Hillary to the rescue? State Department helping to reign in out of control drone strikes?!?!?!?

[Cali_Democrat]

I'll admit that I never expected this and I'm pleasantly surprised!

Sanity may ultimately prevail, courtesy of the State Department.

U.S. Tightens Drone Rules
By ADAM ENTOUS, SIOBHAN GORMAN and JULIAN E. BARNES

The covert drones are credited with killing hundreds of suspected militants, and few U.S. officials have publicly criticized the campaign, or its rapid expansion under President Barack Obama. Behind the scenes, however, many key U.S. military and State Department officials demanded more-selective strikes. That pitted them against CIA brass who want a free hand to pursue suspected militants.

<snip>

Among the changes: The State Department won greater sway in strike decisions; Pakistani leaders got advance notice about more operations; and the CIA agreed to suspend operations when Pakistani officials visit the U.S.

<snip>

Many officials at the Pentagon and State Department privately argued the CIA pays too little attention to the diplomatic costs of air strikes that kill large groups of low-level fighters. Such strikes inflame Pakistani public opinion. Observers point to the rising power in Pakistan of political figures like Imran Khan, who held large rallies to protest the drones and could challenge the current government.

<snip>

The CIA and the State Department had been at odds for months over the use of drones. Tensions flared with the arrival in Islamabad late last year of a new ambassador, Cameron Munter, who advocated more judicious use of signature strikes, senior officials said.

Read the whole piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

This is definitely a step in the right direction...major kudos to the State Department. However, I feel the strikes should be halted entirely and all US military assets should be removed from the Middle East and South Asia.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Wall Street Journal = EPIC FAIL to pit Obama against Hillary.

Please get over the primaries!!

[JTFrog]

2. Some folks will be bitter to the very end. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. The same people who do nothing but start negative and/or anti-Obama threads.

They hide behind these types of articles to shield themselves from charges of flamebait.

You're right: they'll never get over it. NEVER!

[MADem]

11. How is this an anti-Obama thread? Everyone mentioned in the article WORKS FOR HIM.

Good grief, I agree that "someone" needs to get over it. But not the "someone" you're not-too-obliquely suggesting.

This is a policy piece, not a State (which is subordinate to the Executive Branch) against Commander-in-Chief exercise.

The accomodation vis-a-vis this issue was made between State, Defense, National Security and CIA. All of the players have more of a stake in the decision-making process; the ultimate decision, as ALWAYS, rests with the CinC.

This has nothing to do with Obama v. Hillary--they are on the same team and there's no daylight between them.

Pity more here weren't as collegial.

[Sheepshank]

24. I agree.....it's a set up. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Actually it's not really Obama vs Hillary

It's the State Department vs CIA.

Read the article. It's a good one and it provides tremendous insight into the tussle between the two over the drone strikes.

[CakeGrrl]

37. But that didn't stop you from framing it that way in the OP, did it?

:eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

38. I didn't even mention Obama's name in the OP

[treestar]

41. You didn't have to

Hillary "to the rescue?"

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Rescuing us from a disastrous policy of CIA drone attacks in Pakistan.

The State Department deserves applause.

Many on this thread, including yourself, are seeing something that's just not there. It's all rather amusing to be honest.

[MNBrewer]

54. Because Obama's murders via drone are A.O.K!!!!

[Enrique]

7. dupe

delete

[sufrommich]

10. How does this "pit Obama against Hillary"? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. The title of the OP and the tone of the Wall Street Journal. The very fact that it is WSJ

should alone lead you to the same conclusion.

[MjolnirTime]

3. Don't delude yourself, Hillary is more of a hawk than Obama.

[MADem]

6. It would seem that the PENTAGON is doing some of that reining in, as well....

That said, it looks like both Defense and State worked together on this, per the report, and the National Security apparatus pushed the issue as well and pressed CIA to hold their horses. It's good news. The last sentence of the piece about the car keys is amusing.

...Behind the scenes, however, many key U.S. military and State Department officials demanded more-selective strikes.

...State Department diplomats weren't alone in their concerns. Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders, who initially favored more aggressive CIA methods, began to question that approach.

The debate erupted after the March 17 strike, when National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and others at the White House, taken aback by the number of casualties and Pakistan's sharp reaction, questioned whether the CIA should for large groups, at times, hold its fire. Officials asked what precautions were being taken to aim at highly valued targets, rather than foot soldiers.

...In the spring, military leaders increasingly found themselves on the phone with Mr. Panetta and his deputy urging restraint in drone attacks, particularly during periods when the U.S. was engaging in high-level diplomatic exchanges with Pakistan. "Whenever they got a shot , they just took it, regardless of what else was happening in the world," a senior official said.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Yes...you are correct

The Pentagon appears to be unhappy as well, but it appears that the State Department is the driving force. They have to deal with the diplomatic fallout of these disastrous drone strikes.

[MADem]

14. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's not my take.

My take is that both the military and state raised objections, and the upshot of a review is that State (finally) got more of a weigh-in on the decision making process (a weigh-in that Defense/CIA/NSA already had). In fact, the "military" is mentioned more than once in the article (and first in the sentences as well), the Pentagon is mentioned, and Mike Mullen (former CJCS) is mentioned as well.

If anyone was driving this bus and pushing the issue, I'd put money on the uniforms--they're the ones who take the boots-on-the-ground heat every time an attack is a bit impulsive or ill-advised. IMO, they were doing so to benefit State (in most instances, State and Defense are thick as thieves in overseas environs at the top echelons and Defense is technically junior to State in the pecking order) because State's input IS key, but I'd say this is more a story of mature Cabinet cooperation, rather than "Who's on top?"

What's astounding is that this good news is found in WSJ. A sparkling gem in a pile of dung, there!

[Beacool]

19. Yes, of course let's not give State credit for anything as long as its led by Hillary, right?

"But changes were made. Mr. Obama instituted an appeals procedure to give the State Department more of a voice in deciding when and if to strike. If the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan objected to a strike, for example, the CIA director or his deputy would first try to talk through their differences with the ambassador. If the conflict was unresolved, the secretary of state would appeal directly to the CIA director. If they couldn't reach agreement, however, the CIA director retained the final say."

:shrug:

[MADem]

36. I've addressed this elsewhere in this thread so I won't rehash it here. Your assertions are

completely inaccurate. No one is "not" giving "State credit for anything" so just stow that argument.

"More of a voice" means "a seat at the table"--where they had NONE of any substance before. They used to be told after the fact, and that is inappropriate, given that they are the senior cabinet post, in front of Defense.

But whatever.

[Enrique]

8. it's a good article, but it was a mistake to mention Hillary

the story only mentions her in passing and now it's turning into Hillary vs. Obama which is SOOOOOO beside-the-point, in this issue and everywhere else it comes up.

anyway, thanks for posting it. :thumbsup:

[MADem]

12. It's not that at all. This is a good news story and suggests cooperation

at both high and working levels in the Cabinet. How nice that Obama's secretaries are behaving like adults--that's the "take away" from this article.

Everyone mentioned in the piece: State, Defense, JCS, NSA, CIA....they all WORK FOR Obama, and they're all cooperating to make these strikes more effective and less contentious. That's the bottom line. There is no "versus" in the article at all--the only contentiousness is in some minds.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. I disagree somewhat

It seems like the CIA a little out of control here:

"The CIA and the State Department had been at odds for months over the use of drones. Tensions flared with the arrival in Islamabad late last year of a new ambassador, Cameron Munter, who advocated more judicious use of signature strikes, senior officials said."

[msongs]

15. serial killers without any restraints. when they do this to us its bad. go figure nt

[MADem]

16. The point, though, is that they've come to terms--and I would venture to guess that

CJCS, who meets daily with the President and is wired into the whole National Security apparatus (and likely inputted to the report), was the one who carried the water to effect the change.

I am not suggesting State had no input--they surely did. But if you go through the article, and count the number of times you see uniforms referenced (Pentagon, military, Mike Mullen) and the number of times you see State mentioned, I would venture to guess that the source of this article was the recently retired Mike Mullen, and that everyone, except perhaps CIA who had to give a little, is very happy about this turn of events.

At the end of the day, it's a good news story.

[Beacool]

21. Yeah, because even though the article clearly states who objected to it, you have your own ideas.

I'm sure that the SOS is just a figurehead with no brains and opinions. She must just sit in meetings like a good little girl and let the boys carry the water.

:crazy:

[MADem]

34. You are conversing with a strong Clinton supporter, FWIW.

She got a HEFTY chunk of my money in support of her Presidential campaign. So your suggestion that I think HRC is a "figurehead" is just not on. NOTHING that I have said even suggests your petulant assertions. You're making stuff up to suit your preconceived biases. That's an unattractive trait.

Reread the article without your biases--you'll see that MILITARY is mentioned first and often. There's a reason for that--it generally has to do with sourcing.

I have, over the course of a long career, worked with these aforementioned agencies and I know how this shit plays out. Rules of Engagement are hashed out by Pentagon hacks, not people in State. CIA is usually the elephant in the room no matter what. State waves the Big Picture magic wand, Defense does the detail work. Also, it is pretty apparent that the source of the details of this article is Mike Mullen, if you study the quotes.

But whatever--do the googly-eyes and think nefarious thoughts. That seems to be the prevailing 'sport' around here; everyone needs a fucking enemy to feel good about themselves, apparently.

I'll have some of that, myself:

:eyes:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. I gave Hillary credit. Go back and read the posts that I made. I have no chip on my shoulder

I'm just getting my due for pointing out what is a very obvious attempt at flamebait.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Thank you for being honest. Wall Street Journal through and through.

[Beacool]

17. Ahhhh, it never fails..............

If there's an article praising Hillary for anything, around here it's taken to mean that they are pitting Hillary against Obama. How did some of you get that from this article?????

:crazy:

As for Hillary, thank you for trying to hold back the CIA led drone attacks. Too many civilians get caught in the crossfire.

:-)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

22. "rescue" what? "Hillary Clinton, who has supported the CIA's strikes in the vast majority of cases"

From the OP source:

For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has supported the CIA's strikes in the vast majority of cases, the biggest focus has been to make sure political ramifications are properly assessed to avoid a situation where the political opposition in Pakistan becomes so great that the country's current or future leaders decide to bar the drones outright.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204621904577013982672973836.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

In other words, Hillary wants to continue the drone attacks and is being careful not to piss off Pakistan too much. It's all about political triangulation; the only thing she's trying to "rescue" is the right to continue drone attacks into Pakistan.

Lest we forget, this is a Secretary of State who joked to a TV interviewer, "We came, we saw, he died" in response to Gaddafi's death:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=we+came+we+saw+he+died+hillary&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[AtomicKitten]

23. That particular excerpt makes the OP title even more ridiculous.

:freak:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Yeah. A ridiculous attempt to create discord. Again, the OP has ZERO recommendations.

I'm thrilled that DU gets it.

It's past time that this party unite. :toast:

[Beacool]

29. That doesn't mean much.

Anything praising either Clinton usually has zero rec's on this board.

Funny, how despite it, they are both the most popular politicians in the country.

United? Who are the ones spreading disunion? The only ones attacking this OP are the ones who dislike Hillary. Nothing in this article said anything against Obama, but leave it to his most avid supporters to trash it.

:eyes:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Come one, BC! You know exactly what I'm talking about. You're being defiant

for the sake of being so. And willfully ignorant.

There are plenty friends of Hillary Clinton. And as I said before, I like Hillary and think she's done a heck of a job. But it's threads just like this that do her a disservice. They are counterproductive. And when called out on it, people start acting as if they've been victimized.

Let's not go down that road...

[laugle]

39. And some

people just can't get over the fact that Hillary polls much higher than Obama, they still see her as a threat!

It's no coincidence that Obama's highest approval ratings are in foreign policy..............

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Listen...

Why are you even comparing the two? Says more about you than me!!

[boppers]

43. "Hillary polls much higher than Obama"

Uh, we have elections to determine such things. Hillary did not poll higher, which is why she now works for him.

[Beacool]

44. Nope

The super delegates decided the nomination, not the voters.

:(

[ClarkUSA]

45. That's a false statement. Voters in 50 states decided the outcome, as unbiased observers well know.

Funny how Clintonians weren't complaining about superdelegates when 99% of them were backing Hillary. :sarcasm:

[Beacool]

46. Ohhh, look who showed up...............

:eyes:

[Lord Helmet]

51. he's successful because the gop can't block his foreign policy

not because of Clinton as you implied <--- snrk that's some funny shit

[jefferson_dem]

30. Rupert Murdoch to the rescue. Serving up desperate DUers a flimsy, flame-baity talking point.

:thumbsdown:

[Cali_Democrat]

32. The State Department has to deal with the diplomatic fallout of these disastrous drone strikes

They get it. They understand that foreign policy can only be successful if these strikes are curbed.

I'm happy that the CIA is being reigned in.

[Hutzpa]

31. CIA should not be allowed to get their hands on the drones

they will sell it to the highest bidder. I don't understand why they even allowed CIA into this campaign.

Sometimes I really do wonder who these advisers are to the president.

:banghead: :banghead:

[DCBob]

33. You do realize Hillary works for the President??

She advocates the President's policies.

[saras]

47. The CIA is packed with Bushites or worse - why WOULDN'T most of Obama's government be fighting them?

[hulka38]

48. This administration's drone strikes are about to become more thoughtful.

[Splinter Cell]

49. "out of control drone strikes"?

:eyes:

[hulka38]

52. Yes, out of control air strikes

Today

[Beacool]

55. The ABC evening news tonight showed a 16 year old who had been interviewed recently.

He had taken part of a protest in Pakistan against US drones. He had said that he was afraid to go home because drones constantly flew over his house, but ended up going home anyway. Well, he was correct. A few days ago a drone killed him.

Damn human beings and all their damn wars!!!!!!

x(



:cry:

[Ikonoklast]

50. Unrec for, oh, so many reasons.

WSJ Pureeed Bullshit comes to mind.

[Beacool]

56. Yeah, let's not get confused by facts.

:eyes:

[Vattel]

53. hardly promising

Obama basically sided with the killers. Although he gave State more of a chance to provide input, he gave the CIA the final say.