Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god. …
– Jean Rostand
Barack Obama has a new plan for those individuals we don’t like: kill them.
Usama bin Laden has been killed. The U.S. is poised to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. And the Obama administration’s shift in counterterrorism strategy from land wars to precision strikes and raids is raising concerns that the White House has adopted a policy of targeting killings for terror suspects.
Apparently we’re not interested in capturing them any longer. Apparently we’re not interested in intel any longer. Well, OK.
It has been revealed that Iran has been shipping arms into Afghanistan and Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of American soldiers.
TEHRAN—Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has transferred lethal new munitions to its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent months, according to senior U.S. officials, in a bid to accelerate the U.S. withdrawals from these countries.
The Revolutionary Guard has smuggled rocket-assisted exploding projectiles to its militia allies in Iraq, weapons that have already resulted in the deaths of American troops, defense officials said. They said Iranians have also given long-range rockets to the Taliban in Afghanistan, increasing the insurgents’ ability to hit U.S. and other coalition positions from a safer distance.
And it has been costly for US servicemen:
In June, 15 U.S. servicemen died in Iraq, the highest monthly casualty figure there in more than two years. The U.S. has attributed all the attacks to Shiite militias it says are are trained by the Revolutionary Guards, rather than al Qaeda or other Sunni groups that were the most lethal forces inside Iraq a few years ago.
In Afghanistan, the Pentagon has in recent months traced to Iran the Taliban’s acquisition of rockets that give its fighters roughly double the range to attack North Atlantic Treaty Organization and U.S. targets. U.S. officials said the rockets’ markings, and the location of their discovery, give them a “high degree” of confidence that they came from the Revolutionary Guard’s overseas unit, the Qods Force.
So here’s my advice for Barack Obama: make Mahmoud Ahmedinejad the next recipient of the Predator Award.
For the drone-happy Obama this seems like natural choice. Following Ahmedinejad’s “departure” Obama could focus on the Iranian power centers in Qom and target the mullahs until they come around to our way of thinking.
Obama is at war in six different venues: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya and Somalia. American boots have hit the ground already in Somalia.
The Washington Post reported the attack on Wednesday, and on Friday, Somalia’s defense minister says that American military forces touched down to collect the bodies of the insurgents. Al-Shabab has carried out attacks on the Somali government, and while the government is calling on more American drone missions, they say they were not aware of the first drone attack.
Obama has four new wars limited involvements kinetic military actions of his own and continues to lie about them.
About Libya Obama said US involvement would be “days, not weeks.” Then Obama said the US would be moving to a “support” role.
The truth is that the US is still conducting “hundreds” of strike missions in Libya.
Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.
And the targeted killings don’t stop at “suspects.” The killing plan also includes leaders of sovereign nations.
The top U.S. admiral in the NATO-led Libya war told a congressman last month that NATO is indeed trying to kill Qaddafi, Foreign Policy reports:
“House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that ‘regime change’ is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.”
But as long as we’re interested in killing those we feel have wronged us, why not finish the job? It’s good for one’s poll numbers- at least temporarily.
A solid argument can be made for taking out the leadership in Tehran. And why not those Pakistani whiners who complained about the Bin Laden mission? Few would mind if Obama killed Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad. And of course there’s that pesky Moqtada Al Sadr. We could finally rid ourselves of Chavez and Castro.
So here is your opportunity to add to the “Who should Obama kill next?” list.
And yet there is something troubling about all this. Obama’s plan is to kill terror “suspects.” Suspects have not been proven guilty. Obama and Holder have prosecuted SEALS for giving “suspects” a fat lip but have no qualms with killing “suspects” outright without even the courtesy of a fat lip.
I’d love to hear Obama explain this one to his daughters.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
You can’t kill them all. There are too many of them. But the ones you’ve mentioned would make a good start.
I agree with the “kill em all” and let Allah sort em out later policy completely. I am sick and tired of seeing our leaders release these scumbags to go straight back to Al-Qaeda. We and a few others raised a ton cain when Bush kept releasing Gitmo terrorists back to the enemy. Yes, he did eventually stop. Some of the top echelon in the New and Improved Al-Qaeda came straight from Gitmo, and Jihad re-hab. And of course our allies (like Yemen, the Afghans, Pakistan)in the middle east who released hundreds of them after our forces captured them, and sent them to their respective countries to be tried or held in prison. I just wrote a post on that topic this week-end, and sent out our monthly letters to congress, and Obi. So yes kill them, so our government does not hold them in a ship off the coast and then release them to kill again. I wish they would have killed al-Nashiri, and bin-attash, now at Gitmo and al-quso, all the other Cole bombers that were freed to fight our troops again. I give Bush credit for killing at least three of the Cole bombers with a heat seeking missile. But then again he turned around and released more. And Obi did the same thing. All because the liberals a minority of our population wanted them freed and Gitmo closed. God! My ears, and nose bleed when I think how much our politicians pander to liberals. And yes I give Obi credit for killing some of the desert rats too. But that does not mean I agree with the majority of his policies. Anyone who kills vermin who prey on other innocent humans gets a thumbs up from me in that department. And Obi did not stop releasing them until the terrorists from Yemen tried their little attacks on America. All of sudden the press took off their blinders and became aware of Yemen and the New AQ that we helped to create there along with the rotten regime of Saleh of Yemen. Total insanity.
“So here’s my advice for Barack Obama: make Mahmoud Ahmedinejad the next recipient of the Predator Award.” It’s a great start but lets go after the lame Mullahs at the same time and have an award for the most spectacular explosion.
“About Libya Obama said US involvement would be “days, not weeks.” Then Obama said the US would be moving to a “support” role.” This is like his Shovel Ready Projects.
NoBO12 You proved you weren’t a Racist in 2008, now prove you’re not stupid in 2012
Works for me. If you can’t detain and interrogate them, and you can only hold them for so long on a ship offshore, killing them on the battlefield… whether with boots on the ground or with drones… is preferable, IMHO.
As Lt Col Tony Shaffer, of Able Danger fame, appropriately pointed out, there hasn’t been a high value capture since 2008. So what “intel” could we gather?
Yup… can’t keep ’em. Can’t interrogate ’em. Just shoot ’em. And actually not a new policy, as the Iraqi deck of terrorist cards (which, coincidently, were part of the original FA header design) were those that were to be either captured or killed. However post SCOTUS decisions, the bruhaha over military tribunals (which Obama has resumed) and bringing them to American soil, there’s not many other selections at hand.
As a matter of fact, many of us have been advocating the “just shoot ’em” solution for a while now. For me, it’s been since the SCOTUS opinion in Boumediene vs Bush back in 2008, which effectively rendered the DTA and MCA useless and potentially unConstitutional.
Which also explains why there have been no high value captures since then…. Remember how we all were discussing “what’s left? Read them miranda rights on the battlefield?”
Despite SCOTUS and a remaining open for business Gitmo (altho no new guests for quite some time), Obama maintains his own version of Gitmo in Afghanistan… a place holding 1700 detainees, without charges, that still gets the nanny terrorist protectors up in arms even today.
Nope… no problems with this decision at all. In fact, I count this as one of the rare moments that Obama does something right. Nor is he doing anything that both Bush and Clinton have not done, in some degree, before him. He is, however, responding to new legalities about detainees post SCOTUS/Boumediene in, what I believe, is an appropriate manner. What will remain to be seen is how long it will be until the leftist terrorist lovers pick up on the continued existence of Bagram/Gitmo and make it another issue.
And as far as Gaddafi goes, since the bozo in chief wandered in there, guns a’blazing, we have no choice but to kill him, or face his revenge as a target, as he promises. And frankly, I don’t think the US, sneaking backwards now after all this bombing of Libya, would be forgotten by Gaddafi anyway. We already know what he’s like from his attacks on the west and Americans from the 80s.
So good for Obama here. Go for it…
@MataHarley: Amen! Praise the Lord! Now please line up the next batch of terrorists, and pass the ammunition, if you please.
I have a problem with his multiple wars, sending heros who just have enough and recuparated from gunshot
wound barely, ask for a mission and ask to retire after the mission which end in hospital for exaustion
and been ask for another mission barely back on their feets and been ask again for another mission and after the mission ask to retire again an been send again in the new war the PRETENDER IN CHIEF DECIDE, TO
SEND THEM,
IS THERE NOBODY IN THE PENTAGONE TO PROTECT OUR HEROS EXAUSTED ON AND ON ?
EVEN AFTER THEY ASK TO RETIRE SO MANY TIMES,
IF YOU START A WAR YOU BETTER CHECK THE FORCES YOU HAVE TO MEET THE NUMBER,
WITHOUT USING THE VALOROUS WHO HAVE DECIDED TO RETIRE, BECAUSE THEY KNOW ALONE
TO EVALUATE WHEN THEIR TIME TO GO IN RETIREMENT HAS ARRIVED BUT TOO BRAVE TO REFUSE ORDERS AND HAVING GIVEN THEIR OATH CAN NOT REFUSE MORE MISSION.
FOR THOSE WHO ONLY HAVE TO GIVE ORDERS, THEY ARE TRESPASSING ON THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE ABUSING THE GREAT CARRERED MILITARYS , WHO GAVE IT ALL, AND WANT TO LIVE THE REAL LIFE FOR THE FEW YEARS THEY ENVISAGE GETTING SHORTER.
Broken clock…twice a day…
This was Thiessen’s criticism a while back.
Last year, the Administration approved the targeted killing of an American citizen (not that I’d be crying over it, if it happens).
Like Mata, I have no problem with the killing of al Qaeda operatives. The problem is, the Obama Administration has shot itself in the foot when it comes to capturing any of them (as Mata also points out)- something that was vital in our learning and understanding of al Qaeda after 9/11- interrogating captured fighters for information.
Aside from Libya, I have no problem with going after al Qaeda, as we have been doing pre-Obama, all over the damn globe (and often with cooperation from foreign governments). I think much of it is driven by consistency and continuity of government.
Kill them all, use DNA to positively identify the ones who kill themselves with suicide bombs and let it be known we will then kill their parents and siblings. Let’s see how long the fashion of mothers wanting their babies to grow up to be ordinance lasts when it’s mama’s guts hanging from the cloths line.
U.S. secretly held terror suspect:
New book blasts years-long detention by CIA of another terror suspect
@Wordsmith: I believe that Obi is fighting the war like the Korea war was fought in the last year, or two years. He is stalling and still trying to appease his liberal base in closing Gitmo, and not taking terrorists captive unless it fits with his political strategy. What happened to his promise of “rebuilding Americas image.” Now from what I read he is not even sending anymore to the prison in Afghanistan since U.S. relations continue to worsen there. I think that he saw some political points to be gained in taking out Bin Laden, and went for it. But now he is just going through the motions until after the election. Which unfortunately hurts the war effort and puts our troops in more danger. More captives sent to a prison anywhere will only anger his base even more. So the lack of good intel which would help the war effort tremendously is another casuality of politics. He has been juggling the war and all the subsequent problems that it produces to try and make everyone happy, while trying to use it to advance his own political career. And it want work, never has, never will. You can already see the division it has created in the different camps that support him.
In other words, Obama has once again vindicated Bush’s policy on going after terrorism proactively as a war strategy over reactively as a law enforcement matter.
Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the anti-war crowd must be muttering under their collective breathe at how foolish they were to believe anything Obama said about being against war, what he meant was against Bush’s military actions not his. They were suckered big time and just think about all the money they gave with no possibility of a refund for being sold a bill of goods. SUCKERS… If that doesn’t cure them of voting Democrat then nothing will. Well, we all know what PT Barnum said, “never give a sucker an even break.”
dscott “never give a sucker an even break” attributed to the great W.C. Fields.
Glad to see you and I’d hope many other Conservatives getting behind the Bush/Obama policy of “going after terrorists proactively as a war policy”
He needs and appreciates your support on this.
@dscott: dscott, I totally appreciated your use of the phrase, ”muttering under their collective breaths,” with regard Moore, Sheehan and the others.
Because without mainstream media putting them on the front page that’s all they CAN do!
Mutter under their breaths.
Cindy Sheehan has been ripping Obama a new one since he first took office and started doing the things Bush had done.
But where’s the coverage?
The media carries Obama’s water even if people on the Left feel as though that water is rancid.
Cindy’s latest missive to Obama was just July 2nd!
Here’s some of it:
Why is Obama spreading our forces so thin when he has insisted on cutting the military budgets? Could he be purposely trying to weaken our military to the breaking point and wear down out our servicemen? To put our military in the same position as the Russians at the end of the cold war. What is the purpose in his administration’s mind?