Cry me a River/Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.
Okay, that is a credit point for President Obama but now a question for Progressives etc. :
With all the moralizing and lecturing over civilian casualties in “Bush’s Wars” what are your feelings on President Obama now creating so many more civilian casualties as these terrorists that we are killing are surrounded by bystanders who get killed as well.
The media doesn’t report the wedding bombings on the front page anymore (because the evil you know who is out of office) but President Obama has simply stepped up predator strikes with the same munitions and the same civilian casualty issues.
So do you have any moral qualms with this ? Is it okay to kill civilians now, (and suspected terrorists given that, when vaporized, they have a hard time defending themselves from accusations in a court or tribunal? If killing civilians and unconnected suspects is okay, how did it become okay given that doing so was a great moral stain on our nation only 2 years ago?
Okay, it makes some issues easier like the need for renditions, the need for Gitmo
and don’t forget the controversy over Mirandizing them and civil/military trials
Anyway. Given what he said prior to the choice I had feared he wouldn’t and it is proper to give him due credit for continuing President Bush’s policies of kill Al Qaeda at every opportunity wherever they are – and unilaterally too.