Drones Create Hatred of the U.S., Which Is Their Real Purpose By John Spritzler

<p class=”title”>24 November, 2012 — New Democracy World

<p class=”general_text”><span class=”dropcap_character”>Pundits are perplexed. Why, they ask, does <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Obama carry out the <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone attacks on Muslims in <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Pakistan, <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Somalia and <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Yemen when he surely knows that the main thing they accomplish is to make more people hate the <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>United States government and lean towards joining groups like <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Al Qaeda? The Washington Post reports, in an article titled, “In <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda,” that “Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>United States.”

<p class=”general_text”>The drones kill a lot of civilians. A Columbia Law School investigation concludes that in 2011 U.S. drones killed between 72 and 155 “alleged civilians” and between 330 and 575 “alleged <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>militants.” But these “alleged <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>militants” are seldom top level individuals whose deaths would substantially weaken the organizations they belong to. A Stanford Law School investigation reports,

<p class=”general_text”>[T]he label “militant” also fails to distinguish between so-called “high-value” targets with alleged leadership roles in <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Al Qaeda or anti-US Taliban factions, and low-level alleged insurgents with no apparent access or means of posing a serious or imminent threat to the US. National security analysts—and the White House itself—have found that the vast majority of those killed in <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>strikes in <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Pakistan have been low-level alleged <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>militants. Based on conversations with unnamed US officials, a Reuters journalist reported in 2010 that of the 500 “<strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>militants” the CIA believed it had killed since 2008, only 14 were “top-tier militant targets,” and 25 were “mid-to-high-level organizers” of <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups. His analysis found that “the C.I.A. [had] killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-high-level” during that same period. More recently, Peter Bergen and Megan Braun of the New <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>America Foundation reported that fewer than 13% of <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>strikes carried out under <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Obama have killed a “militant leader.”[151] Bergen and Braun also reported that since 2004, some 49 “militant leaders” have been killed in <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>strikes, constituting “2% of all <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone-related fatalities.”

<p class=”general_text”><strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Obama, knowing that the drones don’t seriously weaken the <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Al Qaeda-type organizations, and knowing that <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone attacks in fact make it much easier for these organizations to recruit new members, nonetheless has persisted in launching <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone attacks in Pakistan and has increased them in Somalia earlier this year and increased them in Yemen even after his 2012 election victory. How come? Doesn’t he or any of his advisors read the Washington Post?

<p class=”general_text”>The explanation comes from understanding what the Soviet Union‘s last Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, meant when, as the Soviet Union was abolishing its communist self, he told American diplomats, “I will do something very terrible to you <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>America–I am going to take away your enemy.” Perhaps most ordinary people would not have understood Gorbachev’s remark, and would even, like the pundits who are perplexed about <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Obama‘s continued use of drones, have thought it quite bizarre. But sophisticated diplomats would know exactly what Gorbachev meant, and would understand how very true were his words. The explanation is this.

<p class=”general_text”>Rulers who represent the wealthy and privileged upper class of their nation, and who need somehow to make the general population obediently accept their place at the bottom of an unequal society, need an effective method of controlling their own people, and one of the most effective, time-tested methods is an Orwellian war of social control, a war whose purpose is to make one’s own people so fearful of an external enemy that, with a “time of war” mentality, they will rally around the flag and, in the name of patriotism, obey their nation’s rulers. But an Orwellian war of social control requires a credible enemy. Gorbachev was simply saying that in dissolving the Soviet Union he was taking away the American ruling class‘s much needed Cold War enemy–a deed that <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>America‘s rulers would certainly consider “something terrible.”

<p class=”general_text”>After losing the Communist enemy <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>America‘s rulers came up with the “Terrorist” enemy. The history and details of how they invented this useful enemy are spelled out by Dave Stratman in his articles here and here. To keep Americans in a war mentality there needs to be a credible terrorist enemy. The problem for <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>Obama, and the American ruling class he represents, is, “How can we generate credible terrorists?” One way is to support Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and its periodic violent attacks on Palestinians and other neighboring Muslims and Arabs. And another way is to launch <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone attacks on Muslims. As I discuss here, Israel’s violence against people in Gaza has never been, as Israeli leaders pretend, to weaken Hamas; it’s purpose has been to strengthen Hamas, which every reporter on the scene, regardless of his or her political viewpoint, says has been the actual result of every Israeli attack on Gaza. Likewise, all serious scholarly reporting on the <strong class=’StrictlyAutoTagBold’>drone attacks finds that they strengthen the organizations that the U.S. government claims it is trying to weaken.

<p class=”general_text”>But this is not paradoxical. Not at all! This is how rulers rule over their subjects. This is how one wages an Orwellian war of social control. Now you can join Gorbachev and the sophisticted diplomats in understanding what the pundits (at least the ones employed by the corporate-controlled media) have so much difficulty (feigned or otherwise) grasping, namely why the U.S. government keeps doing things that accomplish the opposite of its stated goals, over and over and over again. Is it insanity? No. It’s hard, cold, rational behavior for a very immoral end. 


This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.