The president makes that decision on the basis of their being members of an organization associated with that which use of military force against was authorized by Congress in 2001.
Actually you’re right, that’s a really good comparison, those Nicaraguan children the contras murdered are EXACTLY analogous to the Al Shabab fighters on that base in Somalia. You have convinced me! Screw those guys, Reagan and North were totally right, I owe them an apology.
You keep saying this (no ‘accountability’) but I dinna thin’ you know what that word means, either that or you are using it differently. So, who DO you think the US should be accountable too, exactly? Who should Obama be accountable too? I mean, in our system, we have accountability for our actions, and there is a process with checks and balances in it to for doing things like this air strike that has your panties in a bunch. Obviously, though, this accountability isn’t what you are talking about (or you basically don’t know anything about the US, how it works, etc etc, just like most of the other subjects you chime in on)…so, who should we be accountable to, in your mind, or how does this accountability work that’s different than what we actually have?
Not really. We are involved in a global effort against terrorist groups that have links or connections to AQ…which al Shabaab is. So, we aren’t taking sides in a civil war in either Somalia OR Syria, and it’s not a new ‘war’ either.
More bitching and moaning and still no hard facts or direct responses to other posters. Have you considered writing a protest song or making a large poster?
I don’t know the specifics of the al-Shabaab campaign, but I do think there’s a point here: the US media is very malleable.
During the run-up to the Iraq War, the media did almost nothing to investigate or confirm the administrations view of things and the justification for war. It reported on the argument about the war rather than the underlying causes.
After the war turned out to be a disaster, the media did much navel-gazing and grudgingly admitted to the American people that they fucked up. Here’s the thing, though: they only did that because the war turned out to be a clusterfuck and cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. If we had been greeted as liberators and Iraq turned into a democratic oasis, the media wouldn’t have apologized for shit.
It didn’t matter that the causus belli turned out to be completely untrue; what mattered was that the war turned out to be unpopular.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I don’t know the specifics of the al-Shabaab campaign, but I do think there’s a point here: the US media is very malleable.
[/QUOTE]
Probably a good point, though you might need to expand that to mainstream media, not just US media, since this al-Shabaab strike seems to be being reported generally the same way outside of the US as inside by the mainstream sites. The run up to the war in Iraq was similar as well, though perhaps some of the mainstream non-US media were a bit more skeptical by the time the war kicked off. My own recollection of the non-US sources were that those who were more anti-American were, predictably, more skeptical and opposed to the war, but that they didn’t have any more hard data than anyone else, and that the opposition to the thing built up similarly to how it did in our own media (because as you say that it became increasingly evident that there were no WMD and it was a clusterfuck from the get go), but I have to admit I’m a bit vague on things after so long, so perhaps they were and even are superior to our ‘malleable’ media here in the US.
I don’t have a horse in this fight but I recognize a one-sided diatribe when I see it. Greenwald gives the impression that the U.S. is dropping bombs at its leisure on unsuspecting countries. Is it possible that Somalia and other countries have asked the U.S. for help in fighting domestic terrorists, and the U.S. is obliging? If that’s the case, is it against American law to help its allies militarily? A little more context in his rant would have been helpful, but then it wouldn’t have been a rant.
Well, I don’t think there is necessarily anything wrong with the al-Shabaab strike so that might not be surprising. Foreign media were certainly more critical than US outlets regarding the Iraq War, though.
I can’t speak for all Americans but personally, my bloodlust will only be sated when we are engaged in war on eight continents simultaneously.
And the moon.
Regards,
Shodan
I have to admit I missed that part. My recollection is that they spent quite a lot of time going after the Bush administration (well, except the usual right wing outlets) but no time admitting their own malfeasance.
But do we still have 500,000 lampposts to hang them on?
According to the BBC, the airstrike was against an al-Shabaab training camp that was getting ready to launch an attack against African Union (AMISOM) and US forces. Presumably we have Special Operations forces in Somalia as advisors or whatever.
I’m not sure why the OP expects Americans to show significant outrage at an attack on terrorist camps halfway around the world, or this particular airstrike in particular.
The OP is under the impression that we are cowboys and that there are no check and balances in our system, that our politicians can and do just arbitrarily attack anyone for any reason and we don’t check up to ensure we aren’t whacking a pre-school in Somalia instead of a terrorist training camp…and that the general public neither knows nor cares if there is a difference and that the media wouldn’t check up either. I think his whole point here is that no one REALLY knows whether the US actually attacked a terrorist camp or that theoretical Somalian pre-school instead.
I guess that would be the President in his roll as Commander-in-Chief of the US military. Transparency is always second to the military mission, it shouldn’t be expected.
When the civilized society directs their military to go kill, they shouldn’t get upset if their military goes out and kills, it’s their job. The civilized society can direct their Congress to stop the killing, and they will … honest.
The contention that the public should be given all the details about every bombing, like the evidence that the targets are terrorists, is absurd as well. The military can’t very well do its job if it has to reveal all its intelligence.
Given that our last big anti-terror strike turned out to be an MSF hospital, for reasons no one in power seemed able to explain, I’m a little surprised at the level of faith shown here in the military’s judgment.
That tragedy was reported immediately. Do you have any cites showing that this attack was on innocent people?
That wasn’t the last big terrorist strike, nor was the hospital the target…and, as Ravenman says, it was pretty much reported immediately and the military was called to give a report on why it happened. There was a full investigation into it and it was heavily reported at the time by the supposedly ‘malleable media’ in the US.
That’s the thing. Faith isn’t a factor in any of this. When the military has fucked up, and gods know they have, it’s not been covered up…it’s been dragged through the mud and the blood. Ever heard of Abu Ghraib? I’m guessing the answer to that is ‘yes’. Ever thought about WHY you’ve heard about it in all it’s gory details? Probably not. Ever thought about what the Russian equivalent of that might be in Syria, or Afghanistan? Or the Chinese equivalent? Or are you under the impression that those sorts of things only happen to the US?
If the military fucked up and they DID hit the equivalent of a Somali pre-school instead of a terrorist training camp I have ‘faith’ that the story will come out and the people in power will have to answer for it, and there will be sufficient levels of flamage all around. As there should be. As I said earlier, though, if the converse is true neither the OP, the author of the article in the OP nor you will ever say boo about it…you all will just move on to the next thing. Right?