Wall Street Journal Cheers on Obama’s Drone War on Pakistan: “Unmanned Bombs Away”


Lord Bingham, until recently Britain’s senior law lord, has recently said UAV strikes may be “beyond the pale” and potentially on a par with cluster bombs and landmines. Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says “the Predator [drone] strikes have an entirely negative effect on Pakistani stability.” He adds, “We should be cutting strikes back pretty substantially.”But Bingham and Kilcullen are naive fools, according to the WSJ editors.
Moreover, they are fools who have been suckered by evil un-embedded reporters. “If you glean your information from wire reports — which depend on stringers who are rarely eyewitnesses,” the editors quip, “the argument [against drone attacks] seems almost plausible.” Right, these “stringers” who often risk their lives to reveal the human toll of U.S. bombings are far less credible than the fat cat editors of the WSJ (some of whom are probably in the Hamptons having servants clip their toe nails or mix their Martinis as I write this).
 ·

WSJ EDITORS ATTACK JOURNALISTS WHO REPORT ON CIVILIAN DEATHS. INSTEAD, THEY SAY, WE SHOULD ALL JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

·

by Jeremy Scahill

·

The Wall Street Journal is officially in love with President Obama’s undeclared air war inside of Pakistan’s borders. In an unsigned editorial, the paper enthusiastically endorses Obama’s use of predator drones to bomb areas throughout Pakistan. The WSJ editors praises the administration, saying “to its credit, [the White House] has stepped up the use of Predators.” The editors declare: “When Pakistan’s government can exercise sovereignty over all its territory, there will be no need for Predator strikes. In the meantime, unmanned bombs away.”

The paper accurately notes some of the reasons for opposing drone strikes: “the belief that the attacks cause wide-scale casualties among noncombatants, thereby embittering local populations and losing hearts and minds.” The WSJ also accurately reports:

Lord Bingham, until recently Britain’s senior law lord, has recently said UAV strikes may be “beyond the pale” and potentially on a par with cluster bombs and landmines. Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says “the Predator [drone] strikes have an entirely negative effect on Pakistani stability.” He adds, “We should be cutting strikes back pretty substantially.”But Bingham and Kilcullen are naive fools, according to the WSJ editors. Moreover, they are fools who have been suckered by evil un-embedded reporters. “If you glean your information from wire reports — which depend on stringers who are rarely eyewitnesses,” the editors quip, “the argument [against drone attacks] seems almost plausible.” Right, these “stringers” who often risk their lives to reveal the human toll of U.S. bombings are far less credible than the fat cat editors of the WSJ (some of whom are probably in the Hamptons having servants clip their toe nails or mix their Martinis as I write this).

The WSJ editors descend from their thrones to mingle among the mortals and teach us the error of our ways:

growing-consensus-against-us-drone-attacks1
Supporters of a religious party Tanzim-e-Islami rallying against U. S. drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The banners in Urdu demand on Zardari regime to either leave the government or get Drone attacks stopped.

Yet anyone familiar with Predator technology knows how misleading those reports can be. Unlike fighter jets or cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours, take photos in which men, women and children can be clearly distinguished (burqas can be visible from 20,000 feet) and deliver laser-guided munitions with low explosive yields. This minimizes the risks of the “collateral damage” that often comes from 500-pound bombs. Far from being “beyond the pale,” drones have made war-fighting more humane.

Ah, yes, that famous humane war we have all been waiting for. Finally!

The WSJ editors then reveal the highly independent, impeccable source for their information: “A U.S. intelligence summary we’ve seen corrects the record of various media reports claiming high casualties from the Predator strikes.” Wow. Remember when the Bush administration was correcting all those errors about Saddam’s WMDs? Not surprisingly, the WSJ states that “In each of the strikes in 2009 that are described by the intelligence summary, the report says no women or children were killed. Moreover, we know of planned drone attacks that were aborted when Predator cameras spied their presence.”

The WSJ wants this U.S. “intelligence” shared with the American public and the world, arguing, “We understand there will always be issues concerning sources and methods. But critics of the drone attacks, especially Pakistani critics, have become increasingly vocal in their opposition. They deserve to know about the terrorist calamities they’ve been spared thanks to these unmanned flights over their territory.”

Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
Source   Title image
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

About these ads

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/wall-street-journal-cheers-on-obamas-drone-war-on-pakistan-unmanned-bombs-away/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. thank for information

  2. [...] Scahill explains what’s Backwater and how does it operate. Jeremy Scahill (born c. 1974) is an American investigative journalist with expertise on a number of global issues, most notably the recent rise [...]

  3. If the command of Drone application in on going war rests with a high powered expert group at Nevada then there is no need of any hesitation in its use whenever it is required. Sovereignity has no meaning in this case.

  4. [...] Scahill explains what’s Backwater and how does it operate. Jeremy Scahill (born c. 1974) is an American investigative journalist with expertise on a number of global issues, most notably the recent rise [...]

  5. [...] a matter of fact, Obama’s political enemies, beginning with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, but also other right-wing corporate media, are salivating at the thought. I wonder how many [...]

  6. [...] Wall Street Journal, but also other right-wing corporate media, are salivating at the thought. I wonder how many editorials the WSJ will write supporting candidate Obama in [...]

  7. [...] entre um quarto e um terço dos mortos por VANTs na ásia central são civis. eu adicionaria um “por baixo” a estas proporções. o número real de mortos civis pode ser bem maior. e quanto a uma guerra [...]

  8. [...] 8. EXCLUSIVE: Drone Strike Was Not Meant For Mehsud 9. Are We at (Robot) War in Pakistan? 10. Wall Street Journal Cheers on Obama’s Drone War on Pakistan: “Unmanned Bombs Away” 11. Paramilitary Pretense, Who Controls the Predators? 12. Questions to Ask in the Dead of Night [...]

  9. […] Scahill explains what’s Backwater and how does it operate. Jeremy Scahill (born c. 1974) is an Americaninvestigative journalist with expertise on a number of global issues, most notably the recent rise […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32,081 other followers

%d bloggers like this: