Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts

[Hollis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/13/AR2010021303748.html?wprss=rss_world


By Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/karen+deyoung+and+joby+warrick/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 14, 2010
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.
The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama) has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.
Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/George_W._Bush) administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled.
Republican critics, already scornful of limits placed on interrogation of the suspect in the Christmas Day bombing attempt, charge that the administration has been too reluctant to risk an international incident or a domestic lawsuit to capture senior terrorism figures alive and imprison them.
"Over a year after taking office, the administration has still failed to answer the hard questions about what to do if we have the opportunity to capture and detain a terrorist overseas, which has made our terror-fighters reluctant to capture and left our allies confused," Sen. Christopher S. Bond (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Christopher_S._Bond) (Mo.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Friday. "If given a choice between killing or capturing, we would probably kill."


http://log10.doubleverify.com/visitor.aspx?query=agnc%3D33577%26cmp%3D4220687%26crt%3D%26crtname%3D%26adnet%3D%26dvtagver%3D3.3.1346.2176%26adsrv%3D1%26plc%3D45246899%26advid%3D1297440%26sid%3D335874%26adid%3D&srcurl=http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/13/AR2010021303748.html%3Fwprss%3Drss_world&num=28&random=0.9669849832792582
Some military....................



See site for the remaining article.

[Austra]

Good. Captures usually mean they get let out. This means they can't

[Solvent]

Well, certainly killing is much less troublesome than captures, and also much cheaper too.

[Blue_0]

Just good fiscal disipline on Obama's part.

-- Bluelight

[FlintHillBilly]

They wouldnt know what to do with them if they captured them. They would put them in gitmo then move them around 100 times, somehow try to gather information without "torture" or "enhanced interrogation techniques" and then try to put them on trial but not know where to try them. So in the long run, its just easier to kill them apparently than to gather vital information through them i suppose.

[MaNiC]

I say kill 'em all. F*cking terrorist scumbags...

[3rdMillhouse]

I agree, a good terrorist is a dead one.

[seraosha]

The way the current admin is rolling back the clock on all the campaign promises, I'd expect waterboarding these douchebags untill they break is going to make a comeback.

Oh wait, killing them is more humane, my bad.

[avedis]

The way the current admin is rolling back the clock on all the campaign promises, I'd expect waterboarding these douchebags untill they break is going to make a comeback.

Oh wait, killing them is more humane, my bad.

haha indeed.... your point reminds kind of an argument I had with a hardcore vegan.... I asked why do u torture plants by eating them... he replied plants don't feel pain..... I guess terrorists don't feel pain with a 5.56 in between their eyeballs or a pred missile.

[budgie]

I disagree with the targeted killings as well. Too many of these are done by drone strikes, based on questionable intel apparently. How many times a year do we hear of wedding parties and the like getting blown away? The PR value for recruiting terrorists could end up outweighing the benefits of killing the odd regional Taliban leader.

[skyeye]

The increased use of drone attacks is the result of the bleeding hearts causing Gitmo and other US centers to be shut down. Since we can no longer effectively interrogate captured terrorists, we turn them over to the tender mercies of the local authority. But I'm sure our folks are advising and looking over the shoulder of the locals, so the net result seems to be working.

Poor old Mohammed Mohammed was better off going to Gitmo, where he got a Koran, three hots and a cot, the best medical care and volleyball. I wonder what it's like in an Afghan lockup? :)

[JJHH]

From a political point of view, Obama can't use prisoners.

But, just as the article says, the opportunity to interrogate them is over. Remember how effective the Germans were in WW2? Winding up entire resistance groups/networks based on just several arrests?

[SoftLion]

I disagree with the targeted killings as well. Too many of these are done by drone strikes, based on questionable intel apparently. How many times a year do we hear of wedding parties and the like getting blown away? The PR value for recruiting terrorists could end up outweighing the benefits of killing the odd regional Taliban leader.

What are you using for proof of this "apparent" questionable intel or are you pulling that out of your ass to bolster your "point"? Although I am sure any intel gathering as a basis for strikes is an imperfect process, my understanding is that there are multiple layers of screening and confirmations that must be obtained before getting the green light.

BTW - Terrorists get married too.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Obama's preference for expensive civil trials and disdain for "black site" prisons and Guantanamo will lead to less and less taking of prisoners.

[0rphie]

I am not sure that we are going to ever have the complete information as whether interrogation of captured terrorist helped anything.
So loss of intelligence due to not interrogating the terrorist is a moot point. But, if we save $$ and spare ourselves a lot of legal problems by simply killing them - I am all for it. Kill more.

[Snapdad]

How are we supposed to capture guys in Pakistan? Oh yeah it is all Obama's fault and don't sweat the details.

[budgie]

What are you using for proof of this "apparent" questionable intel or are you pulling that out of your ass to bolster your "point"? Although I am sure any intel gathering as a basis for strikes is an imperfect process, my understanding is that there are multiple layers of screening and confirmations that must be obtained before getting the green light.

BTW - Terrorists get married too.


Don't get too excited I'm not accusing the intel community here. Read my post again. We hear reports of wedding parties getting bombed do we not? Other civilian groups - oops wrong house, wrong day. These reports even show up from time to time here, to the whoops and hollers of some. All I'm saying is such drone attacks and other 'targeted killings' provide a propaganda advantage to the other side and in turn hurt America's image, especially when they miss.

[Ought Six]

b:
"I disagree with the targeted killings as well. Too many of these are done by drone strikes, based on questionable intel apparently. How many times a year do we hear of wedding parties and the like getting blown away? The PR value for recruiting terrorists could end up outweighing the benefits of killing the odd regional Taliban leader."Are we fighting a war, or not? If so, then we find, fix and destroy the enemy by the most efficient means possible. Yes, we try to reduce civilian casualties, but not to the point where we do not engage the enemy.

Pakistan will not let us send troops into their country. If we stop the drone attacks, the Taliban and al Qaeda then have free rein to set up training camps, headquaters, supply dumps and whatever else they want in Pakistan. They can withdraw to that safe haven whenever they wish, then strike across the border into Afghanistan at will. That situation is sure recipe for failure. Without the drone attacks to suppress the Taliban and make their lives a foreshortened living hell, we may as well pack up and go home, instead of wasting more lives.

If you disagree, then tell us what your plan for success in Afghanistan/Pakistan is.

[SoftLion]

Don't get too excited I'm not accusing the intel community here. Read my post again. We hear reports of wedding parties getting bombed do we not? Other civilian groups - oops wrong house, wrong day. These reports even show up from time to time here, to the whoops and hollers of some. All I'm saying is such drone attacks and other 'targeted killings' provide a propaganda advantage to the other side and in turn hurt America's image, especially when they miss.

Hey hey, now now - Read my post again - you say "when they miss", I say how do you know they missed or hit the wrong target? In other words shooting a hellfire up the ass of a wedding party filled with high ranking targets does not seem far-fetched, and I have no problem with it. I don't buy into the propaganda argument as much as you.

[kimujnr]

From what I saw today on PBS news was that the intel wasn't bad the 12 people killed were actually a total of nine civilians plus 3 taliban... I know I know I'll go look for a link!:(

[budgie]

Hey hey, now now - Read my post again - you say "when they miss", I say how do you know they missed or hit the wrong target? In other words shooting a hellfire up the ass of a wedding party filled with high ranking targets does not seem far-fetched, and I have no problem with it. I don't buy into the propaganda argument as much as you.

Well in that case it's just where we have to agree to disagree. Just because there's an alleged 'high level' target available doesn't mean that scores of women and children should be considered expendable to get them. Sure, its the way the enemy does it but everyone expects more from our side, hence the propaganda boost.

[KSingh77]

While this is going on,I wonder wheres code pinko sinko?

Where are all the anti-war protesters that occured under Bush?Suddely they are gun ho for this war?

[SoftLion]

Well in that case it's just where we have to agree to disagree. Just because there's an alleged 'high level' target available doesn't mean that scores of women and children should be considered expendable to get them. Sure, its the way the enemy does it but everyone expects more from our side, hence the propaganda boost.

So how many bunting babies and innocent women are appropriate to sacrifice for multiple high/mid level targets? 11? 7? 2? None? You see the difficulty here, and I won't substitute my judgment for theirs - that is their job and it is tough.

[Dominique]

b:Pakistan will not let us send troops into their country.

Actually there are US troops, and contract personnel, in Pakistan, they've been their for years, they just don't advertise the fact that they're there.

[Sootan]

While this is going on,I wonder wheres code pinko sinko?

Where are all the anti-war protesters that occured under Bush?Suddely they are gun ho for this war?

When Obama said there are nukes in Afghanistan ready to strike London in 45 minutes, then maybe you'll see the "code pinko sinko".

[California Joe]

Kill them whenever possible. Sounds like a hawkish **** Cheney kinda plan. Works for me.

As far as Gitmo and civilian courts go, there's far too much politically motivated "not in my backyard" bullsh*t going on. The end result is it makes us look like pussies even though we'd have them in a supermax prison. If it's good enough for John Gotti and every other psycho it's good enough for them.

The judge that sentenced the shoe bomber ****head had it dead on as far as I'm concerned (paraphrase) "We will not do you the honor of addressing you as a warrior, but as a common criminal and you will be treated as such".

Seems like Obama can't win with either side anyway, he basically orders hit teams to slot bad guys all over the place like some Tom Clancy/Robert Ludlum kinda President and he gets sh*t for it from the hawks and the doves.

[pg_ord]

Well in that case it's just where we have to agree to disagree. Just because there's an alleged 'high level' target available doesn't mean that scores of women and children should be considered expendable to get them. Sure, its the way the enemy does it but everyone expects more from our side, hence the propaganda boost.
Drone attacks -- a survey (http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=165781)
Drone attacks: challenging some fabrications (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C01%5C02%5Cstory_2-1-2010_pg3_5)
Drone attacks and US reputation (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C02%5C06%5Cstory_6-2-2010_pg3_4)

[budgie]

So how many bunting babies and innocent women are appropriate to sacrifice for multiple high/mid level targets? 11? 7? 2? None? You see the difficulty here, and I won't substitute my judgment for theirs - that is their job and it is tough.

I can't put a figure on it either, yet accidental deaths go on.

[JPBaz]

Kill them whenever possible. Sounds like a hawkish **** Cheney kinda plan. Works for me.

As far as Gitmo and civilian courts go, there's far too much politically motivated "not in my backyard" bullsh*t going on. The end result is it makes us look like pussies even though we'd have them in a supermax prison. If it's good enough for John Gotti and every other psycho it's good enough for them.

The judge that sentenced the shoe bomber ****head had it dead on as far as I'm concerned (paraphrase) "We will not do you the honor of addressing you as a warrior, but as a common criminal and you will be treated as such".

Seems like Obama can't win with either side anyway, he basically orders hit teams to slot bad guys all over the place like some Tom Clancy/Robert Ludlum kinda President and he gets sh*t for it from the hawks and the doves.

+1

The recent news about the joint ISI/CIA mission in Pakistan kind of turns this thread on its head. I guess the Obama administration is more worried about an effective strategy than the PR prior to the fact.

[Ought Six]

"Actually there are US troops, and contract personnel, in Pakistan, they've been their for years, they just don't advertise the fact that they're there."I am well aware we have troops there, including a major airbase, several logistics depots, a port operation and more. I know we also have advisor/trainers and contract security personnel. But I think you know what I meant when I was talking about them not letting us send in our troops.

[Dominique]

I am well aware we have troops there, including a major airbase, several logistics depots, a port operation and more. I know we also have advisor/trainers and contract security personnel. But I think you know what I meant when I was talking about them not letting us send in our troops.

And why should they let us in? Seriously, more uniformed US troops will do nothing but incite the local population, and serve as recruiting tool for the various terror and extremist groups. I'd much prefer to keep to a low profile approach of providing advisers, training, equipment, etc.; using targeted strikes; and allowing SOF, LE, and intel personnel to quietly go about their work, without having it broadcast all over the evening news.

[deagle]

its kill/capture, capture/kill

they choose not to surrender.

[Sootan]

its kill/capture, capture/kill

they choose not to surrender.

Or not given the chance to.

[Dominique]

Or not given the chance to.

They've had the chance to turn themselves in for years. If they've chosen Jihad over peace, then they get, what they get.

[Ought Six]

D:
"And why should they let us in? Seriously, more uniformed US troops will do nothing but incite the local population, and serve as recruiting tool for the various terror and extremist groups. I'd much prefer to keep to a low profile approach of providing advisers, training, equipment, etc.; using targeted strikes; and allowing SOF, LE, and intel personnel to quietly go about their work, without having it broadcast all over the evening news."If we cannot do the job because our hands are tied, and the Pakis will not do the job, nothing changes and all the death and destruction in the Afghan war is for nothing. In the end, we will pull out and tribal regions in the mountains will again have al Qaeda training camps as they did before. Afghanistan will likely fall to the Taliban, and Pakistan may well eventually follow. The area will be a like a tumor in the ass of Asia, metastasizing the cancer of Jihadism throughout the region. Nuclear weapons technology will be disbursed to terrorist groups with obvious results. I would also think a potentially nuclear war between Pakistan and India to be extremely likely.

So are we to allow this because we are worried about pissing off a bunch of Pashtun tribesmen? If not, then please tell us what you solution is. I would love to hear it.

[Dominique]

D:If we cannot do the job because our hands are tied, and the Pakis will not do the job, nothing changes and all the death and destruction in the Afghan war is for nothing. In the end, we will pull out and tribal regions in the mountains will again have al Qaeda training camps as they did before. Afghanistan will likely fall to the Taliban, and Pakistan may well eventually follow. The area will be a like a tumor in the ass of Asia, metastasizing the cancer of Jihadism throughout the region. Nuclear weapons technology will be disbursed to terrorist groups with obvious results. I would also think a potentially nuclear war between Pakistan and India to be extremely likely.

So are we to allow this because we are worried about pissing off a bunch of Pashtun tribesmen? If not, then please tell us what you solution is. I would love to hear it.

We can't run all over the world, throwing troops into every country "we" don't think is doing enough to fight terrorism. I won't work, we'll either go broke, and be tied up for decades. As far as the answer goes, my only suggestion is to keep doing what we've been doing their, providing low key support to the government in power.

[Ought Six]

Pakistan is not "every country". It is a country with long-existing production lines for nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, among other things. It is a country in real danger of falling to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The extreme danger that this represents is pretty obvious.

[dracon49]

How he got a Peace Nobel Prize? LOL and good job..

[plato]

That is why we do not torture, we kill them. Sounds good to me.

[Dominique]

Pakistan is not "every country". It is a country with long-existing production lines for nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, among other things. It is a country in real danger of falling to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The extreme danger that this represents is pretty obvious.

So we should just ignore the fact that the Pakistani government, who are one of our more supportive allies, don't want us deploying large number of ground troops, and just do it anyway? What about Somalia? Or Yemen? Iran? Where would be stop?

[dave81]

"Over a year after taking office, the administration has still failed to answer the hard questions about what to do if we have the opportunity to capture and detain a terrorist overseas, which has made our terror-fighters reluctant to capture and left our allies confused," Sen. Christopher S. Bond (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Christopher_S._Bond) (Mo.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Friday. "If given a choice between killing or capturing, we would probably kill."...And he has a problem with this? If it was a Republican president doing the very same thing he'd praise the decisiveness of the action.
There's just no pleasing people nowadays.

[Blue P]

That is why we do not torture, we kill them. Sounds good to me.

so, based on some intel gathered from the streets, sentencing them to death without a trial before executing them with a missile from a drone?

sounds extremely civilized to me. go obama go, the guadian of the world peace.

oh, yeah, their wives and babies are as guilty as they are. bomb them to bits! all of them!!

[Playtime]

If the argument is its ok for Americnas to do it.
Does it mean if the militants adopt the same strategy and starts slotting Americans (civies too) around the world.. its gonna be ok too?
Will Americans just say:"Aw.. collateral damage is just the norm, we do it in the mid east too."
Not that simple... and definitely not something to advertise.

[Playtime]

That is why we do not torture, we kill them. Sounds good to me.

That can mean a death sentence on Allied POW soldiers too you know?