.

Obama's drone attacks are on countries with which the U.S. is not at war, Yemen and Pakistan.

The enhanced interrogation (3 water-boardings with sleep deprivation) of 9/11 mastermiind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (by Bush administration) extracted information that led directly to Osama bin laden's exact location. This permitted the U.S. to go into the compound and take him out.

The drone attacks have achieved….?

[Yorkshireman]

Obama's drone attacks are on countries with which the U.S. is not at war, Yemen and Pakistan.

In 2001 Bush announced the "War on Terror", and ever since then this has been the basis for ongoing military campaigns led by the US, UK and their allies against organisations and regimes identified by them as terrorist.

So, technically, it is not the countries, but the organisations within the country they are at war with!

It was stated then, it is going to be a long war, it hasn't finished yet as far as I understand?

[Vstrommer71]

...The enhanced interrogation (3 water-boardings with sleep deprivation) of 9/11 mastermiind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (by Bush administration) extracted information that led dir ... (show full quote)

...The enhanced interrogation (3 water-boardings with sleep deprivation) of 9/11 mastermiind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (by Bush administration) extracted information that led directly to Osama bin laden's exact location... ... (hide full quote)

Enhanced interrogation eh?Why so afraid of saying tortures?
I guess during medieval era the holy inquisition should be the enhanced interrogation method of these times!

[John.Smith]

Just noticed your member name... you ride in Sweden?

[Vstrommer71]

Not yet,but this has nothing to do with our discussion
Anyway,to my perception,president Obama is ages better than GWB.But he could do a lot more for the average American,no doubt about it
As for his foreign policy,he is in the same path as his previous ones:Let's name war against terrorism every campaign we are going to do.But the main question arises:Using the same techniques(bombing,killing and violently acting) isn't making you terrorist too?
It seems rhetoric but I think this is the main question we-as civilized people,or at least that's what we consider ourselves-have to answer!

[axiom]

Will not do your homework for you (heard of Google?), but will try to clear up some of your confusion.Iraq was a war zone. Bush's, if you like. Afghanistan is a war zone. ... (show full quote)

Will not do your homework for you (heard of Google?), but will try to clear up some of your confusion.
Iraq was a war zone. Bush's, if you like.
Afghanistan is a war zone. Obama's (he campaigned on Afg. being the "good war.")
All wars have non-combattant casualties.

Obama's drone attacks are on countries with which the U.S. is not at war, Yemen and Pakistan.

The enhanced interrogation (3 water-boardings with sleep deprivation) of 9/11 mastermiind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (by Bush administration) extracted information that led directly to Osama bin laden's exact location. This permitted the U.S. to go into the compound and take him out.

The drone attacks have achieved….? ... (hide full quote)

oh no, the casualities in Irag and Afghanistan are a result of the enhanced interrogation

the information obtained was used to justify and launch the iraq war, how then can the casualties or the result of the war be isolated from the information used to motivate it --- nonsense

Afghanistan is not Obama's war. Wasn't the war in Afghanistan more plausible in the face of 9/11 than the Iraq war. We knew where the taliban operatives were, that barely needed intelligence or any enhanced interrogation

the iraq war which slaughtered multitudes more than Afghanistan still cannot be justified even after enhanced interrogation produced information on links to Al Qaeda and formed the basis for the invasion.

by the way, the war on terrorism (not my words) is not a war against a particular country, i think we often forget, therefore combat has no geographical limit and yes, drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan are part of this war, so is Afghanistan and Iraq. Difference? we did not go after a few terrorists in Iraq, we went after the entire state. If the war is against terrorism using intelligence, then targetted (drone?) attacks has to be the more intelligent way to operate, not a blanket invasion.

as for the intelligence, leading to Bin Laden I quote The Guardian: even though enhanced interrogation was used at times, the information used to located Bin Laden was obtained under "normal investigation techniques".

[Investor612]

Quote The Guardian all you like. It still won't make it credible. Cogito has it right.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqi casualties have come at the hands of their brother Muslims. Moreover, Iraq was hardly a slaughter free zone before Saddam was removed from power.

[John.Smith]

Not yet,but this has nothing to do with our discussion

Ouch

Nice to meet you too....

Do continue your discussion, sorry to interrupt...

[cogito]

Enhanced interrogation eh?Why so afraid of saying tortures?. I guess during medieval era the holy inquisition should be the enhanced interrogation method of these times!

Was politely repeating the term ("enhanced" etc.) used first by the person to whom I was replying (his post #6).

Because words such as torture are vague, emotional and undefinable, I chose to be more specific and wrote "water boarding plus sleep deprivation."
"Torture" is too nebulous a term for rational discussion. For example: I am tortured by people who find basic logic a challenge.
As for the Inquisition, I believe they used Latin and so am unable to help you with the vocabulary.