Obama's counterterrorism policy facing mounting criticism

[webfact]

Obama's counterterrorism policy facing mounting criticism
By KEN DILANIAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — At the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, it was a cause for celebration: Meticulous intelligence analysis backed by Hellfire missiles had paid off, once again.

The CIA launched a drone strike last month on a Yemeni beach at three men it determined were al-Qaida militants. One of them turned out to be Nasser al-Wahishi, about as important a figure as agency man-hunters could hope to eliminate. He had been both al-Qaida's second in command and the leader of the group's dangerous Yemeni affiliate.

American officials touted the death as a big victory. But did the demise of another senior extremist, the latest in a long line to be taken off the battlefield, make the United States and its allies any safer?

To many experts, including a growing number of former Obama administration national security advisers, that proposition is less convincing by the day.

With al-Qaida and the Islamic State group enjoying safe havens across parts of Yemen, Syria and Iraq, and with terror attacks on the rise worldwide, doubts are growing about the effectiveness and sustainability of the administration's "light footprint" strategy against global extremist movements. A template predicated on training local forces and bombing terrorists from the air is actually making the situation worse, some say. Many are arguing for deeper U.S. involvement, if not with regular ground troops, then at least with elite advisers and commandos taking more risks in more places.

"What they are doing now is making it more likely that there will be a bigger, more disastrous catastrophe for the United States," said David Sedney, who resigned in 2013 as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Drone strikes are not creating a safer, more stable world," Sedney said, and neither is the limited bombing campaign the Pentagon is running against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. Both are creating new enemies, he added, without a plan to defeat them.

On Thursday, the Pentagon announced that a June 16 air strike had killed Tariq bin Tahar al-'Awni al-Harzi, an Islamic State group leader who had facilitated suicide bombings. "His death will impact ISIL's ability to integrate foreign terrorist fighters into the Syrian and Iraqi fight," military spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said.

But for how long, critics are wondering, including former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Michael Flynn, who accuses the administration for which he once worked of "policy confusion." Former Army deputy chief Lt. Gen. Richard Zahner says the Obama administration's policy of "benign neglect" toward strife-torn Yemen and Syria has ensured the existence of terrorist safe havens there for both al-Qaida and Islamic State militants.

Even Michele Flournoy, the former undersecretary of defense for policy who was the president's first choice to replace Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, wrote last month that the U.S. effort against the Islamic State is "faltering," and urged a more robust approach.

"U.S. counterterrorism policy has caused some intense backlash and has had a lot of unintended consequences," said Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration Pentagon official.

Current officials dispute the criticism, but they declined to make anyone available to speak on the record. The administration's position is that the failure of al-Qaida or the Islamic State to launch a coordinated attack on the U.S. homeland is the best evidence that the strategy is working.

Timothy Hoyt, a professor of counterterrorism studies at the Naval War College, agreed. Terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its allies have been far less lethal than past campaigns in Britain by the Irish Republican Army, he said, "which suggests that some elements of our counterterrorism strategy are working."

It's "absurd," he said, to blame U.S. policy for an uptick in sectarian violence across a Middle East convulsed by political upheaval.

Drone strikes have clearly made it harder for terrorists to plan complex attacks, he said. While the strikes create international backlash, he added, there is no evidence they are a driving force in the growth of terror networks.

A task force at the Henry L. Stimson Center took a different view in April, raising questions about the long-term effects of killing terrorists with drones.

"We are concerned that the Obama administration's heavy reliance on targeted killings as a pillar of U.S. counterterrorism strategy rests on questionable assumptions, and risks increasing instability and escalating conflicts," concluded the task force, co-chaired by Brooks and retired Gen. John Abizaid.

The Wahishi operation underscored a little-understood trend of the drone war: Most "high value targets" have been killed in what are known as signature strikes, in which a missile is aimed at a group of militants whose identities aren't confirmed until after they're dead, U.S. officials have said.

The CIA didn't know at first that Wahishi was among the men it had targeted, said three U.S. officials, none of whom would be quoted by name discussing a covert operation.

Administration officials had once signaled they would cut back on signature strikes, which pose a higher risk of killing the wrong people, including civilians. But the evacuation of the embassy in Yemen and the CIA's absence in Syria mean such strikes will be more common, the U.S. officials said.

Even when they succeed, they are insufficient, experts say.

Drone strikes "do not defeat terrorist organizations," said Seth Jones, a counterterrorism analyst at the Rand Corp. think tank.

Yet many critics of Obama's approach are calling for a deeper American involvement against the Islamic State. Many military analysts, for example, say U.S. special operations troops should be allowed to direct air strikes and embed with local units on the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields, something they are not now doing. Others argue that U.S. should take military action to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad, a magnet for extremists who want to fight him.

The administration has resisted, citing the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where years-long U.S. occupations failed to defeat extremists or instill stable democracies.

President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the U.S. cannot kill its way to victory over terrorism, and has said his strategy also calls for addressing poverty and political repression, as well as training local forces.

"We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills, a battle of ideas," the president said in June 2013.

But the U.S. so far has not proven adept at any of that, counterterrorism experts say.

The more hopeful case may be in Somalia, where U.S.-trained forces pushed the al-Qaida affiliate out of some territory it once held. But the group is still mounting lethal attacks on civilians.

In Afghanistan, the jury is still out on whether Afghan security forces can keep the Taliban from re-taking major cities. In Iraq and Syria, efforts to train forces capable of ousting the Islamic State group from its strongholds have ranged from slow to ineffectual.

In Yemen, the U.S. for a while had a sympathetic government that allowed American drone strikes while deploying its own U.S. trained troops to fight al-Qaida. But a U.S. concentration on counterterrorism to the exclusion of political and social problems destabilized the country, Sedney and others argue, contributing to the government's fall.

The lesson of the 9/11 attacks, said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, "was that these groups are the most dangerous when they have a sanctuary. The fact of the matter is they have far more sanctuary today than they had a decade and a half ago."

"It's dangerous," Hoffman added, "to wrap ourselves in this false security blanket that we've prevented them from attacking the U.S. thus far."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-03

[sdanielmcev]

Foreign policy is not something you learn 'on the job.' If you don't know how to do it, get someone that does.

Both Clinton and Kerry have no diplomatic skills. 6 years of dilly-dalling , blaming Bush, contentious domestic policies.... All on his shoulders now. He's not inspiring much confidence.

[ezzra]

Obama tried to kill them with kindness and words like, ' we're your friends, and friends on Islam '

that didn't helped... and with all the experts saying this and that but not coming with a plan to

take to heads of the army, Arabs and Muslims in general understand one thing well, and this is

power and force, you can't deal with terrorists bearing flowers, chocolates and pacifying words,

Kill as many of them as possible, where ever and when ever, and don't stop killing them until

the last of them is dead, the problems are that this world in full of bleeding hearts liberals, far

left leaning hypocrites... some of them are PM and presidents....

[Credo]

Foreign policy is not something you learn 'on the job.' If you don't know how to do it, get someone that does.

Both Clinton and Kerry have no diplomatic skills. 6 years of dilly-dalling , blaming Bush, contentious domestic policies.... All on his shoulders now. He's not inspiring much confidence.

Perhaps they could hire Bush/Cheney because they were so skilled and knowledgeable.

[Pimay1]

Foreign policy is not something you learn 'on the job.' If you don't know how to do it, get someone that does.

Both Clinton and Kerry have no diplomatic skills. 6 years of dilly-dalling , blaming Bush, contentious domestic policies.... All on his shoulders now. He's not inspiring much confidence.

This is to be expected when a community organizer with no leadership experience is put into the white house. Obama is way out of his league.

[Lissos]

President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the U.S. cannot kill its way to victory over terrorism, and has said his strategy also calls for addressing poverty and political repression, as well as training local forces.

Well isn't this the Petraeus theory of counter terrorism, that the way to defeat it is to build up nations into a prosperous one, cutting the roots of weeds before they grow? Petraeus wrote a book on it, but I'm not sure if it ever proved itself or proved workable in the theatres he wrote the book within. It is an attractive idea and one that sounds like it should work, but it also makes assumptions that poverty is 'why' Islamists do what they do and why increasing numbers join them. On the one hand yes they seem to thrive in chaotic settings but there are also a lot of very wealthy involved in these in this multitude of Jihadist organisations. For them they are doing it because they want Islam and Sharia to reign supreme, not have a separation of State and Religion. Until that is recognised, I think that an money thrown at nations to try and dissuade them from going 'the Islamist way' will just end up in individuals pockets or ending up funding the jihads themselves. It is not our job to make other nations prosper. Hey, we can't even make our own prosper at the moment, both the U.S and E.U.

[BuaBS]

What is needed is technological advancements against drones. New weapons to defend countries against illegal drone warfare.

Sure hope the Russian & Chinese are working on them.

With every drone strike , the US is creating more "terrorists" , people that have lost friends/family/brothers in arms , who want revenge.

[Tywais]

Post with oversize image and off topic removed.

[Publicus]

The US foreign policy elites across the board are in disagreement and some disarray whether Russia or China are number one for the United States. Everyone agrees on the terrorist threat, the only question is how to address it most effectively.

Should HRC becomes prez, the terrorists will get the full court drone treatment and Russia will be dealt with via dealing first and foremost with the CCP China, starting in the South China Sea. US-China economic development and cultural exchanges will be impacted but that's up to the CCP Boyz in Beijing to rectify. Putin will meanwhile continue to be an oil dipstick and show less and less on each measurement.

And the more drones the better.

[Loptr]

Nah, the administration doesn't want an active war between the folks from the Pentagon against the folks from Langley...

[Ulysses G.]

And the more drones the better.

We agree on that, but we need a special forces hunter killer unit to hit the command structure of ISIS and call in air strikes.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[BuaBS]

And the more drones the better.

We agree on that, but we need a special forces hunter killer unit to hit the command structure of ISIS and call in air strikes.

You're gonna push this asymetrical warfare so far that they have no option than use WMD 's . Let's hope that the "terrorists" use it against valid & meaningful targets instead of clueless bystanders , like the Tunesia beach vacationers ,....

Cost of war with ISIS : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-02/cost-war-isis-hits-92-million-day

Edited July 3, 2015 by BuaBS

[Pinot]

This is a difficult issue. The US is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I'll let people above my pay grade deal with it. I don't know what to do.

To point at the Obama administration, Kerry and Clinton as not being able to deal with it, is ridiculous. Anything they do is fodder for the GOP noise machine.

Thank God, we're not letting the Republican numbskulls like Graham, McCain, etc.. etc., deal with it. Jeb has the same pathetic neocons that got us into Iraq advising him.

I'm not worried about the Republican war machine's policies at this point. Donald Trump is leading the race.

[Ulysses G.]

To point at the Obama administration, Kerry and Clinton as not being able to deal with it, is ridiculous.

Huh? The buck stops with the president. Trying to blame this mess on anyone else is "ridiculous."

[Publicus]

And the more drones the better.

We agree on that, but we need a special forces hunter killer unit to hit the command structure of ISIS and call in air strikes.

I certainly share the view but the hunter-killer Task Force Black run by the CIA to include the Brits is well operational if not fully operational against IS.

In May inside Syria US Army Delta Force hunter-killers hit an IS camp to zap an IS top commander Abu Sayaf and free some women slaves the guy had. In addition to a huge shoot-out and blow 'em up the stealth chopper night assault developed into hand-to-hand combat in which the Delta Force guyz slashed and busted up 12 IS while suffering no losses.

Formerly TF 373, the Task Force Black now includes Delta Force HK's, Seal Team 6 and from the UK certain expert SAS HK's, special RAF crews, intelligence agents of MI5 and MI6.

Operating inside Syria in this way is an entirely new approach in a really hostile and alien environment and it was a considerable success, a model going forward against IS.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

And the more drones the better.

We agree on that, but we need a special forces hunter killer unit to hit the command structure of ISIS and call in air strikes.

You're gonna push this asymetrical warfare so far that they have no option than use WMD 's . Let's hope that the "terrorists" use it against valid & meaningful targets instead of clueless bystanders , like the Tunesia beach vacationers ,....

Cost of war with ISIS : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-02/cost-war-isis-hits-92-million-day

ZeroHedge is a crackpot right wing website of lunatic extremists.

Stop trying to scare the bejeezus out of other people.

[Credo]

To point at the Obama administration, Kerry and Clinton as not being able to deal with it, is ridiculous.

Huh? The buck stops with the president. Trying to blame this mess on anyone else is "ridiculous."

Unbelievable. Do you think terrorism started with Obama? This mess was well into being created long before Obama was on the scene and it will be around long after he is gone. It will still be around after the next president as well, even if it is a Republican.

Terrorism is like an infectious disease and you may be able to vaccinate against it, treat it, or contain it, but seldom do you actually conquer it. Right now the most that can be hoped for is some containment.

[arjunadawn]

And the more drones the better.

We agree on that, but we need a special forces hunter killer unit to hit the command structure of ISIS and call in air strikes.

You're gonna push this asymetrical warfare so far that they have no option than use WMD 's . Let's hope that the "terrorists" use it against valid & meaningful targets instead of clueless bystanders , like the Tunesia beach vacationers ,....

Cost of war with ISIS : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-02/cost-war-isis-hits-92-million-day

This is such a false conclusion. The assertion that a response of unconventional forces, a tool in an asymmetric arsenal, are going to cause the us of WMDs is so far gone as to be divorced from reality. First of all, terrorist is primarily asymmetric warfare. The assertion that responding in kind to prevent a low, mid, or high intensity conflict is nonsense. I am not suggesting one or another tool to respond, only that any response in kind does not then escalate the use of WMD. Besides multiple errors, this thinking presumes that which we fight have restraint for shared moral reasons. Not true.

[MaxYakov]

What is needed is technological advancements against drones. New weapons to defend countries against illegal drone warfare.

Sure hope the Russian & Chinese are working on them.

With every drone strike , the US is creating more "terrorists" , people that have lost friends/family/brothers in arms , who want revenge.

Want to bet that any WWII fighter/attack aircraft with radar-vectoring (maybe even without) could make the drones disappear quickly?

[Tywais]

What is needed is technological advancements against drones. New weapons to defend countries against illegal drone warfare.

Sure hope the Russian & Chinese are working on them.

With every drone strike , the US is creating more "terrorists" , people that have lost friends/family/brothers in arms , who want revenge.

Want to bet that any WWII fighter/attack aircraft with radar-vectoring (maybe even without) could make the drones disappear quickly?

With the current crop of stealth drones coming with speeds of 700+mph and altitudes of 60,000 feet. Not likely.

[BuaBS]

What is needed is technological advancements against drones. New weapons to defend countries against illegal drone warfare.

Sure hope the Russian & Chinese are working on them.

With every drone strike , the US is creating more "terrorists" , people that have lost friends/family/brothers in arms , who want revenge.

Want to bet that any WWII fighter/attack aircraft with radar-vectoring (maybe even without) could make the drones disappear quickly?

Then why don't the countries that are targeted with drone strikes not downing the drones ?

Only one time (that we know of ) , Iran , got a drone to crash. Droneplanes can defend themselves too.

Flying drones & drone strikes are a declaration of war. So in effect the US is at war with nearly all the ME countries and some south Asian ones .

[nithisa78]

The lessons of 9/11 of the recent prison break out in NY. Hire better management.

People who aren't sleeping at the wheel. The underlings will be sleeping too.

[sdanielmcev]

The US foreign policy elites across the board are in disagreement and some disarray whether Russia or China are number one for the United States. Everyone agrees on the terrorist threat, the only question is how to address it most effectively.

Should HRC becomes prez, the terrorists will get the full court drone treatment and Russia will be dealt with via dealing first and foremost with the CCP China, starting in the South China Sea. US-China economic development and cultural exchanges will be impacted but that's up to the CCP Boyz in Beijing to rectify. Putin will meanwhile continue to be an oil dipstick and show less and less on each measurement.

And the more drones the better.

One of the points of the article is drone strikes are not effective. As to your second paragraph, Clinton had her chance as Secretary of State. She blew it. Obamas' foreign policy blunders are also her blunders. No leader will fear Clinton as shown at Benghazi. Edited July 3, 2015 by sdanielmcev

[Publicus]

 

The US foreign policy elites across the board are in disagreement and some disarray whether Russia or China are number one for the United States. Everyone agrees on the terrorist threat, the only question is how to address it most effectively.

Should HRC becomes prez, the terrorists will get the full court drone treatment and Russia will be dealt with via dealing first and foremost with the CCP China, starting in the South China Sea. US-China economic development and cultural exchanges will be impacted but that's up to the CCP Boyz in Beijing to rectify. Putin will meanwhile continue to be an oil dipstick and show less and less on each measurement.

And the more drones the better.

One of the points of the article is drone strikes are not effective. As to your second paragraph, Clinton had her chance as Secretary of State. She blew it. Obamas' foreign policy blunders are also her blunders. No leader will fear Clinton as shown at Benghazi.

 

There's no better way for the United States than drones with their hellfire missiles that have been so successful and will continue to be successful. US forces don't have to be used on site and civilian casualties are minimized. It is anyway the case that any civilian injured in a drone strike who comes out of it a terrorist had been a terrorist to begin with, and we'd need to see the specific data that drone strikes create terrorists. Anecdotes from French socialists can catch public attention but cold hard official data would be needed and required...in English.

The PLA unsuccessfully tried for months to take out the USAF Global Hawk recon drone over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. The PLA tried radar and electronic jamming but the Hawk is programmed to interpret jamming as instructions to continue with its mission. The PLA tried using cyber warfare to take control of the Global Hawk guidance system but failed, failed, failed. The PLA had said they'd send up PLA Air Force fighters to shoot it down but never tried it. If the PLA can't deal with a recon drone how do you think anyone else is doing with UAV's on the hunt in the Greater ME when they flash their hellfire missiles.

And anyone who says the CCP Dictators in Beijing don't fear HRC needs to pull his head out. The Chinese are shameless klutz racists and they let Prez Obama know it during his first visit to the PRC in 2009, so the CCP Boyz are now paying the price of their inhospitable hosting in the South China Sea. The CCP Boyz and the world know with HRC as prez it will only get tougher on the Boyz, which leaves the right wingers in the US the only people on the planet who don't know that too.

And keep talking about that guy Ben Ghazi from out there in the right wing vacuum of lunar orbit cause that's the only place where it might matter and also don't forget to bring back some green cheese to show everyone that's real too.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed along with replies.

[sdanielmcev]

 

The US foreign policy elites across the board are in disagreement and some disarray whether Russia or China are number one for the United States. Everyone agrees on the terrorist threat, the only question is how to address it most effectively.

Should HRC becomes prez, the terrorists will get the full court drone treatment and Russia will be dealt with via dealing first and foremost with the CCP China, starting in the South China Sea. US-China economic development and cultural exchanges will be impacted but that's up to the CCP Boyz in Beijing to rectify. Putin will meanwhile continue to be an oil dipstick and show less and less on each measurement.

And the more drones the better.

One of the points of the article is drone strikes are not effective. As to your second paragraph, Clinton had her chance as Secretary of State. She blew it. Obamas' foreign policy blunders are also her blunders. No leader will fear Clinton as shown at Benghazi.

 

There's no better way for the United States than drones with their hellfire missiles that have been so successful and will continue to be successful. US forces don't have to be used on site and civilian casualties are minimized. It is anyway the case that any civilian injured in a drone strike who comes out of it a terrorist had been a terrorist to begin with, and we'd need to see the specific data that drone strikes create terrorists. Anecdotes from French socialists can catch public attention but cold hard official data would be needed and required...in English.

The PLA unsuccessfully tried for months to take out the USAF Global Hawk recon drone over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. The PLA tried radar and electronic jamming but the Hawk is programmed to interpret jamming as instructions to continue with its mission. The PLA tried using cyber warfare to take control of the Global Hawk guidance system but failed, failed, failed. The PLA had said they'd send up PLA Air Force fighters to shoot it down but never tried it. If the PLA can't deal with a recon drone how do you think anyone else is doing with UAV's on the hunt in the Greater ME when they flash their hellfire missiles.

And anyone who says the CCP Dictators in Beijing don't fear HRC needs to pull his head out. The Chinese are shameless klutz racists and they let Prez Obama know it during his first visit to the PRC in 2009, so the CCP Boyz are now paying the price of their inhospitable hosting in the South China Sea. The CCP Boyz and the world know with HRC as prez it will only get tougher on the Boyz, which leaves the right wingers in the US the only people on the planet who don't know that too.

And keep talking about that guy Ben Ghazi from out there in the right wing vacuum of lunar orbit cause that's the only place where it might matter and also don't forget to bring back some green cheese to show everyone that's real too.

Insult me all you want ( because you've already shown you can't discuss anything without hurling playground retorts). Clinton had her show. It was a ratings disaster. Both the Senate and Secretary of State. For the rest of this campaign, and her legacy as a lawmaker will start and end at Benghazi.

Back on topic. As the article states, it is not the effectiveness of killing, but the resultant civilian reaction.