Friday, July 3, 2015

"Drone strikes are not creating a safer, more stable world"

"Despite extremists' deaths, counterterrorism strategy criticism mounts"
With al-Qaida and the Islamic State group enjoying safe havens across parts of Yemen, Syria and Iraq, and with terror attacks on the rise worldwide, doubts are growing about the effectiveness and sustainability of the administration's "light footprint" strategy against global extremist movements. A template predicated on training local forces and bombing terrorists from the air is actually making the situation worse, some say. Many are arguing for deeper U.S. involvement, if not with regular ground troops, then at least with elite advisers and commandos taking more risks in more places.

On Thursday, the Pentagon announced that a June 16 air strike had killed Tariq bin Tahar al-'Awni al-Harzi, an Islamic State group leader who had facilitated suicide bombings. "His death will impact ISIL's ability to integrate foreign terrorist fighters into the Syrian and Iraqi fight," military spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said.

But for how long, critics are wondering, including former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Michael Flynn, who accuses the administration for which he once worked of "policy confusion." Former Army deputy chief Lt. Gen. Richard Zahner says the Obama administration's policy of "benign neglect" toward strife-torn Yemen and Syria has ensured the existence of terrorist safe havens there for both al-Qaida and Islamic State militants.

2 comments:

edutcher said...

It's the latest argument of the "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" crowd.

You do need boots on the ground to win and Spec Ops can only do so much.

The lesson of all wars, you can't win on the cheap.

You can do it smart with fewer guys sometimes, but you have to make the investment.

William said...

"Drones are not creating a safer, more stable world." Especially for ISIS members.