I'm Sorry! It's Just... I Thought We Were At War...

When you play the Game of Drones, you win or you die. Especially if your a high-ranking Al-Qaeda member

Obama Criticized After Nominating John "Drone Master" Brennan for CIA Director Position

By Tyrone L. Heppard

Go ahead. Ask anyone who knows me. I’m liberal to the core.

For example, I don’t understand how gays still aren’t allowed to get married in America in 2013 (Especially after Rachel Maddow and former Rep. Barney Frank; they’re awesome people and we all know it). Also, kudos to Colorado and Washington and a pox on Oregon! Yeah; I support legalized marijuana; but I wouldn’t mind seeing cocaine and mushrooms legalized as well. I believe full-grown women know how their bodies work and how to make important life decisions; they don’t need any man’s help with any of that.

I believe people need to keep their religion out of our schools. That’s science’s turf – and if I’m not mistaken, there are places readily available for that sort of thing.  Plus, the aforementioned science says global warming is a tangible threat, so let’s stop destroying our planet for profits (I’m talking to you, Shell). I believe Wall Street’s run by criminals and thieves, racism impedes social progress, and the 1^st Amendment is the most important amendment in our Bill of Rights. Speaking of which, we need to have a serious national discussion about gun control in America; something I have a feeling I’ll be talking about a lot this year.

With all that being said, there is one area where I’m staunchly conservative. I am very, very, conservative when it comes to fighting extremists. Bang the drums, sound the horns, raise the anchor – use whatever phrase you want.  I’m a hawk in that regard and I don’t care who knows it. Specifically, I’m a hawk when it comes to dealing with Al-Qaeda, North Korea, and the Iranian government; people like that have it coming. I’d explain myself here, but that’s a long story for another time. Allow me to continue.

As you know, President Obama won himself another four years in the White House last year after beating some tool in yet another historical election. Traditionally, even when the incumbent wins a second term, he’s expected to do a little bit of reshuffling to his cabinet come January, and that’s exactly what Obama is doing. However, anyone who was conscious during the last four years knows that Obama can’t make a decision without people throwing a hissy fit or trying to make it a bigger deal than it is.

President Obama with the potential CIA Director John Brennan

 

As of January 8, Obama has nominated Chuck Hagel for Leon Panetta’s Secretary of Defense job, John Kerry for Hillary Clinton’s spot as Secretary of State, and a man named John Brennan to permanently serve as Director of the CIA after David Petreaus thought it a good idea to cheat with the woman writing his memoir. Not the way I would’ve chosen to end an illustrious career, but to each his own I suppose.

Please note that it’s not just the GOP who’s foaming at the mouth; everybody has something to say about Obama’s picks thus far. Democrats are ranting about Kerry because they think Obama was too scared to nominate Susan Rice after Benghazi. Republicans are mad he picked Hagel because of some stuff he said about the Iraq War and (ironically enough) a gay person. The media is flipping out because everyone he’s nominated so far is an old white guy and his "new" cabinet isn’t diverse enough – even though he’s not done picking people yet. The guy can’t catch a break!

What got my attention was the nomination of this John Brennan fellow. I didn’t know who he was so like a good little news junkie, I did some research. Turns out that Brennan had spent 25 years at the CIA and has been working closely with Obama since 2009. According to the president, Brennan is the guy responsible for developing and overseeing our, “comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.”

Brennan does know his way around the CIA and America is fighting a “War on Terror”. It sounds like he’d be the right guy for the job to me, so what’s the big deal? Well, when Obama said Brennan helped with counter-terrorism strategy, he meant that Brennan has been the guy who has been advocating the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka UAVs or “drones”) on the battlefield. He’s the one who's been pushing the president to issue more drone strikes and the president has happily obliged him.  

A U.S. soldier makes adjustments to a UAV

According to CNN, drones seem to be the Obama Administration’s “weapon of choice”. As of September of last year, the number of people who were killed by drone strikes in Pakistan was somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618 – four times more than the deaths racked up during what I like to refer to as, “The G-Dub Era”. This was because Obama authorized 283 of them – six times as many as Bush. If President Obama is in love with drones like some say, then John Brennan’s the guy who hooked ‘em up.

As you can imagine, critics on both sides of the aisle aren’t too thrilled about this pick either for many reasons. The most popular being that when the US military started dealing death from the skies under Obama’s watch, it turns out that 100 percent of the people killed weren’t terrorists or enemy soldiers; there were a few civilians mixed in there.

Normally, this would be the point where I throw some facts ‘n figures in your general direction and allow you to decide how many civilian casualties is too many. I'm not going to do it though because I think that would be overlooking something fairly obvious: innocents have a tendency to get caught in the crossfire of battles raging in their backyards – even after over a decade.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not apathetic and I’m most definitely not saying anyone deserves death or should expect to be killed. All I’m saying is that when there’s war, people die; innocent people included. President Obama and John "Drone Master" Brennan might have been around for a while, but collateral damage is even older than they are....            

WAIT! Before my liberal brothers and sisters start de-friending me on Facebook, let me see if I can’t state this a bit more elegantly. Here goes….

Whenever innocents are killed it’s a tragedy; I think we can all agree on that. But if our country’s stated intent is to target extremists – extremists who themselves have said they want to destroy our government and end the lives of our friends and families – then what difference does it make if we’re using UAVs, or bombers, or assault rifles, or chemical weapons, or horses and bayonets to defend ourselves or to quash a threat? And look - we’re all people here, and, “to err is human”, right? Mistakes happen and this is war, so naturally someone is going to die who doesn’t deserve it.

Now, if you want to say that we shouldn’t be over there in the first place that’s one thing. Better yet, if you want to say that humanity needs to grow up and we need to stop trying to kill whoever we don’t like/disagree with, I’m prepared to have that conversation, too. Hell, I'm already at the table because I wholeheartedly agree!

But in my opinion, blaming the president, Brennan and UAVs for innocent deaths in a war zone is a lot like blaming the operator for running a machine they had no part in engineering. Granted; war is an ancient, massive, overused, violent machine fueled by wanton bloodshed and a lust for power at the expense of human suffering and misery – but it's a machine nonetheless. 

I'll tell you what: I’m totally down to help destroy it with you all; I think my life-long record as a leftist proves that. But you'll have to let me punch Kim Jong-Un and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the mouth first. Once should be enough. Afterwards - and you have my word - we will rage!