SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When he was in office, former President Barack Obama earned the ire of anti-war activists for his expansion of Bush's drone wars. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state ordered ten times more drone strikes than the previous president, and estimates late in Obama's presidency showed 49 out of 50 victims were civilians. In 2015, it was reported that up to 90% of drone casualties were not the intended targets.
Current President Donald Trump campaigned on a less interventionist foreign policy, claiming to be opposed to nation-building and misguided invasions. But less than two months into his presidency, Trump has expanded the drone strikes that plagued Obama's "peaceful" presidency.
"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."
That's an increase of 432 [sic] percent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @10:59PM
No, actually many people who actually follow the news know that in the Obama administration there were many (most) cases where drone strike authorization must come directly from an NSC member level or higher. Drone strikes had to be approved even if a high value target was confirmed. Whether Trump acts, "off the cuff..." well, he can't keep his fucking mouth shut, so that's probably a good guess and exactly why civilian assassination tools like this should never have been allowed to exist.
High. Again, follow prior news about drone strikes and you learn that most are ultimately approved.
And drone strikes have always been a preferred way to go about it.
Finally, it's pretty damn hard to get real facts and information when the government does its damndest to obfuscate. And I agree with you: It's sad what passes for government these days.
And keeping personnel out of harm's way is one thing. (By the way, whatever happened to the notion that our armed forces exist TO be put in harm's way?) But really, "A way to show we're DOING stuff, whether it actually HELPS the problem or not," is what this sounds more like. And it's on the GOVERNMENT to prove otherwise, not the press.