• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

US extends drone strikes to Somalia. Could this hurt Obama politically?

Gogf

Indescribable
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
10,163
Location
Plane Of Fish Sticks
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...229379353.html

When drones first appeared on the battlefield as reconnaissance aircraft during the Afghan invasion, they were hailed as a major step forward because they took American pilots out of harm's way. I don't think anyone was surprised when we started arming them, and this, too seemed like a huge victory—no longer did America have to put her pilots in harm's way when prosecuting war against our enemies. But now, drones are used for strikes which are far more aggressive than we would be conducting if we could only use missiles and piloted aircraft. Does anyone think we would regularly launch cruise missiles or piloted jets to bomb Pakistani soil as nonchalantly as we launch drone strikes?

Now it seems the drones are expanding beyond that one theater of war and into Somalia, long an American bugaboo. This seems the first step along a new policy of the increasingly-aggressive use of American force in "troublesome regions" because the removal of any Americans from harm's way renders the potential political fallout orders of magnitude smaller. With Obama already being criticized by his base for being overly rambunctious in his efforts in Afghan War, do you think this expansion of American military assertiveness will cost him even more and further drive down turnout come November?
 
With all else that's going on, I don't think this will add any real trouble to Obama. The fact that it isn't even well known argues against it being a large political issue. Obama has a number of problems when it comes to reelection. But the deciding factors will be the economy and who the Republicans end up nominating.
 
It won't hurt him any more in my eyes personally, I will not be voting for his reelection (I will not be voting at all, but given my state, it's not like that matters.)
 
It won't hurt him any more in my eyes personally, I will not be voting for his reelection (I will not be voting at all, but given my state, it's not like that matters.)

That's true given any state! Except those battlegrounds whose electoral votes sway the national election and whose support is generally determined by one vote, that is.
 
Meh, not enough to make it a major political issue. It will flare up for a few days and the pundits will have fun with it, bringing in some expert on international law to talk about about it, but nothing major will come of it. The only people who will react strongly to it are either already dissolusioned about Obama or aren't voting for him in the first place. It might actualy win him some votes by being tough on terrorism.
 
With all else that's going on, I don't think this will add any real trouble to Obama.

Seriously, Cutlass, what in your opinion would it take TO hurt Obama politically? You seem to brush off things Obama does that have would have made you livid if GWB had done them.

So?
 
Seriously, Cutlass, what in your opinion would it take TO hurt Obama politically? You seem to brush off things Obama does that have would have made you livid if GWB had done them.

So?


Lots of things hurt him. Most of what hurts him is being conservative on social and economic policy. His conservatism will cost him more votes than anything else.
 
It would depend on how much the media would focus on this. The added wars have cost us several billion dollars, but as far as I know, no American lives have been lost in Yemen or Libya. We had 1000 American soldiers lost during the 2004 election and Bush still did pretty well, so it is unlikely for this to become a major political issue.
 
Seriously, Cutlass, what in your opinion would it take TO hurt Obama politically? You seem to brush off things Obama does that have would have made you livid if GWB had done them.

So?

If you're interested in a liberal's perspective, what it took to hurt Obama politically was all of his warmongering.
 
Aren't drones more expensive than actual troops though?

As I say, capitalist societies throw more money at the problem; communist societies throw more people at it.

I'm sure we'll soon get Clinton comparisons here...

Though really, apart from maybe financial costs, I don't see how this could hurt him. I assume we're attacking Islamist Somalian factions? That will sell well enough to not do any damage.
 
That is ultimately the truth in American politics; just a few dozen dead makes the population go ballistic, so spending a few extra thousand... or ten thousand... or hundred thousand is perfectly fine.

Insert something on how human life doesn't have a price tag and so spending more money is always the better idea here.
 
That's not even that new. In WWII, the Army would rather throw hundreds of artillery shells than a soldier. And that was a war where it was accepted that we would have a lot of men killed and injured.
 
That is ultimately the truth in American politics; just a few dozen dead makes the population go ballistic, so spending a few extra thousand... or ten thousand... or hundred thousand is perfectly fine.
To quote Eddie Izzard:
Humanity has a hard time handling large deaths. You kill one person, you are a murderer. You kill thirty and lots of doctors look at you through a window. If you kill 100,000 people don't really know what to day besides "Good job, you must have gotten up really early.".
 
Nope. Obama is the Democrat front-runner, the Republicans don't like him anyways (although fighting TWOT is not a negative for him here), and the independents aren't going to raise the rebel flag any time soon.
 
If the enemy is there, Obama will go get em, pretty cool I think. George Bush said you can run but you can't hide, Obama is making it true. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia there is a drone coming for you or a team or seals.
 
Top Bottom