Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 The outrage over Obama's bombs and the new reality of Dump: Donald Trump's Presidency Is Only 10 Months Old, But New Data About His Airstrikes Is Alarming By Steven Feldstein On 10/13/17 at 8:39 AM This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. When President Donald Trump took office in January, it was unclear whether the bombast from his campaign would translate into an aggressive new strategy against terrorism. At campaign rallies he pledged to “bomb the hell” out of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). He openly mused about killing the families of terrorists, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits violence against noncombatants. Ten months into his presidency, a clearer picture is emerging. The data indicate several alarming trends. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now According to research from the nonprofit monitoring group Airwars, the first seven months of the Trump administration have already resulted in more civilian deaths than under the entirety of the Obama administration. Airwars reportsthat under Obama’s leadership, the fight against ISIS led to approximately 2,300 to 3,400 civilian deaths. Through the first seven months of the Trump administration, they estimate that coalition air strikes have killed between 2,800 and 4,500 civilians. Researchers also point to another stunning trend—the “frequent killing of entire families in likely coalition airstrikes.” In May, for example, such actions led to the deaths of at least 57 women and 52 children in Iraq and Syria. The vast increase in civilian deaths is not limited to the anti-ISIS campaign. In Afghanistan, the U.N. reports a 67 percent increase in civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes in the first six months of 2017 compared to the first half of 2016. The key question is: Why? Are these increases due to a change in leadership? Delegating war to the military Experts offer several explanations. One holds that Trump’s “total authorization” for the military to run wars in Afghanistan and against ISIS has loosened Obama-era restrictions and increased military commanders’ risk tolerance. Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations notes: “Those closer to the fight are more likely to call in lethal force and are less likely to follow a value-based approach.” In other words, an intense focus on destroying ISIS elements may be overriding the competing priority of protecting civilians. Because Trump has scaled back civilian oversight and delegated authority to colonels rather than one-star generals, the likely result is higher casualties. Smoke billows following an airstrike in the Old City of Mosul as Iraqi government forces battle Islamic State (ISIS) group jihadis, on July 8. Fadel Senna/AFP/Getty Urban battlefield? A second explanation points to the changing nature of the counter-ISIS campaign. The Pentagon contends that the rise in casualties is “attributable to the change in location” of battlefield operations towards more densely populated urban environments like Mosul and Raqqa. This is a partial truth. While urban warfare has increased, Trump’s team has substantially escalated air strikes and bombings. According to CENTCOM data, the military has already used 20 percent more missiles and bombs in combined air operations in 2017 than in all of 2016. One notable airstrike in March, for example, killed 105 Iraqi civilians when U.S. forces dropped a 500-pound bomb in order to take out two snipers in Mosul. In fact, a Human Rights Watch analysisof bomb craters in West Mosul estimates that U.S. coalition forces are routinely using larger and less precise bombs—weighing between 500 and 1,000 pounds—than in prior operations. Finally, the urban battlefield explanation also does not account for increased civilian deaths in Afghanistan from airstrikes, where the environment has remained static for several years. Pressure from the president A third explanation of higher civilian casualties is that aggressive rhetoric from the president is inadvertently pressuring the military to take more risks and to deprioritize protecting civilians. As former Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski observes: “If your leaders are emphasizing the high value of Raqqa and Mosul, while saying less about the strategic and moral risks of hurting civilians, it’s going to affect your judgment.” Words matter, especially coming from the commander-in-chief. In the face of such aggressive rhetoric, it should not come as a surprise that military officers feel encouraged – if not indirectly pressured—to take greater risks. Unfortunately, the increased trend of civilian casualties is unlikely to diminish. In fact, signs abound that the White House is developing a new set of policies and procedures that will authorize more sweeping discretion to the military. In September, The New York Times reported that White House officials were proposing two major rules changes. First, they would expand the scope of “kill missions” and allow for the targeting of lower-level terrorists in addition to high value targets. Second – and more notably—they would suspend high-level vetting of potential drone attacks and raids. These changes represent a sharp about-face. The Obama administration carefully crafted a deliberate set of rules guiding the use of force. In 2013, Obama released the Presidential Policy Guidance for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets (PPG), which created specific rules for determining when the use of force against terrorists was legally justified. Then, in 2016, Obama issued an executive order on civilian harm that established heightened standards to minimize civilian casualties from military actions, and required the public release of information pertaining to strikes against terrorist targets. While the latest actions from the Trump administration stop short of reversing Obama-era restraints, they are unsettling steps in the opposite direction. For example, it appears for now that the White House will preserve the “near certainty” standard, which requires commanders to have near certainty that a potential strike will not impact civilians. But this could change over time. One senior official quoted in The New York Times article bluntly asserts that the latest changes are intended to make much of the “bureaucracy” created by the Obama administration rules “disappear.” As the White House dissolves the existing bureaucracy and relinquishes civilian oversight, Trump is embarking on a slippery slope that will potentially lead to major diminutions of civilian protection. The current battle to take the Syrian city of Raqqa is emblematic of the stakes at hand. The U.S. is leading a punishing air war to soften ISIS defenses. In August, U.S. forces dropped 5,775 bombs and missiles onto the city. For context, this represented 10 times more munitions than the U.S. used for the whole of Afghanistan in the same month and year. The resulting civilian toll has been gruesome. At least 433 civilians likely died in Raqqa due to the August bombings, more than double the previous month’s total. Since the assault on Raqqa commenced on June 6, more than 1,000 civilians have been reported killed. U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein cautions that the intense bombardment has left civilians caught between IS’s monstrosities and the fierce battle to defeat it. Zeid insists that “civilians must not be sacrificed for the sake of rapid military victories.” Trump would be wise to heed this warning. Even as U.S. forces continue to turn the tide on ISIS, the trail of destruction left in the campaign’s wake is unsettling. The specter of massive civilian casualties will remain a rallying point for new terrorist organizations long after anti-ISIS operations conclude. http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-presidency-only-10-months-old-and-new-data-his-airstrikes-alarm-684084?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoughnut Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoughnut Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Poor SlowRider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 curious what ben, noggin, and all the other "they're both the same", "Obama dropped 8 million bombs a second" , advocates have to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 So where is CNN on this stuff? This is a human rights violation of epic proportions. Even Trump himself said those people are living in hell. And we are doubling up on the killing? If you think for one minute that the media isnt the propaganda dept of the political and corporate class than you just choose not to see it. Im sure the pro lifers will be outraged tho since so many post birth babies are getting blown up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 I'm curious about their rationale, excuses, and justifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: curious what ben, noggin, and all the other "they're both the same", "Obama dropped 8 million bombs a second" , advocates have to say Youre the one fine with dropping bombs on people....not me In your fantasy world Obama only dropped bombs on bad guys and Trump is bombing schools. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 @motonoggin @f7ben Whine because candidates are not perfect in your eyes while being complicit in the election of one who makes your very issues worse......is the epitome of stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Next time run a decent candidate and the bad guy wont beat her 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I think everyone should have to research the author of the articles and give the background before posting. Who is Steven Feldstein? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, f7ben said: Youre the one fine with dropping bombs on people....not me In your fantasy world Obama only dropped bombs on bad guys and Trump is bombing schools. I doubt you really care about bombs and brown people to the extent you care about standing on the shores of fantasy island and throwing stones at everything someone does. Edited October 13, 2017 by SnowRider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Just now, SnowRider said: I,doubt you really care about bombs and brown people to the extent you care about standing on the shores of fantasy island and throwing stones at everything someone does. Good post copo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, racer254 said: I think everyone should have to research the author of the articles and give the background before posting. Who is Steven Feldstein? Bombings and killings are down or Dump's strongman persona you lap up is a facade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 Just now, f7ben said: Good post copo Reality as shown by the OP vs your idealistic hackery. Now more bombs are dropped and more families killed.....and you chose not to participate while basking on fantasy island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoughnut Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, SnowRider said: @motonoggin @f7ben Whine because candidates are not perfect in your eyes while being complicit in the election of one who makes your very issues worse......is the epitome of stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted October 13, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 Obama killed a shitload of civilians as well. Its like saying one serial murderer is ok because he only killed 10 people but the the other serial murderer killed 20 so he must be really bad. Fucking dipshits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 *Obama drops 3 bombs an hour for 8 years straight.* Liberals : meh *Trump bombs same countries* Liberals: OMG! #resist!!!111 Trump is a butcher!!!q11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Kivalo said: Obama killed a shitload of civilians as well. Its like saying one serial murderer is ok because he only killed 10 people but the the other serial murderer killed 20 so he must be really bad. Fucking dipshits. The point - Reality. You're not real sharp: These changes represent a sharp about-face. The Obama administration carefully crafted a deliberate set of rules guiding the use of force. In 2013, Obama released the Presidential Policy Guidance for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets (PPG), which created specific rules for determining when the use of force against terrorists was legally justified. Then, in 2016, Obama issued an executive order on civilian harm that established heightened standards to minimize civilian casualties from military actions, and required the public release of information pertaining to strikes against terrorist targets. While the latest actions from the Trump administration stop short of reversing Obama-era restraints, they are unsettling steps in the opposite direction. For example, it appears for now that the White House will preserve the “near certainty” standard, which requires commanders to have near certainty that a potential strike will not impact civilians. But this could change over time. One senior official quoted in The New York Times article bluntly asserts that the latest changes are intended to make much of the “bureaucracy” created by the Obama administration rules “disappear.” As the White House dissolves the existing bureaucracy and relinquishes civilian oversight, Trump is embarking on a slippery slope that will potentially lead to major diminutions of civilian protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted October 13, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, motonoggin said: *Obama drops 3 bombs an hour for 8 years straight.* Liberals : meh *Trump bombs same countries* Liberals: OMG! #resist!!!111 Trump is a butcher!!!q11 Just now, SnowRider said: The point - Reality. You're not real sharp: These changes represent a sharp about-face. The Obama administration carefully crafted a deliberate set of rules guiding the use of force. In 2013, Obama released the Presidential Policy Guidance for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets (PPG), which created specific rules for determining when the use of force against terrorists was legally justified. Then, in 2016, Obama issued an executive order on civilian harm that established heightened standards to minimize civilian casualties from military actions, and required the public release of information pertaining to strikes against terrorist targets. While the latest actions from the Trump administration stop short of reversing Obama-era restraints, they are unsettling steps in the opposite direction. For example, it appears for now that the White House will preserve the “near certainty” standard, which requires commanders to have near certainty that a potential strike will not impact civilians. But this could change over time. One senior official quoted in The New York Times article bluntly asserts that the latest changes are intended to make much of the “bureaucracy” created by the Obama administration rules “disappear.” As the White House dissolves the existing bureaucracy and relinquishes civilian oversight, Trump is embarking on a slippery slope that will potentially lead to major diminutions of civilian protection. Ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, COPO said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 What kind of psychopath says.... Im cool with killing like like 1000 innocent people but 2000 is way over the line. Fucking pieces of shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.