Actually, parenting and education are like that now. Maybe it's a symptom of our culture at the moment? Over-doing is less of an offense than under-doing? (yes, I'm making up words now
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
I think that's at least partially correct. But I think it also demonstrates a lack of conviction in his original stated beliefs.Ego wrote:Reminds me of the epicurean paradox.Chad wrote: This is an interesting question. Is it actual danger/events/information that causes this? Or, is it the weight of the bureaucracy and one person (even a President with well staffed White House) only has so much personal capital and energy to go around?![]()
His anti-intervention stance was a (the?) defining characteristic of candidate Obama. He has done a 180, not once but continually. He has been proactive about the use of interventional force. I didn't read the whole thing, but I got the impression that that was the theme of the book. In my mind being proactive is very different from giving in to the bureaucracy. He would not have spent much personal capital by refraining from using drones as a result of top secret information. He would have been acting on his stated beliefs. I believe those beliefs changed the moment he realized that HE was the one on the hook if something went wrong. It would be on his conscience if he failed to take the pre-emptive action that he had the power to take.
For the first time he saw the depth of the threat. That drawing back of the curtain and the responsibility that goes with it scared him in the same way it scares most everyone on the intelligence committee.
That's true. The problem for him is that we will likely never know when the phone calls (or whatever else is being monitored) produces results.Dragline wrote: Obama's only woken up to this as a fundamental problem recently as he sees his legacy about to be tarnished as not "the guy who got bin Laden", but as "the guy who got your phone calls."
Yeah, "just because we can" is driving the lawyers nuts because the policy hasn't kept pace with the technology. It's only going to get worse in the near-term and we will likely err on the side of permitting action rather than limiting it.Dragline wrote:What he's still never done is actually craft a position or doctrine about when interference or use of force is justified. We seem to have an awful lot of stealth operations for reasons that are completely opaque. "Just because we can" or "Just because it makes us feel safer" doesn't seem like much of a policy.
Agreed. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/george-ch ... rsion.htmlDragline wrote:And it leaves open the possiblity that all hell will break loose again if the next occupant of the White House is more of the Rumsfeld/Cheney/McCain pursuasion. Or worse yet, speaks apocalytically about Israel's role in the world. Then we're back in manifest destiny/crusader land again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcWlyUu8U4#t=34jennypenny wrote:When I suggested that not only wasn't it legal, but it wasn't even effective, they said that all they wanted to know was that someone was watching. Not watching the bad guys, but watching them. That's what made them feel safer and sleep at night.
I did the same thing @sshawn did and have pretty much the same views."I really tried to read the book......then I tried to skim it......then I just watched the movie
This is one of those topics that I do not devote much time too-ultimately because it really is beyond my control."
The article makes a valid point, but we use this style of stand off attack too much. We appear to do this because "we have to do something." The author notes this later in the article, but fails to note that we don't have to bomb everything or nothing. We can create a higher bar for stand off strikes, with the idea that we would create less anti-American feeling and still get the targets that actually matter.Ego wrote:Best case for drones I've heard yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ver-heard/
When you look at the guys who are executing this, they say, "Well I can't do any of these other things, but I have to get rid of bin Laden and his support network, so I'm gonna go with this." And it was super effective.
The paper published in the academic journal, Theoretical Criminology, provides evidence for a new military program dubbed the Gorgon Stare- named after the Greek mythological figure whose gaze could turn victims into stone. The aim is to dramatically increase the video feed capable of being transmitted and recorded by standard drones.
A clandestine aspect of drone warfare is the psychological impact on a population of being constantly spied upon, to the extent of preventing them leading normal lives and, oddly enough for a supposed 'anti-terror' weapon...
We should all get used to looking overhead for the 'omnipotent eye'. As the popular sentiment for international war wanes, war industry will convince powers that be of the 'need' for drone patrol inside the us perimeter (immigrants? terrorists? immigrant terrorists?)... (Think NSA eavesdropping on all internet traffic as evidence of that dissolution of privacy ; guess we all should be watching for this 'omnipotent eye' as it is already here...)Ego wrote: Very few discuss how drones have become godlike omnipotent eyes in the sky to those being watched. The psychological power this has over those who are inherently superstitious is enormous.
.....
I am...through my scope.anomie wrote: We should all get used to looking overhead for the 'omnipotent eye'.
LOL ... I thought of you when I read that this morning.