When it comes to Afghanistan, Bush and Obama are the same
US 'to expand covert operations'
The commander of the US forces in the Middle East has signed an order that allows clandestine military activity to disrupt "terror" groups or counter threats in friendly and hostile nations, The New York Times says. General David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command, signed the secret directive on September 30, the paper said quoting defence officials and military documents. It said the directive - which allows for covert strikes outside of designated war zones - authorises the sending of US special operations troops to the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. The seven-page directive, the paper said, appears to authorise specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear programme or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.
Ummmmm - more covert operations? Really? That's what we need here? Because since becoming President, Obama has ordered 100 drone strikes which have killed 1000 civilians for only 30 Al Qaeda operatives, that's 1000 civilians for 30 terrorists.
Ummmmm that's a 3% success rate.
How about LESS covert strikes? After the weapons of mass destruction debarcle, do any of us trust military intelligence ever again?
6 Comments:
How is this a 3% success rate? Is one for one a successful raid?
The policies are the same when it comes to a whole lot of things...far more than just Afghanistan. But there is no real surprise here...why would anyone think Obama represented change....
Because he said so??!
He is a US President, elected to look after perceived US interests. First and Last. No change there.
Those sort of pictures (as amusing as they are, and that is one of the best!!) speak more about the 'artist' who created them and his/her understanding of politics then they do about Obama.
How sweetly naive to think he would actually enact tangible change.
Was he going to close Guantanamo at the drop of a hat when elected..hardly...!! That talk was to his electorate what "tough on crime" is to elements in NZ...everyone says it, implementing it is trickier.
Iraq..yeah, troops will leave and destabilize the place allowing forces hostile to the United States to increase their control...not in US interests..not gonna happen.
Afghanistan...well...yeah!
The only real "change" he's enacted is on healthcare..hell...that'll probably push them towards bankruptcy...but at least then they'll have to address their stupid health costings - where all a raft of (doubtlessly expensive) tests are ordered to cover a doctor's ass due to fear of litigation, when fewer would suffice. Money is also spent on more and more technical equipment, a lot of it offering only small improvements vis-a-vis what it replaced, but at many times the cost. The United States spends more on health care than all comparable nations..yet its results are worse than virtually all comparable nations.
Maybe, just maybe..somewhere down the line, as the baby boomers retire, and "universal" health cover becomes entrenched and irreversible, the fiscal bite of health might actually enact one of the few tangible changes Obama implemented.
Other than that it'll most likely be more business as usual.
I.W.
When the head of US intelligence in Afghanistan has
acknowledged that a Harpers Bazaar article had gathered
superior intelligence than his own operatives I'd say the term American Military Imtelligence is an oxymoron. Obama may be good for health care but he seems to take
some sort of perverse pleasure from killing innocents via
remote control. Anything to maintain the rusting Empire I guess.
LOL
All its taken is 1000 innocent deaths to persuade Bomber that MAYBE his idol has feet of clay.
After the weapons of mass destruction debarcle, (DEBACLE)
Salazar and his "existential" comment is way over BP's head so get used to the coterie of 'egg-heads' in power.
I'mtelligence
brilliant photoshop heading tumeke.
Post a Comment
<< Home