The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare

Deaths of innocents are devastating,  whether those who die are in Boston,  New York,  Pakistan,  or Yemen.

What happened at the Boston Marathon last week was horrifying.   Were it not for the heroism of first responders and  medical professionals,  as well as bystanders,  the death toll would have likely been much higher.  Legions of workaday folks,  without missing a beat,  reflexively transformed into angels of mercy,  while potentially placing themselves in harm's way. 

In the wake of tragedy,  the community came together.  So did the nation in a great display of empathy.  It's a solid testament to our national character.

But can we extend that empathy across the globe?   Consider this:  Farea al-Muslimi,  a Yemeni writer,  recently testified before a Senate subcommittee hearing focused on the use of attack drones overseas.  Mr.  al-Muslimi was once an exchange student,   living with a family in the U.S.   Since then,  he's assumed a role as a de-facto good-will ambassador between Yemen and the U.S. with much success.

Sadly,  recent ongoing U.S. drone attacks on Yemen seem to have undone his good work.   Mr.  al-Muslimi described his shock at such attacks on his native land --- in particular one on his native village --- and emphasized that the good will he so carefully cultivated is now history.   In fact,  he's quite concerned that he may not even be welcomed if he was to return.   Here's what he said at the hearing:

          The drone strikes tore through my heart,  much as
           the tragic bombings in Boston tore your hearts
           and also mine.

He went on to say that the target of the strike was known to many in the village;  Yemeni officials could easily have arrested him.   Mr.  al-Muslimi further stated:

         The drone strikes are the face of America to many
          Yemenis.   ....   (This allows the Yemen-based Al
          Qaeda affiliate)  to convince more individuals that
          America is at war with them.

And Yemen is not the only nation being subjected to U.S. drone warfare.   Parts of Pakistan and Somalia are among others.   Because U.S. troops are not at risk,   it's easy for us to "file and forget"  reports of such missions.   We're often reminded that drones are capable of making "surgical strikes"  on their intended targets;  yet in reality,  many innocents --- including children ---  are often killed or gravely injured.   Defenders of the use of drones often gracelessly refer to such tragic consequences as "collateral damage".

It should also be noted that the surviving brother accused of the Boston massacre,  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,   stated that he and his brother were driven to act by their anger toward the United States for having waged war against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While this rationale in no way justifies their  monstrous deed,   it's probably not unreasonable to assume that another "Dzhokhar" or "Tamerlan"  from Yemen or Pakistan might be inspired to exact a bloody revenge on the U.S. with a similar act.

The Obama administration has been accelerating the drone program.   For example,  in 2012 there were 46 drone attacks in Yemen alone.   Under Bush's watch,  there was only one. The President journeyed to Boston soon after the tragedy to offer comfort and solace to the grieving families of those who died,  as well as to the injured.   I'm sure that everything he said and did came from the heart.   

But he needs to realize that those who've suffered as a result of drone warfare have  experienced that same heartache and sense of loss as the people of Boston.  He must make that connection!





  

Universal Health Care Across the Pond: Conservative Leaders Never Mess With It.

I find it very telling that throughout the industrialized world,  universal health care is considered to be part of the national fabric;  except here in the U.S.A.   Even the most conservative of leaders generally honor and respect the principle of health care for all.  No one would ever consider tampering with it.

For instance,  replacing universal health care was proposed in the British Tory Party's 1979 manifesto.   Nevertheless,  when Margaret Thatcher stood for election that same year,  she declared her unswerving support for maintaining the National Health Service as it was.   Whatever the Iron Lady's personal sentiments may have been,  she was keenly aware of the potential blowback resulting from any attempt to dismantle it.

Likewise,  Germany's  conservative prime minister,  Angela Merkel realizes that any attempt to dismantle her nation's stellar system of health care would be tantamount to political hari-kari.   Even former  Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy knows what would have happened had he tried to interfere.   His fellow citizens would have kicked his bootie clear across the Adriatic Sea --- causing him to land splat in the center of the Croatian city of Zagreb --- and finding himself in sudden need of a crash course in Serbo-Croatian!

A few years back,  a  U.S. health care expert and  scholar named Donald Light offered an enlightening assessment of Britain's  National Health Service,  declaring it totally in synch with the most hallowed of free market principles.  Its advocates believed that it maximized everyone's ability to exercise individual freedom and responsibility by enabling people to take care of themselves and be productive.*

Hmm!  Individual responsibility!  One of the Republicans' favorite  talking points!  

Any thoughts?

*  Source:  Donald Light;  Universal Health Care:  Lessons from the British Experience;  American Journal of Public Health:  January,  2003,  p.  25-30.  ---->  Well worth the read!   Available free online.

Grover Norquist is Still Alive and Well and Living in the Halls of Congress

Earlier today,  President Obama  introduced his latest budget proposal to Congress.   It  contains provisions for program cuts and revenue increases.  In some quarters,  I suppose that the Obama budget would be considered an attempt to compromise,  but to most Republicans in Congress,  compromise seems to be an alien concept.

House Speaker John Boehner,  in behalf of his Republican cohorts,  still insists that tax increases are off the table.   Among GOP senators,  there may at least be some talking points,  but no sincere attempt at compromise.   For instance, Lindsey Graham  (R. - SC)  has suggested a willingness to discuss elimination of tax loopholes,   but only in return for flattening the overall tax rates.    

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  (OECD),  the United States already has among the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product among its 34 member nations.  (The OECD was founded in 1961 in the interest of promoting economic progress and world trade).   Here's a link with the lowdown:
OECD: Tax Revenue as a % of GDP.

Consider this as well:   None of the other 33 member nations possess a massive military-industrial complex, which consumes  a quarter of the United States'  budget.  Yet too many Republicans in both houses seem unwilling to give an inch in the realm of raising desperately needed tax revenue,  even if vital social programs have to be gutted.

I guess they really do  hate government.