[Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters

[Robert Naiman]

I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per
se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United
States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's
fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse
about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the
contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And
there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized
by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the
United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we
could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars
that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them
in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a
way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them
to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting
rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from
U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out
of Afghanistan and Syria.

We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S.
participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war
against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that
we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about
ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in
Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk
about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S.
from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the
government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S.
is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them.

Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you
think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going
to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere.

But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East
- that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even
be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the
Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It
wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But
we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on
Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the
tree.

===

Robert Reuel Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Robert Naiman wrote:
> > "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie
> > supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common
> > enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters."
>
> Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 --
>
> https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844
>
> > Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders
> > administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like?
> >
> > Bernie Sanders: All of that and more.
> >
> > Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones--
> >
> > Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is
> > terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a
> > building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't
> > do us any -- it's terrible.
> >
> > Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you
> > think you've isolated an important terrorist?
> >
> > Bernie Sanders: Yes.
> >
> > Chuck Todd: So that continues?
> >
> > Bernie Sanders: Yes.
>
> Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 --
> https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/
>
> > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the
> > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with
> > strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your
> > position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the
> > U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is
> > that still your position?
> >
> > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional
> > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other
> > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically
> > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass
> > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars
> > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and
> > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those
> > current AUMFs.
> >
> > So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe
> > that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical
> > strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no
> > long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and
> > then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations
> > where our military is not able to get in without creating an
> > unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not
> > causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.
> So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common
> enemy:
> anyone who objects to continuing the drone war.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190320/5e1c1ca1/attachment-0001.html>