General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe scope of Obama’s counter-terrorism successes
Posted with permission/video at link~
The scope of Obamas counter-terrorism successes
06/17/15 08:03 AM
By Steve Benen
Whenever the political worlds attention turns to matters of national security and terrorism, Republican criticisms of President Obama feature familiar talking points. The president isnt aggressive enough, they say. His approach must be tougher, like the policies adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration.
Obamas counter-terrorism policies are so ineffective, the right insists, that the White House wont even use the specific words radical Islamic terrorism that Republicans demand to hear.
But the gap between GOP rhetoric and national-security reality continues to grow. We learned yesterday, for example, that a U.S. airstrike killed Nasir al-Wuhaysh, al Qaedas No. 2 official and the top guy in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As Rachel noted on the show last night, his death is a huge deal, especially given the terrorist plots al-Wuhaysh has helped oversee.
NBC News had a helpful report yesterday on the frequency with which U.S. strikes have successfully targeted al Qaedas top leaders.
The targeted attacks started within weeks of bin Ladens death. Three al Qaeda higher-ups were killed in June, August and September of 2011, followed by another three in late 2012 and early 2013 . Now, the death of 38-year-old Wuhayshi killed in a strike on Friday is seen by American intelligence officials as a major blow to al Qaeda, which is struggling with decimated ranks and ideological competition from the Islamic State.
Im reminded of this piece in The Atlantic last fall, when Jeffrey Goldberg, hardly a liberal, wrote, Obama has become the greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency.
Its a detail Republicans simply dont know what to do with, so they ignore it and pretend the president is indifferent to matters of national security, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. While GOP officials and candidates continue to insist that what really matters is word-choice, Obamas counter-terrorism strategy includes so many successes, they no longer generate much attention. Notice, for example, just how little chatter al-Wuhayshs death garnered yesterday.
There is, of course, an entirely different side of the debate. Yes, Republican rhetoric is divorced from reality. Yes, Obama has successfully targeted a wide variety of prominent terrorist leaders.
But there are all kinds of related questions that often go overlooked: do U.S. strikes deter or prevent future terrorist threats? Is the U.S. policy entirely consistent with the law? What are the implications of a policy reliant on drones? Should Americans expect the current national-security policy to remain in place indefinitely? What happens when one terrorist leader is killed, but hes replaced by someone worse?
Rachel talked to NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin last night in a segment thats worth your time if you missed it:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-scope-obamas-counter-terrorism-successes?cid=sm_fb_maddow
underpants
(183,043 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Lots of people complain there is unintended victims using drones but I think they will be a big part of the future in combatting terrorism. The GOP will never agree to anything but starting more wars, I don't agree with the GOP. I would consider their ranting about Obama's method as Obama being successful, just not the GOP way.