Women walk past a graffiti, denouncing strikes by U.S. drones in Yemen, painted on a wall in Sanaa, Yemen February 6, 2017 (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah).
Share
[Note: This post was updated to reflect additional strikes in Yemen on March 2, March 3, and March 6.]
As a candidate, President Donald Trump was deeply misleading about the sorts of military operations that he would support. He claimed to have opposed the 2003 Iraq War when he actually backed it, and to have opposed the 2011 Libya intervention when he actually strongly endorsed it, including with U.S. ground troops. Yet, Trump and his loyalists consistently implied that he would be less supportive of costly and bloody foreign wars, especially when compared to President Obama, and by extension, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This might be true, but nonetheless the White House is considering deploying even more U.S. troops to Syria, loosening the rules of engagement for airstrikes, and increasing the amount of lethal assistance provided to Syrian rebel groups.
By at least one measure at this point in his presidency, Trump has been more interventionist than Obama: in authorizing drone strikes and special operations raids in non-battlefield settings (namely, in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia). During President Obama’s two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days. These include three drone strikes in Yemen on January 20, 21, and 22; the January 28 Navy SEAL raid in Yemen; one reported strike in Pakistan on March 1; more than thirty strikes in Yemen on March 2 and 3; and at least one more on March 6.
Thus, people who believed that Trump would be less interventionist than Obama are wrong, at least so far and at least when it comes to drone strikes. These dramatically increased lethal strikes demonstrate that U.S. leaders’ counterterrorism mindset and policies are bipartisan and transcend presidential administrations. As I have noted, U.S. counterterrorism ideology is virulent and extremist, characterized by tough-sounding clichés and wholly implausible objectives. There has never been any serious indication among elected politicians or appointed national security officials of any strategic learning or policy adjustments. We are now on our third post-9/11 administration pursuing many of the same policies that have failed to meaningfully reduce the number of jihadist extremist fighters, or their attractiveness among potential recruits or self-directed terrorists. The Global War on Terrorism remains broadly unquestioned within Washington, no matter who is in the White House.
Drone strikes are one thing, and not a good thing, but war with Russia is another thing which Clinton would have pursued starting in Syria (no-fly zone, as in Libya) . Trump appears to be sticking to his policy of detente with nuclear-armed Russia, which outweighs drone strikes. The Clinton-Obama crowd are railing about people even talking with Russians, so we’ll see.. . .OMG, you talked to a Russian? You must resign.
On drone strikes, just a reminder that President Reagan outlawed foreign assassinations by executive order, and Obama reversed that policy, even to killing Americans abroad. . .Of course if they are dead they are terrorists. /s
Trump has capitulated to Russia. There is no detente it is traitorous appeasement. No reasonable national leader deals with Putin in such a recessive way. He has extinguished any hope of democracy and freedom in Russia. Trump’s capitulation to Putin does not augur well for the free world.
I am not a fan of the current president, but I do think the comparison is flawed. It would have been better to compare the last month or so of Obama with the first month of Trump.
It is fine to present data, but they must be comparable, if not fake news.
If we start a war with Russia that will cause WW3 and if you remember what eInstein said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” The premise is that WW3 will collapse society back to the stone age. If we start a war with Russia that will be the end of society as we know it.
Hillary was not campaigning on war with Russia, that is nonsense. Nor is the fact that Trump and his minions keep lying about contacts with Russia before he took office and during the campaign mean that he “seeks détente” with Russia. It appears, rather, that they were encouraging or working with Russia to hack DNC and Podesta. We don’t know why that is but we do have the intelligence report about Trump being beholden to Russia, and he is such a low life liar that nothing would surprise me about that. His administration is full of neocons and war hawks, he seeks war with Iran which is Russia’s ally and is talking about intervening in Syria which could lead to war with Russia.
Trump is not “seeking detente” with Russia his administration is full of neocon hawks who are aggressive towards Russia Iran and all other issues. There is absolutely no evidence Hillary wanted “war with Russia” that is a canard.
It is not “talking to Russia” that has people questioning Trump it is their constant lying about talks before he took office when Russia was hacking the DNC and Podesta.