A quick response this time, Finn (I hope!
You are conflating the issue of nations dealing with terrorists within their own borders and nations dealing with those that reside within the borders of other nations.
My concerns are entirely different to yours, that's all, Finn.
It's the humanitarian rights of civilians
that I've consistently posted about here. Your focus has been entirely different to mine.
There'd be quite a bit of difference between us about the definition of the term "terrorist" & what constitutes "terrorist actions", too.
I question the purpose (& the legality, too) of the attacks on the perceived "enemies" of the US in other countries, whether the attacks have been by invasion, drone attacks, or by whatever means.
The subject of this thread is: "Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?"
I'm responding to that as much as to your particular perspective.
What the US should expect from these nations is the elimination of the threat these terrorists pose to the US. How they do it is immaterial, as long as it is effective. If they do this, there will be no drone attacks for them to condone or condemn.
...The "job" that I contend we can expect our neighbors "get done" (if they don't want us to do it) is to eliminate the threat to us posed by terrorists within their borders. After all, this, and not participating with us in invading countries, is what determines whether or not we send Predators into their skies. .....
But you see, you are expecting (on your government's behalf) that the leaders of Pakistan, Yemen, etc, "eliminate" citizens in their own countries!
you will invade their countries with drones to kill your perceived enemies. Along with the unfortunate "collateral damage" which inevitably occurs.
You can't see that you are advocating a course of action that many/most (?) citizens of those countries would not accept at all?
Why should they put US interests above their own
What if they don't agree
with US ideology about "terrorist threats"?
What if they see the attacks on their countries as acts of terrorism against them?
You are asking governments to act in your
interests against the interests of their own people. Can you imagine the US ever agreeing to such an expectation? Of course not.
you have misstated the goal I've addressed or created a new one for the sake of your argument. The goal is not to neutralize support of terrorists, it is to neutralize the terrorists.
Conventional wisdom tells us that eliminating support for terrorists among the general population is a means by which the threat posed by the terrorists can be neutralized, but this is far too often seen as a simple matter of "live and let live."
I completely disagree.
In fact, as I've already argued, you might eliminate a few "terrorist leaders" but the drone attacks could well be creating new ones to replace them.
It is the drone attacks themselves
which have lead to the growing hostility against the US.
If you want fewer enemies (call them "terrorists" or whatever you like), if you really want to win over the hearts & minds of the people
, you want cooperation rather than hostility from them, then spend even a small proportion of the billions of dollars spent on military attacks on urgently-needed aid in those countries ... military force does not resolve the problem for the US, as outlined in this letter from prominent US religious leaders in a letter to Obama last year.
I'd argue that taking a similar approach now
in Yemen (the poorest country in the middle east) Somalia & Pakistan would achieve far more
for the US than attacking civilian areas to wipe out perceived enemies of the US. Simply because the attacks keep creating new enemies. :
Aid, Not War in Afghanistan: An Open Letter to President Obama From Religious Leaders:
...The military operation has so far resulted in the deaths of over 2,500 Coalition troops, including 1,600 from the U.S. Estimates are that over 20,000 Afghan civilians have died. And yet, the security situation is deteriorating and Taliban influence is spreading. The military situation is at best a stalemate. Al Qaeda barely exists in Afghanistan, but it has metastasized into Pakistan and has established itself in Yemen, Somalia, and other places..
... Moreover, this type of (humanitarian as opposed to military) aid is most effective -- both in terms of the development in Afghanistan, and the cost of the conflict. The past ten years have shown that we cannot broker peace in Afghanistan by military force; it is time to transition toward a plan that builds up civil society and provides economic alternatives for Afghans. ...
In other situations the support of the locals is based on the good deeds the terrorist do for them: providing food, medical supplies and schools. The US supplies these nations with billions of dollars in aid; with great amounts specifically earmarked for humanitarian needs. Unfortunately, we cannot control what is done with all of this money and, obviously, a lot of it isn't making its way to the locals who support the terrorists who they see as benefactors..
But you see, when those "good deeds" are tied to militant strategies , they simply don't work.
As those religious leaders pointed out:
We see and hear the need for relief and development aid to be provided through these civilian aid organizations while untying it from a counterinsurgency strategy and involving and empowering local Afghan partners to the greatest extent possible.
A major reason for Obama's increase in the use of drone attacks is, I believe, is the fact that they are so relatively surgical and keep collateral deaths at a minimum. Obviously, he has decided that leaving the targets alone is not an option, and that the deaths of a small number of innocents is a necessity.
I think a more likely reason for the increase cost
& almost no US casualties.
(Also because I believe allied nations would be most unlikely to supply further troops, following Iraq & Afghanistan. They have had enough.)
analysts point to several factors indicating that an expansion of U.S. targeted killings in the near term is likely. Drone strikes and special operations raids put fewer Americans in harm's way and provide a low-cost alternative to expensive and cumbersome conventional forces. This alternative is further enhanced given future cuts in the defense budget and a waning public appetite for long, expensive wars.