Al-Baghdadi DEAD

[Leadeye]

My opinion is that getting rid of problem leadership is a good thing. Indiscriminate killing of people in a country or organization isn't as effective as taking out the leadership particularly at the top levels.

 

[printcraft]

One of my concerns about the Obama administration was the extra-judicial determinations about who the US kills outside of its borders, outside of combat.

Al-Baghdadi is no where close to the line where it becomes a problem. Moving down the chain of command... maybe.

This isn't a criticism of Trump's approach yet, partly because we don't know enough about how the decision is made. Just voicing a concern.

ETA:
Just to re-iterate, this is the same concern-turned-criticism that I had about Obama's approach.

No, but seriously... I don't think I ever criticized obama over drone strikes against terrorist operators... weird, I must be slipping to agree with him.

 

[T.Lex]

My opinion is that getting rid of problem leadership is a good thing. Indiscriminate killing of people in a country or organization isn't as effective as taking out the leadership particularly at the top levels.

Historically, the command and control leadership of an enemy state are totally fair game. Absolutely. No doubt. (Including our own.)

In the age of terrorism, that gets trickier. First, it is more difficult to tell who actually is the leader. That takes really good intel. Otherwise, we become pawns in power plays among competing factions. "We need to leak to the Americans that Joe will be the next leader. Once he's out of our way, we can take over."

Second, there's a structural gray area within our constitution. And, it has been a problem since almost the beginning. The tension gets exacerbated in the modern era of irregular warfare. That is that the POTUS as CINC can send troops to do whatever he wants, but Congress can only declare war. Well, there's a whole spectrum of conflicts between peace and war these days. What is the appropriate role for Congress?

Before Trump supporters get all twitchy about this, Trump is very much following the lead of Obama in this area. And I'm not saying any of these targeted killings under Trump is "wrong." (Obama's actions towards US citizens alleged to support Daesh are much closer to "wrong" than Trump has so far tread - from what has been reported at least.)

I would be more comfortable with some level of transparent framework for sorting out who's on the hit list. Not named targets (although the playing card thing is an example of how that can be useful), but some deliberation about how we will structurally handle this issue.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think I ever criticized obama over drone strikes against terrorist operators... weird, I must be slipping to agree with him.

Well, some people are more comfortable with an authoritarian police state.

 

[printcraft]

warning shots fired*

 

[indiucky]

 

[T.Lex]

warning shots fired*

haha

Every dog in its own yard, as it were....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Historically, the command and control leadership of an enemy state are totally fair game. Absolutely. No doubt. (Including our own.)

In the age of terrorism, that gets trickier. First, it is more difficult to tell who actually is the leader. That takes really good intel. Otherwise, we become pawns in power plays among competing factions. "We need to leak to the Americans that Joe will be the next leader. Once he's out of our way, we can take over."

Second, there's a structural gray area within our constitution. And, it has been a problem since almost the beginning. The tension gets exacerbated in the modern era of irregular warfare. That is that the POTUS as CINC can send troops to do whatever he wants, but Congress can only declare war. Well, there's a whole spectrum of conflicts between peace and war these days. What is the appropriate role for Congress?

Before Trump supporters get all twitchy about this, Trump is very much following the lead of Obama in this area. And I'm not saying any of these targeted killings under Trump is "wrong." (Obama's actions towards US citizens alleged to support Daesh are much closer to "wrong" than Trump has so far tread - from what has been reported at least.)

I would be more comfortable with some level of transparent framework for sorting out who's on the hit list. Not named targets (although the playing card thing is an example of how that can be useful), but some deliberation about how we will structurally handle this issue.

Wait, are you talking about terrorist organizations, or the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates and Joe Biden?

 

[T.Lex]

Wait, are you talking about terrorist organizations, or the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates and Joe Biden?

Hmmm... fair question.

 

[PistolBob]

So the news today stated we killed the new #1 or the old #2 today and took a couple of those nice bearded fellers in for a chat. Awesome.

 

[Trigger Time]

So the news today stated we killed the new #1 or the old #2 today and took a couple of those nice bearded fellers in for a chat. Awesome.

Yep, i love it when they start turning on each other

 

[two70]

In the age of terrorism, that gets trickier. First, it is more difficult to tell who actually is the leader. That takes really good intel. Otherwise, we become pawns in power plays among competing factions. "We need to leak to the Americans that Joe will be the next leader. Once he's out of our way, we can take over."

That may seem like a clever move in the short term... the long term prospects for keeping the position are not very good though. Actually, it would probably be helpful and speed things up dramatically if the aspiring leaders from various factions did just that since they would effectively be making themselves into targets while they are trying to make others into targets.

 

[Nazgul]

You know we're having a good day when Schiff and Kut are whining.

What he said.........

Don

 

[indiucky]

 

[KG1]

Did you guys remember to booby trap the front door in case someone tries to breach it?

 

[wethepeople]

Would love to see the piece of craps face after the vest detonated..... when he met Jesus and there were no virgins

 

[calinb]

I'm glad he's dead and gone but all you have to do is regularly watch the Ron Paul Liberty Report or listen to just a little of what Snowden and Assange have been trying to tell us to know that none of this Al-Baghdadi theater (or any story reported by government or their lamestream media lap dogs) is depicting the truth. Only the deepest of the deep state tyrants who rule us know what's really going on in the world. It's like that joke about politicians lying.

How can you tell when your government is lying to you? When it exists!

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Would love to see the piece of craps face after the vest detonated..... when he met Jesus and there were no virgins

He never got to meet Jesus... Pretty sure. Maybe Lucifer...

 

[T.Lex]

And maybe he's actually in Paradise. None of us really know any of that for sure.

The world is likely safer in his absence.

 

[DFacres]

I thought one was supposed to die gloriously in the cause. Killing yourself because you don't want to rot at Guantanamo seems kinda' cowardly, even Bin Laden picked up a rifle


I think his virgin payoff should be discounted, maybe 36 or 24

He might be surprised if the virgins were not specified and turn out to be the same sex!!! (But-maybe not).