Military Madness - Dramatic Increase in Drone Strikes in Afghanistan - What did it Accomplish?

..

‘Killing for the sake of killing’: Disillusioned US drone pilots

leak footage of air strikes against unarmed Afghans, media says

25 Aug, 2021 13:54 / Updated 2 hours ago

FILE PHOTO. The US military in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold, are using high-tech Predator drones against their enemy. © Getty Images / Veronique de Viguerie; (inset) A U.S. Air Force MQ-1B Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). © Getty Images / John Moore

American drone pilots have leaked video of “punitive” and “nihilistic” strikes in Afghanistan in 2019 that led to the killing of civilians, including at least one child, as the US looked for an exit strategy in the two-decade war.

The footage, published on Tuesday as part of an investigation by military news outlet Connecting Vets, reportedly reveals how successive US administrations and defense strategists relaxed the rules of engagement in Afghanistan – as part of a policy to pressure the Taliban to the negotiating table.

However, drone operators interviewed by the outlet claimed the loosened rules around air strikes served “no point” and did not “make a difference” – with one pilot stating that it was “killing for the sake of killing.” The strikes also reportedly killed far more civilians than the Pentagon has admitted.

An unidentified pilot, who worked with the Marines as part of ‘Task Force South West’ in the country’s Helmand province in 2019, said he had been traumatized by one mistaken killing and shared a journal account of the incident with the site.

My productivity today was derailed. We killed two innocent men and a charger [military slang for a child]. They were on a motorcycle and by dumb luck drove into the same intersection as our target as the hellfire [missile] struck.

The operator said the target was an Afghan man on a bike who had been using a two-way radio – which were commonly used in Helmand after cellular towers were downed.

However, the target “rode right through the blast and kept going,” the pilot wrote, adding that he “watched a passerby load the bodies into a truck and drive them to a hospital. They are all dead.”

The account was corroborated by a military official involved in the operation who spoke to the site on condition of anonymity. While the Afghan on the radio – whose name or connection to the Taliban was never discovered – drove off through the smoke like a “Bond villain,” the official said the “two adults and a toddler on the other motorcycle ... were killed right off.”

But the Connecting Vets report noted that the Department of Defense (DoD) recorded only one civilian casualty on the date of the strike, which was “likely the toddler,” while leaving out the two adult males who “just happened to be there.”

US Central Command, which had jurisdiction over military operations in the area, did not respond to questions submitted by the site.

Drone operators told the site about being disillusioned with the task force, whose Marines had apparently already given up on Helmand. By 2019, the province was largely under the control of the Taliban, with “virtually no American ground patrols ... and not many Afghan military ones”.

According to the outlet, the military had “transitioned from intelligence-driven targeting to using a target engagement criteria” such as holding a rifle, but the threshold for coming under suspicion could be easily crossed by unarmed adult men.

Last year, the DoD released air power summaries for Afghanistan that showed a six-fold increase from less than a thousand strikes in 2015 to 7,423 strikes in 2019.

And what did they accomplish except to keep the 'hellfire' inventory moving?

According to a 2017 report by the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, Barack Obama “vastly [expanded] and [normalized] the use of armed drones for counterterrorism” to the tune of 542 strikes, killing roughly 3,797 people in various countries.

Under Donald Trump, authorization for drone strikes was delegated to field commanders as part of a National Security Council strategy to get the Taliban to agree on an exit strategy for US forces.

How did that work?

Tulsi Gabbard Calls Out Trump’s Troubling Double Standard on Al-Qaeda

As I have mentioned before, Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few Representatives

for whom I have great respect, although I'm not sure Trump is the right target here

Members of al Qaeda's Nusra Front in Idlib province May 28, 2015. © Ammar Abdullah / Reuters

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard marked 9/11 by pointing out that Donald Trump paid tribute to the victims of Al-Qaeda even while protecting the terrorist group's last stronghold in Syria – sparking a range of responses online.

In a tweet written on the seventeenth anniversary of the tragic terrorist attacks, Gabbard noted that “while President Trump & VP Pence give 9/11 speeches about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country, they are simultaneously acting as protectors of AQ in Syria/Idlib, threatening Russia and Syria that if they attack al-Qaeda, we will punish them.”

Tulsi Gabbard✔

@TulsiGabbard

 US House candidate, HI-2

 While President Trump & VP Pence give 9/11 speeches about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda’s attack on our country, they are simultaneously acting as protectors of AQ in Syria/Idlib, threatening Russia and Syria that if they attack al-Qaeda, we will punish them.

The tweet sparked a dizzying range of responses, with some praising the Democratic congresswoman and others resorting to all-caps-lock condemnations.

“At least one person in Congress gets it. I am a libertarian and wouldn't mind seeing @TulsiGabbard run for the White House in 2020. A refreshing breath of fresh air,” one Twitter user wrote. “Thank you Tulsi. You are a genuine beacon of hope and change in Washington,” said another.

“Hello Americans, hello, did you understand this? Reread it and think on it. Get it yet?” one seemingly impatient Twitter user asked.

But the congresswoman was also peppered with accusations of whitewashing the “real” bad guys in Syria.

Understand this - there are no 'good guys' in Syria! Assad is a 'bad guy' but he is the legitimate ruler of the country and any and all western and eastern powers trying to remove him are responsible for the horror that Syria has become. As hard as it is to believe, Russia is the closest thing to a 'good guy' as they have come in and outed IS bringing the end to this disgraceful war within sight, if the west doesn't fabricate an excuse to continue the conflict or even escalate it.

But Gabbard is right, here. America has sided with its very enemy for the sake of keeping the conflict and the inventory of weapons flowing. And I don't think it is Trump or Pence's fault. I believe if either had their way they would pull out of Syria as they morally should. But Deep State is most likely running the show in Washington these days.

Gabbard may have been the only lawmaker to draw attention to the troubling contradiction, but similar observations found fertile ground across social media.

“I’ll never reconcile how the biggest post-9/11 hawks turned into the biggest boosters of the jihad in Syria,” professor Max Abrahms noted in his own tweet marking the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Max Abrahms✔

@MaxAbrahms

 I’ll never reconcile how the biggest post-9/11 hawks turned into the biggest boosters of the jihad in Syria.

It's easy, Max, America will sponsor more than one side of a war, as long as it's on foreign soil; it matters not. It's all about moving the inventory.

Others highlighted how western media outlets, following the example of the US government, had rebranded Al-Qaeda as “rebels” under siege in Syria. The New York Times went so far as to praise the terrorist group as "a de facto governmental authority, facilitating trade across the long border with Turkey and organizing aid deliveries."

Idlib Province, Syria

US, UK & France Plotting Another False Flag Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

This is pretext for another assault. Are they determined to remove Assad,
or do they just want to use up some missiles approaching their expiry date?

Whatever it is, they seem determined to make sure peace doesn't break out in that beleaguered country. Why do France and the UK seem so determined to keep Syrian refugees in Europe rather than allowing them to go home?
It's very curious.

Terrorists readying chemical attack to frame Damascus & provide pretext for US strikes – Russian MoD

FILE PHOTO A US Air Force B-1B Lancer / AFP

The US and its allies are preparing new airstrikes on Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding that militants are poised to stage a chemical weapons attack in order to frame Damascus and provide a pretext for the strikes.

The attack would be used as a pretext for US, UK and French airstrikes on Syrian targets, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov said. USS ‘The Sullivans,’ an Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided missile destroyer, was already deployed to the Persian Gulf a couple of days ago, he added.

The destroyer has 56 cruise missiles on board, according to data from the Russian Defence Ministry. A US Rockwell B-1 Lancer, a supersonic bomber equipped with 24 cruise missiles, has also been deployed at the Qatari Al Udeid Airbase. 

The provocations are being prepared by militants from Al-Nusra Front (now known as Tahrir al-Sham) in Idlib province, northwestern Syria.

In order to stage the attack, some eight canisters of chlorine were delivered in to village near Jisr al-Shughur city for the terrorists’ use, he added. A separate group of militants, prepped by private British security company Olive, have also arrived in the area. The group will be disguised as volunteers from the White Helmets group and will simulate a rescue operation involving locals purportedly injured in the attack, according to the military official.

According to the Defense Ministry spokesman, recent statements by US National Security Advisor John Bolton – in which he threatened to bomb Syria – could be interpreted as an implicit confirmation of such airstrikes. On August 22, Bolton stated that “... if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons, we will respond very strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned Washington against new reckless moves in Syria, RIA Novosti reported. “We hear ultimatums from Washington, including those made in public,” the top official said, apparently referring to Bolton’s recent remarks.

According to Ryabkov, the US is aiming to destabilize Syria and create new pretexts for regime change in Damascus. “Again, we are witnessing serious escalation of the situation [in Syria],” he added.

In April, the US, UK and France unleashed a bombing campaign on Syria. The airstrikes were carried out in response to an alleged gas attack in Douma on April 7, which the West blamed on Bashar Assad’s government. The operation started hours before a team from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was due to reach the city.

Back then, Syrian defenses were scrambled to repel some 103 cruise missiles and air-to-surface missiles launched at civilian and military targets by the Western trio. It managed to intercept at least 71 of them, the Russian Defense Ministry said at the time.

See also:

Tucker Carlson slams US foreign policy in no-holds-barred monologue on Syria, social media explodes

Is Assad to Blame for the Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria?

US Ready to Turn Syria into Another Libya

Lies, Hypocrisy, Intrigue, and 'Whataboutism' Surround Douma CW Investigation

Hysteria Over Alleged Syrian Chemical Attack Will Result in Disaster

Khan Sheikhun Sarin Gas Attack was a False Flag Operation

UK Reporter Astounded By What He Found in Douma

German Reporter Says Douma was Completely Staged - MSM Won't Report It

US Signals Shift in Syria-Iraq Campaign Against Islamic State

A US-led coalition has been conducting air strikes against IS

since last year

File photo of US fighter jet after carrying out air strikes in Syria, Sept 2014 AFP

From BBC Middle East

The US has indicated a shift in its campaign against Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq and Syria, including the use of direct ground raids.

Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said there would also be more air strikes against "high-value targets".

Observers say his comments reflect acknowledgment of the lack of progress in defeating the militant group.

How long have the US and allies been bombing IS? A year now? And they are just realizing that it isn't working? Well, I just have to ask the question, "Was it supposed to work?" If it was, why did it take you a year to figure out that it wasn't? It must have been obvious; it was obvious to everyone else. Yet you kept it up with no serious change in plan. Is it any wonder why I question whether you actually intended to defeat IS? 

A cynic might suggest that a continuous bombing campaign was good for American bomb manufacturers - keeps the inventory moving. Isn't that what most American military interventions are about? Well, good thing I'm not a cynic!

It was only after the immediate and dramatic success of the Russian bombing program that it became glaringly obvious that the American campaign was either a dismal failure or a sham. In any event, Americans do not like to be shown-up by Russians - not in hockey and not in war. So they have to do something dramatic like rescuing captives. Couldn't they have rescued captives a year ago?

There are a lot of questions to be answered about what the Americans have been doing in Syria and Iraq for the past year. I wonder if anyone other than me will ask them?

Separately, Iran says it is considering whether to attend international talks in Vienna this week on Syria's war.

Earlier, the US said Iran - an ally of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was being invited to the talks for the first time.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said "Iran's participation is under discussion", Iranian news agencies reported.

Mr Carter's comments, made to the Senate Armed Services Committee, come a week after US-Iraqi forces rescued dozens of hostages held by IS in Iraq.

Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent

Russia's intervention in Syria has changed the military and diplomatic dynamic in the crisis and left Washington struggling to catch up.

Whatever the inconsistencies in Moscow's own policies, it has highlighted the deficiencies in Washington's approach - not least the collapse of its ailing train-and-equip programme for Syria that was largely going nowhere.

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter wants a more active US strategy, but this inevitably runs counter to the prevailing mood in the White House.

Barack Obama, after all, has cast his presidency as one that will withdraw US troops from foreign wars, not engage in new ones. There is talk of deploying a small number of Apache attack helicopters to Iraq.

That could involve hundreds of extra US personnel. But US success still requires effective local allies on the ground and they are in short supply.

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Mr Carter said, using an alternative acronym for IS.

"We expect to intensify our air campaign, including with additional US and coalition aircraft, to target ISIL with a higher and heavier rate of strikes," he said.

"This will include more strikes against ISIL high-value targets as our intelligence improves."

Free Syrian Army fighters (27 Oct 2015) AP
The US says that it wants to work with partners including the Free Syrian Army

A US-led coalition began air strikes against IS positions in Iraq and Syria last year. President Barack Obama said the objective was to "degrade and ultimately destroy" IS.

Although President Obama has not committed ground forces to Iraq, the US has about 3,500 troops in the country who have been helping to train Iraqi forces and also have a limited combat role.

Russia started its own air strikes in Syria at the end of last month, saying it wants to help President Bashar al-Assad defeat IS and other extremists.

But Washington has strongly criticised the Russian campaign, arguing that it has been focused on rebel opposition fighters and that it will only fuel more extremism.

Russian air strikes have enabled President Assad's land forces to advance
A Syrian tank fires in Harasta, northeast of Damascus, Syria (22 Oct 2015) AP

Mr Carter said the fight against IS would now concentrate mostly on Raqqa, the militants' declared capital in Syria, and Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province in western Iraq.

He did not divulge the circumstances under which the US might carry out operations on the ground on its own.

"[But] once we locate them, no target is beyond our reach," he said.

Foreign ministers from the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are due to meet in Vienna on Thursday evening, a Russian diplomatic source said, with Iran possibly joining further talks on Friday.

Friday's talks could also include officials from Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called for a "widening of the dialogue" on Syria, when he spoke to reporters on Wednesday.

Iran is believed to have spent billions of dollars over the past four years propping up President Assad's government, providing military advisers and subsidised weapons, as well as lines of credit and oil.

It is also thought to have been influential in the decision of Lebanon's Hezbollah movement to send fighters to Syria to assist pro-Assad forces.

Syria's Western-backed opposition and the US's Gulf Arab allies have long opposed Iran's role in the Syrian war.

BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says that while Washington is certainly not welcoming Iran to the Syria talks, it will now tolerate Tehran's involvement.