"I was standing there at the mercy of a drone."
Thank you for featuring this young journalist. He has done great work so far and am looking forward to future work of his.
Here is a different perspective from Moon of Alabama on the war on Yemen
How can the fourth largest military machine in the world loose the war with one of the poorest countries?
It would never happen to the Super Power, the USA. Except for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, ..... So the super power sells weapons to another war power in Africa for them to keep the natives down!! How will this "war" (actually a genocide) turn out?
Before the war Yemen was already dirt poor. It is now much poorer. Most infrastructure is destroyed. Nearly all factories have been flattened. The country is under a total blockade. The economy is in tatters. People die of hunger. Some 80% of the population is in dire need of humanitarian aid.
and .. next paragraph
But the Yemenis will not give up. They did not start the war. But they will end it on their terms. They continue to response to Saudi attacks on Yemen with attacks in Saudi Arabia. Mysteriously new self made rockets appear from nowhere and hit Saudi troops and installations. All Saudi ground attacks in Yemen have ended in failure. Their proxy troops, hired from various African countries and South America, get beaten as soon as the enter the central Yemeni highlands. Their paid Yemeni allies are unreliable and tend to switch sides without notice. Only al-Qaeda in Yemen is a trusted Saudi ally.
We have done so well with mercenaries in our wars in the last 15 years, done a great job of transferring money to them!
The U.S. and UK continue to support Saudi Arabia in their slaughter of Yemenis. The U.S. provides targeting intelligence and air refueling. Since April 2015 the U.S. air force refueled Saudi and allied planes bombing Yemen over 5,500 times. The U.S. delivers huge amount of bombs and weapons. Since Obama came into office the U.S sold Saudi Arabia weapons and ammunition for a cool $111 billion. Seven percent of the sales price is a commission that flows directly into Pentagon coffers. Generals involved in these deals end up in very posh industry jobs. For the U.S. weapon industry, the Pentagon and U.S. generals involved, the Saudi killing of Yemenis is extremely profitable.
But the Saudis are losing the war. Not only is it very expensive to hire all the mercenaries and U.S. specialists to maintain (and man) Saudi weapons but the material loss of expensive weapons is quite big. Over 50 main battle tanks have been lost to Yemeni attacks. Many more infantry carriers and other vehicles have gone up in flames (vid). Long videos show the Houthi winning nearly every engagement. They are way better soldiers than the Saudis.
Today there was a long article posted in The Guardian about the British war against indigenous people during their colonial empire times. The story of that genocide has been hidden for the most part and more and more of it is now coming out. The first part of this story came out in 2004 on the UK crackdown in Kenya. And the historian featured has continued her work and maybe even more secret files will be opened.
Here in the good old USA, with our vaulted "American Exceptionalism", what we have done to indigenous people in the past and are doing right now maybe possible be the stories that turn the tide on our own colonial efforts carried out in different ways.
''They are correct, of course, that Trump is a menace; they are wrong, however, in their self-interested assumption that representatives of the status quo are somehow humane, respectable, or in any way worthy of the reverence they are so often granted."
Once again I thank you Jake Johnson for getting it right and speaking truth to power. This argument accurately reflects the desperation people like myself feel about this upcoming election. Not only are the candidates of both main parties unacceptable, but the current administration is acting in illegal and unacceptable ways committing war crimes, so that there is virtually no outrage being expressed about the status quo. Jill Stein and the Green Party are now the only option for a more humane American Policy.
Thanks for your comment DonMidwest. I read the article too about the British Empire and thought that, years from now, negative articles like this will be written about American Empire, and how totally humiliating that will be for those of us who are opposed to this behavior...
All of these sociopaths are revealed by the same song:
I wish this was on YouTube.One of my favorite movie rants, written by Paddy Cheyevsky and spoken by James Garner to Julie Andrews in "The Americaization of Emily"
“You American haters bore me to tears, Ms. Barham. I’ve dealt with Europeans all my life. I know all about us pagans from the States who come over here and race around your old Cathedral towns with our cameras and Coca-Cola bottles, brawl in your pubs, paw at your women, and act like we own the world. We over-tip, we talk too loud, we think we can buy anything with a Hershey bar. I’ve had Germans and Italians tell me how politically ingenuous we are, and perhaps so. But we haven’t managed a Hitler or a Mussolini yet. I’ve had Frenchmen call me a savage because I only took half an hour for lunch. Hell, Ms. Barham, the only reason the French take two hours for lunch is because the service in their restaurants is lousy. The most tedious lot are you British. We crass Americans didn’t introduce war into your little island. This war, Ms. Barham to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of two-thousand years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don’t blame it on our Coca-Cola bottles.”
No question this use of drones is horrible and arguably counterproductive. But even Bernie Sanders running as progressive who claimed we need a political revolution was unable to come up with an alternative policy to drones in order to combat these jihadist networks of fighters. So, what is the alternative to trying to take out their leaders with drones? To end the use of drones a viable alternative is necessary. The use of large numbers of US troops seems to be off the table. So that has left drones and special forces operations. Is there a better alternative to deal with the situation that has unfolded?
Thanks, Don. Would love to see at theprogressivewing.com.
It would be so great to see the killing stop in Yemen, but I imagine we will still drone bomb them? Still, if the Saudis pull out...
“that’s why people are fearful, that’s the weapon that the democratic party has used to heard people back on to the democratic plantation” Ajamu Baraka green party VP, talking about Trump on Democracy Now, 8/18/16
Another nice job by Jake Johnson of summarizing the way things are. By the standards of normal people Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their "advisers" are doing monstrous things, and they aren't going to stop. They belong to a class of leadership elites that truly believe they are working for the greater good, that elites alone see the big picture and can gauge what sacrifices the masses must be forced to make. Kissinger was guilty of millions of deaths in Viet Nam, East Timor, Latin America, and elsewhere but he's still part of the ruling class and therefore above judgment. Hillary Clinton likes him -- She is also above judgment; just ask FBI director Comey and AG Lynch. Obama stands out as a first in American history not because he's black, but because he's gone through an entire eight year term without prosecuting the crimes of a single elite person from government or the private sector. What a monumental feat of hubris! For the coming election I don't worry about which presidential candidate is the more dangerous; they are both unaccountable to the masses of voters and will do as they please, often to our detriment. I'm focused on trying to disrupt the anti-democratic power structure as much as possible, so I'm voting for Trump in hopes he can beat Clinton. That will stir things up. But regardless of who wins the next four years are going to be a living hell, and the clock is ticking on our civilization.
Many Trump voters who i talk to are voting for him in hope that NOTHING will get done in DC for four years. After three plus decades of the 1% getting everything they want at the expense of the 99%, while the 99% get a few social issues resolved as long as they don't cost the 1% anything, these Trump voters figure getting nothing done would at least freeze the decline of the middle class, for now.
Great article, you are all over it.
This says exactly what my feeling and fears are about Clinton in the White House.
Everyone was aghast when Bush was in office. There was a roar of dissatisfaction from the people and the Democrats. But Obama just went right on with and expanded Bush's policies. Still his approval rating is high. Why?
Because the Dems always get a pass. Most of this country still believes the Dems are the more sane and people oriented.
It's time to pull the blinders off and look at the mess the Dems have pursued.
When there is something the R's and D's see as a problem for the people they leave it to the Dems to get it done. Again, Obama put social security on the table. Bush tried it and the country went ga ga. I don't trust the Dem's one iota more than the Repubs. They share the same values when it comes to war and austerity. That's why they can eagerly vote for Clinton.
She can do what they cannot.
Some have said that Trump is a plant to make her look better, maybe. But she is by far the more frightening. Her reach around the world is deep and her power is undemocratic. Through the Clinton foundation and her and Bill's time in office, they have established a mafia style control that seemingly cannot be challenged. Even as she is investigated and then cleared by the FBI, she seems untouchable. Trump is not.
If you think what Obama has done is bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
When she is in, the neocons will be back in business. The two parties will be like one. Think we don't need a third party?
Jill Stein 2016 for a fighting chance.
Yes. Stop Saudi Arabia and Israel from funding them. Then stop bombing and droning their countries. Quit creating more terrorists. Just for starters.
We can vote them out and we should vote them out.
In November we should vote every incumbent out of office.
Every Democrat and every Republican incumbent.
Go to the polls and vote or get an absentee ballot and vote.
National elections are a statewide affair.
It's your friends and neighbors who count the vote and certify the count.
Become a poll watcher.
Something, anything, just get involved.
Use your body to send a message. Peacefully.
If I may say so with some sort of respect, I wonder at the sorts of belief that lead to this sort of comment. I have to make some presumptions to address this, so I will. But please let me state up front that I know that I do not know for certain the way any individual's ideas come together. I do not mean to just assign beliefs to anyone.
Still, as I try to make a coherent picture out of this, I find myself suspecting that it is based on assumptions that are little examined by those who hold them. The one assumption that I can find that would make this coherent is the idea that "jihadist networks of fighters" were somehow an intrinsic phenomenon unrelated to history or to current foreign policies of nations active in the area.
Were such a thing true, then it might be reasonable to speak of "no alternative" to drone strikes. You do not leave a rattlesnake in a child's room because the intrinsic nature of the snake makes it a danger. You do not say, "Oh, well if I make sure the snake has food and water and a hole it will crawl into, everything will be well" because any small mishap might have a large result. So were "jihadist networks" groups of people who might happen to be horribly violent because they were born that way, then it might make sense to treat them like snakes.
Now, recalling that I do not wish to read this into anyone's comment, it is important to recognize how enormously racist this idea is. Maybe there are some other possible constructions, but "the Devil Mohammed has entered their souls" does not sound any more rational or objective.
I suspect that in practice people take other people's ideas and practices to be intrinsic insofar as we do not understand their causes. However, on reflection, it may be obvious that events, including even attitudes, must have some cause, and that that must go for impractical or mistaken attitudes as well.
If we assume that Muslims are indeed human and therefore have feelings and reason about things and respond in some ways similarly to Westerners rather than like angels, demons, snakes, or crocodiles, then it turns out that possible motives are not the least bit difficult to find. The US and imperial Europe before that have attacked them over and over and over for decades and even the last couple centuries.
This has been grossly one-sided. The solution is not complicated: if we want to stop terrorism, we should quit participating. Of course this does not mean "let people attack us." But we are not really doing any self defence to speak of. However, even if one were to imagine that the 9/11/01 event were not hired out by the Bush team through their Saudi connections, that very rarely happens. Attacking the US makes less sense that putting your face up against the opening of a beehive and rapping the side a few times with a stick. It is not done.
Again, what I am recommending is not "Quit defending ourselves" but "Quit attacking Muslim states and people, and quit funding terrorists." The following would make a good start:
- Stop funding ISIS (see Wikileaks documentation)
- Stop funding and arming Sauds
- Stop funding and arming Israel
- Stop all unconstitutional bombing of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya, and whoever I missed--any bombing not in a war zone during a war declared by congress
- Stop all drone strikes that are unconstitutional
- Stop unconstitutional black-ops-style acts of war
- Stop destabilizing and overthrowing countries to suit favored campaign funders (as per Hillary Clinton in Honduras and the Ukraine, with George Soros and who knows who else)
Muslims are not angry with the US because "they hate our freedoms" or because they have anything particular against Western women. They are angry because they get shot at. Here is a list of 14 Muslim countries attacked by the US since 1980. Note that several are attacked multiple times and several others are just ongoing.
Why is it difficult to imagine that Muslims are worried that "no one has come up with an alternative policy" other than useless violence to control the onslaught of American terrorism?
". . . events have taken the American military force into Libya (1981, 1986,
1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-),
Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996),
Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000,
2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria"
Wow, well done Jake Johnson. I often find myself at a loss to explain to people why I'm not moved by their hysterical flailing about Trump. Maybe they'd get it if I could convince them to read this piece. I'm bookmarking it for the next opportunity to try that.
Exactly. This is why Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report described Obama as the More Effective Evil in 2012, and the logic applies the same to Clinton.
No we cannot forget or ignore the causes we stand for, but, and it is a big but, we also need to, must work very hard to deny Trump the victory. I know many of us despise Hilary for a number of things and don't look at others which are great about her; nonetheless, "Trump is not a menacing prospect," he is a horrifying one.
Composition of the Supreme court: hysterical flailing.
This is just one, yes, one reason to vote for Ms. Rodham Clinton. If not, this is the upshot: