Obama's luvvies have proven to be extraordinarily persistent in their devotion, despite his betrayal of countless pre-election commitments and boundless enthusiasm for foreign wars. Yes, Bush and Cheney can only look on in envy as the Nobel Peace Prize winner not only continued their projects but added a few of his own (Libya, Syria).....while reneging on a key pre-election promise to close Guantanamo. Still his supporters' puppy love remains undimmed.
Apart from one thing:"Targeted" assassinations (as distinct from those whereby you assassinate the first person you meet). Yes, bath-houses in Chicago and HR Departments all across the USA reverberated to cries of anguish and despair, climaxing at Obama's now notorious observation that 'I'm good at killing people'. Drones are unique in warfare in that the attacker himself is under no personal risk as he delivers his lethal payload (allegedly encouraging a cavalier attitude to killing) and this could explain at least part of the widespread revulsion.
But is it justified? Drones in fact cause much fewer casualties and less damage than conventional bombing or artillery fire. In fact they're particularly suited to today's asymmetrical warfare against irregular combatants who blend into the local population. Their use contrasts sharply with the Allies' WW 2 policy of carpet bombing Germany and particularly Japan in which civilians and their property were deliberately targeted with horrendous results. It seems clear enough that Obama personally selected selected assassination targets because of concern at the alternative prospect of such indiscriminate bombing and a distrust of the intelligence communities' selection criteria. As such the number of those killed by drones (including bystanders) amounts to no more than a few hundred as distinct from the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by conventional weaponry in Iraq and Syria.
Could this small number partly explain the adverse reaction, bringing to mind as it does Stalin's dictum that 'one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic'?
In any event - luvvies please note - I think Obama has got a bum (whoops) rap on this one.
Apart from one thing:"Targeted" assassinations (as distinct from those whereby you assassinate the first person you meet). Yes, bath-houses in Chicago and HR Departments all across the USA reverberated to cries of anguish and despair, climaxing at Obama's now notorious observation that 'I'm good at killing people'. Drones are unique in warfare in that the attacker himself is under no personal risk as he delivers his lethal payload (allegedly encouraging a cavalier attitude to killing) and this could explain at least part of the widespread revulsion.
But is it justified? Drones in fact cause much fewer casualties and less damage than conventional bombing or artillery fire. In fact they're particularly suited to today's asymmetrical warfare against irregular combatants who blend into the local population. Their use contrasts sharply with the Allies' WW 2 policy of carpet bombing Germany and particularly Japan in which civilians and their property were deliberately targeted with horrendous results. It seems clear enough that Obama personally selected selected assassination targets because of concern at the alternative prospect of such indiscriminate bombing and a distrust of the intelligence communities' selection criteria. As such the number of those killed by drones (including bystanders) amounts to no more than a few hundred as distinct from the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by conventional weaponry in Iraq and Syria.
Could this small number partly explain the adverse reaction, bringing to mind as it does Stalin's dictum that 'one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic'?
In any event - luvvies please note - I think Obama has got a bum (whoops) rap on this one.