Wall Street Journal Loves Obama's Drone War Vs. Pakistan: "Unmanned Bombs Away"

[Orwellian_Ghost]

The paper’s editors attack unembedded journalists who report the Pakistani deaths. Instead, they say, we should all just shut up and listen to U.S. intelligence agencies.

By Jeremy Scahill

The Wall Street Journal is officially in love with President Obama’s undeclared air war inside of Pakistan’s borders. In an unsigned editorial, the paper enthusiastically endorses Obama’s use of predator drones to bomb areas throughout Pakistan. The WSJ editors praise the administration, saying “to its credit, has stepped up the use of Predators.” The editors declare: “When Pakistan’s government can exercise sovereignty over all its territory, there will be no need for Predator strikes. In the meantime, unmanned bombs away.”

The paper accurately notes some of the reasons for opposing drone strikes: “the belief that the attacks cause wide-scale casualties among noncombatants, thereby embittering local populations and losing hearts and minds.” The WSJ also accurately reports:

Lord Bingham, until recently Britain’s senior law lord, has recently said UAV strikes may be “beyond the pale” and potentially on a par with cluster bombs and landmines. Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says “the Predator strikes have an entirely negative effect on Pakistani stability.” He adds, “We should be cutting strikes back pretty substantially.”

<snip>

The WSJ editors descend from their thrones to mingle among the mortals and teach us the error of our ways:

Yet anyone familiar with Predator technology knows how misleading those reports can be. Unlike fighter jets or cruise missiles, Predators can loiter over their targets for more than 20 hours, take photos in which men, women and children can be clearly distinguished (burqas can be visible from 20,000 feet) and deliver laser-guided munitions with low explosive yields. This minimizes the risks of the “collateral damage” that often comes from 500-pound bombs. Far from being “beyond the pale,” drones have made war-fighting more humane.

...

http://rebelreports.com/post/140987762/wall-street-journal-loves-obamas-drone-war-vs

[timeforpeace]

1. Well if the WSJ loves it, maybe some on the left will stop supporting it.

[madrchsod]

2. why are we in afganistan....?

the taliban has done nothing to the united states and they will be there long after we leave.

[SpartanDem]

3. Besides letting Al Qeada use the country to plan the deadlist attack

on our country ever.

[madrchsod]

6. the al qeada has left Afghanistan

and were never very popular with the afganistans....so why are we fighting in afganistan?

[HamdenRice]

4. Obama's war? Once again, "Less than Zero" nt

[maryf]

5. Yep, less than zero

right to be there, less than zero consideration for sovereignity, less than zero compassion, more than zero, concern for profits and control

[KakistocracyHater]

7. I don't want Pakistan to be the Iraq of the 2010s

....