Andrew Cockburn begins: "There is no denying that 2011 has been a banner year for taxpayer-funded assassinations - Osama bin Laden, Anwar Awlaki, five senior Pakistani Taliban commanders in October and many more. Given the crucial US backup role in Libya, and the ringing exhortation for the Libyan leader's death issued by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton just before the event itself, we can probably take a lot of credit for Moammar Kadafi's messy end too."

File photo, Osama bin Laden. (photo: AP)

Assassination Backlash

By Andrew Cockburn, Los Angeles Times

06 November 11

It's been a banner year for targeted killings, but are they an effective way to fight terrorism?

here is no denying that 2011 has been a banner year for taxpayer-funded assassinations - Osama bin Laden, Anwar Awlaki, five senior Pakistani Taliban commanders in October and many more. Given the crucial US backup role in Libya, and the ringing exhortation for the Libyan leader's death issued by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton just before the event itself, we can probably take a lot of credit for Moammar Kadafi's messy end too.

Once upon a time, US officials used to claim that we were merely targeting "command and control centers," rather than specific individuals, as in the hunt for Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Persian Gulf War or the raid on Kadafi in 1986. Nowadays no one bothers to pretend. Successful assassination missions, whether by elite special forces or remote-controlled drones, are openly celebrated.

Clearly, the sentiment prevalent among our leaders is that eliminating particular enemy leaders is bound to have a beneficial effect. Thus in our recent wars, the US has made the pursuit of "high-value targets," the principal objective of so-called human network attacks, a priority. "The platoon's mission is to kill or capture HVTs," recalled Matt Cook, a sergeant in the 101st Airborne based in northern Iraq in 2005. "That is all we do."

By 2008, according to a US Strategic Command study, our military was simultaneously engaged in no fewer than 285 human network attack programs.

So, now that assassination is an official tool of US foreign policy, along with trade embargoes and overseas aid, it is surely time for an open debate on whether it is indeed effective. Surprisingly for some, evidence based on hard numbers demonstrates unequivocally that the answer is no.

The numbers are derived from a study conducted in Iraq during the "surge" campaign of 2007-08 that enabled the US to declare victory and wind down the war. Key to the surge was an intensive and ruthless hunt for key individuals in the "IED networks" that were organizing homemade bomb attacks against US troops. Cause and effect - more dead network leaders leading to fewer bombs - seemed so self-evidently obvious that nobody bothered to check.

Early in 2008, however, Rex Rivolo, an analyst at the Counter-IED Operations/Intelligence Center attached to US headquarters in Baghdad, briefed his superiors on some hard realities of the campaign. With access to any and all information relating to US military operations in Iraq, he had identified about 200 successful missions in which key IED network individuals had been eliminated. Then he looked at the reports of subsequent bomb attacks in the late insurgent leader's area of operation. The results were clear: IED attacks went up, immediately and sharply. One week after the hit, on average, incidents within about three miles of the dead leader's home base had risen 20%.

Why, with the commander dead, did the enemy fight with such reinforced vigor? Eliminated enemy commanders, intelligence revealed, were almost always replaced at once, usually within 24 hours. "The new guy is going to work harder," Rivolo told me. "He has to prove himself, assert his authority. Maybe the old guy had been getting lazy, not working so hard to plant those IEDs. Fresh blood makes a difference."

Once posited, this consequence may appear obvious, but Rivolo's study, so far as I am aware, was the only time that anyone with access to relevant data had looked at the consequences of our principal national security strategy in a systematic way. However, even as he submitted his conclusions, the same strategy was being exported to Afghanistan on a major scale. Ever-increasing special forces "night raids" have indeed subsequently succeeded in killing large numbers of insurgent commanders (along with many civilians), but the consequences have been depressingly predictable.

"I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders," a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, "but they are all dead. The ones who replaced them are much more dangerous. They don't want to talk to anyone at all."

Nongovernmental groups similarly report that the new breed of Taliban leadership is unwilling to allow the free passage of aid workers permitted by their assassinated predecessors. Neither in Afghanistan nor Pakistan, where high-value targets are the responsibility of the CIA's burgeoning killer-drone bureaucracy, is there any indication that the enemy's military capability has been diminished.

As Matthew Hoh, the foreign service officer who quit in protest at the futility of the Afghan war, told me recently, "War is a breeding ground for unintended consequences."

President Obama should think about that.

Andrew Cockburn is an investigative journalist and author. His article, "Search and Destroy: The Pentagon's Losing War Against IEDs," appears in the November issue of Harper's magazine.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+13 # mwd870 2011-11-06 13:24

This may not be a liberal position, but I am glad the military has managed to kill Al-Qaida leaders who openly declared war on the United States. This mission is done.

There are always going to be cells of terrorists, but this doesn't justify the ten-year war in Iraq which was ugly and resulted in the loss of too many American lives. Given the rampant corruption and unreliability of Afghanistan's leaders, it certainly doesn't justify the continuing war there.

There may be a limited use for drones, the collateral loss of innocent lives is a real issue.

We are wasting billions that could be used to help rebuild America, improve education here at home, and any number of worthwhile projects.

In the end the people of the Middle East must determine their own fate. For the most part they do not want occupation. We no longer have a right to be at war in an area of emerging democracy, and as has happened several times in the past, the military is not considering the unintended consequences.

0 # MainStreetMentor 2011-11-06 13:57

I agree with every word you wrote, mwd870.

+34 # joestecher 2011-11-06 16:50

terribly self-centered view of the world, "mwd870." what about the Iraqi deaths? did you read the article? killing the current leaders only brings on leaders who are more dangerous. you did end on a positive note: we must get the hell out, but thagt doesn't seem to be what is happening. just moving operations to kuwait.

+1 # bigkahuna671 2011-11-06 17:36

joestecher, you may think of it as a terribly self-centered view of the world and that there are Iraqi deaths that are incurred as the result of our efforts to eliminate, and I stress that word, those who would make targets out of Americans, but as long as the terrorists use civilians as shields, what can be done? Are we to allow them to attack us with no consequence? If we do show that there are consequences to be suffered if you continue to attack us, perhaps it will make them think twice. I am a life-long liberal, but I am cognizant of the fact that if bullies aren't punished, they will continue to bully. They must be stopped, there must be consequences for their actions. Now, that said, I think we do need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now, not in two years or three or infinity, as John McCain would have us do. When I hear right-wingers condemn Pres. Obama for bringing our troops home, I want to ask them, "Would you be willing to go to the parents or family of the last soldier killed in this ridiculous pursuit of revenge initiated by George Bush and explain to them why their child or spouse had to die?" Bring 'em home now, let the Sunnis kill the Shias, let the Shias kill the Sunnis. As they do so, remember the Q'uran preaches peace but somehow their imams have forgotten to live the teachings of Mohammed, just as many Christians do not live the teachings of Christ!

+28 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:38

"if bullies aren't punished, they will continue to bully."
Could this, perchance, apply to the U. S?
Or do you think it only applies to those "our" government attacks?

+20 # SteveH 2011-11-06 20:20

@bigkahuna671, it is important for us to understand why we're being targeted for terrorist attacks on our soil. Terrorism, while never justified, doesn't happen in a vacuum without some provocation by the "victims" of terrorism. If people fail to closely examine the policies that their government and multinational corporations carry out in the name of the People, then they will never grasp the level of anger and hatred that such policies create.

For example, suppose you're a poor person who lives in a poor country where a big company, home based in a rich nation, decides they're going to take over the resources of that country and could care less about the pollution, graft and corruption they leave in their wake. Then along comes a rich fanatic who can finance an operation that gives voice to your frustration.

To be continued...

+7 # readerz 2011-11-06 20:47

I may agree on big political issues that a country gets attacked because of policies, but individuals are often targeted by mistake. I'm just a poor slob who lives here, and I'm suffering from those Wall Street policies too, but I can be targeted. Obviously, throwing rocks back at them won't solve it.

+37 # SteveH 2011-11-06 20:28

..continued from above:

Now, while someone who lives in that rich nation wouldn't think they deserve to be targeted by terrorism, do you think the poor person thinks they deserve to have their land, water and/or air polluted? (See Nigeria's oil fields.) Or their democratically elected government overthrown by an outside force? (Check out Iran 1953.) There are innumerable examples.

Violence begets violence and just because we in the "free market" bastion of capitalism can't grasp the relationship of what our government and major companies egregiously do IN OUR NAME to other nations doesn't mean that we aren't seen by those who are oppressed as a supporter of their oppressor and therefore a valid target for their hatred.

The problem we face is ignorance: ignorance on our part for not knowing what is done in our names and the ignorance of those who suffer at the hands of those seen as coming from our country or government that oppresses through a variety of means - often by supporting repressive and corrupt governments - as long as it serves our "national interest".

Let's wake up, folks, what goes around comes around. The law of karma (cause and effect) is always in play. I suggest we look in the mirror before casting missiles at others.

+19 # SteveH 2011-11-06 23:29

One last note on this:

In the above I expressed my belief that no one, on either side of the violence issue who injures others in anything other than self-defense, is exonerated of guilt.

We finally did to OBL what he may have deserved for being the messianic fanatic who hated us because of our policies in the Middle East and may or may not have been directly responsible for funding 9/11.

Why was that approach a last resort and not the first? A lot less NATO soldiers and far more Afghanis and Pakistanis would be alive today had the coward from Texas done what we finally did.

But who's punishing the government of capitalist hegemony? Who's punishing Halliburton or Bechtel or ExxonMobil or Dow Chemical or Monsanto?

Until someone does (and we may be the only ones who can), we poor slobs on the streets will continue being seen as supporters of those criminals who see money as their god.

However, all that said, after reading the comments of most folks writing here, it is refreshing to see there are so many who apparently get it. Perhaps we are beginning to understand. From understanding comes the possibility of change.

OWS may be the beginning of substantial change. And I bend my knees in reverent gratitude to a young fruit vendor in Tunisia who sacrificed himself and started what may become true justice.

+23 # pbbrodie 2011-11-07 03:23

"I am a life-long liberal, but I am cognizant of the fact that if bullies aren't punished, they will continue to bully."
You hit the proverbial nail on the head here, unintentionally . We are those bullies you refer to and the primary reason these terrorists have us as their enemies is because we bully them, steal their oil, kill their people in the name of OUR national security with no concern what-so-ever for their national security. Too many people have bought into the propaganda that the people of the Middle East hate us because of our way of life, instead of because of the way we abuse them.
You seem to suggest at the end of what you wrote that should we leave them alone and leave their countries, they will leave us alone. So, if we had done this in the first place, left them alone, would we be suffering all of the results of the terrorism WE have created?

+13 # phrixus 2011-11-07 05:12

I agree with many of your points. However, I am also a hardcore pragmatist. In my view, the validity of any process is determined by first evaluating it in terms of "does it work?" As we have seen for the last ten years in the Middle East punishing bullies clearly does not. Dying for Islam or to repel foreign invaders is the GOAL for many of these people. By killing them we have assisted them in achieving their objectives and reinforced their (admittedly) irrational thinking. The inherent difficultly with religious belief systems is that they are by definition illogical and invulnerable to reason. Add a healthy dose of American arrogance and delusions of "exceptionalism" and you have set the stage for the inevitable disaster to come. We clearly have not learned the lessons of Vietnam.

+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 14:31

bigkahuna671: Much of what you say is true. BUT, do not forget that Obama escaled the wars DESPITE promising his constituents he was going to bring the troops home once he became President. I am no Right Winger but stop blaming Bush (who was a Warmonger)and never should have gotten the US into the war for not keeping his promisemand causing many more deaths of our young people in an unending war with no purpose. NOW, he is talking about bringing our troops home. Now that our economy is in shambles and he's running for re-election. Now, after
so many families have suffered the loss and hope in so many young lives which might have been saved if he'd brought the troops home from these useless and corrupt wars sooner. I would say this recent political manuever is too late and too little and too obviously for olitical gain to earn him any applause. You understand hypocricy in religion but don't you see it in government, on both sides? Petition Bernie Saunders to run in 2012 or Grayson or Hillary Clinton and not only to keep those fascist Right Wingers who are all morons and bigots but to bring some Athenticity, Truth, Integrity, Commitment to Equality and Leadership to the democratic party.

+11 # mwd870 2011-11-07 04:09

While I stand by my first statement, I don't see my world view as self-centered. I said we should not have been in Iraq - too many Americans were killed, but too many Iraqi's died as well. The ugliness of the war in Iraq was the seen in some of the atrocious acts of our own military, the secret prisons, the torture, the pointless waste of resources. The Afghanistan war is just as bad or worse.

I alluded to how the use of drones results in too many innocent people being blown apart. There is still a cloak of secrecy surrounding exactly what happened at the compound where Bin Laden was killed.

Killing the leaders of the 9/11 attack is not what will bring on leaders who are more dangerous. It is their mission to effect change through violence and terrorism. I am not defending our military policies and hope the 99% movement will play a part in changing those policies. You're right, that doesn't seem to be happening yet, but there is a growing majority who want this country out of the war business, including the operations in Kuwait.

+2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 14:52

mwd870: You are so right. AGAIN. Keep writing. Your posts are intelligent, well thought out and get to the point. We need to get out of the war business and we must bring our troops home now before any more are killed. When a country is in war, the rules of war are to kill the enemy and especially to kill or capture the leader and to use any means or weapons you have. War is about hatred and killing and winning, which is why so many in the miliary come home with PTSS so severe they are no longer functional and the suicide rate is very high. Bush got us into a meaningless war which was profitable to him and Cheney and it was wrong BUT Obama kept us in that war and got us into other wars. His main achievement in his first term he will be bragging is his success as a WAR President.Why not? He has nothing else to brag about.Petition for Bernie Saunders or Hillary Clinton to run in 2012.

+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 14:07

Joestecher: mds870 is the opposit of self-centered. He understands war. War is NOT a peaceful protest as as happening with the Occupiers. It is fought with guns and ammunition to kill the enemy and surely the Al Quaida leaders who were killed were on the opposite side of peace and very cruel. I doubt mwd870 likes war and killing human beings any more than I do and the sooner we get "the hell out" the better it will be for the US morally, economically and to save any more of our young people from being killed or maimed. That is an atrocity which begs the question why did we get into those wars? They don't even want us there and sacrificing young lives in unending, useless wars is UGLY and INCOMPREHENDABL E. Killing Bin Laden and the others once we're there is fair in war and what war is all about.

+26 # John Locke 2011-11-06 17:33

Not really, we seem to push people to hate us...and killing civilians only makes more US Enemy's

+42 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:07

You write as though there ever was a justifiable reason to invade Afghanistan. When the war option is used over other more civilized options, rarely is there a positive outcome. JFK had many opportunities to go to war if his primary objective was political grandstanding. War has been opted for as a first option because it is popular with big business, weapon manufacturers, states that rely on these businesses and people who justify these acts blindly 'for the jobs'. America is a war-based economy. No one does the math as to whether this country would be better off if we stopped subsidizing this industry with our taxes to the Pentagon budget and spent it in ways that have long term benefit to this country. We are in the business of making stuff, selling it to ourselves, blowing it up along with many innocent people, turning them in to our enemies, losing a lot of our young lives, and allowing our businesses to loot the 'enemy' for raw materials and then we make more weapons to replace those expended and the circle continues. A perpetual money machine for the 1% and a lot of grief for the rest of us. War sucks but Americans are so easily built up into a sports-fan-frenzy to "get those bastards". 9/11 is a perfect example. "Wanted dead or alive"; "mission accomplished"; Operation "Shock and Awe". We were shocked and awed about the length, cost, and about losing another war. Duhhh!

+9 # pbbrodie 2011-11-07 03:27

Here, here! Well spoken!!!
Are you running for office?

+5 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 14:57

Maybe you do no it all noitall. JFK was a good and great President and never stooped to going to war for political grandstanding because he had real class as a President and a real commitment to doing what was best for the people and the world. He may have failed with the Bay of Pigs but he took responsibility for it, learned from it and was determined to never do it again.

+3 # karenvista 2011-11-09 13:11

Quoting

JFK was a good and great President.....He may have failed with the Bay of Pigs but he took responsibility for it, learned from it and was determined to never do it again.

The Bay of Pigs was a legacy program planned by Eisenhower and left to JFK to perform. He was briefed and encouraged to do the Bay of Pigs operation by the Military (Joint Chiefs) and CIA whom he questioned and distrusted. He told them that if they weren't sure it would work he would not approve it and if they went in they had to understand that he would provide NO ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, either military or political. He demanded that they assure him that they already had everything they needed. They insisted they did.

When they invaded and it immediately became apparent that they would fail without additional support they asked for military units that they had stashed away in Guatemala. Kennedy refused, reminding them that they had assured him that they had promised success without additional forces.

He made them withdraw and took the blame but he also hated the CIA after that and vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces." And then he was assassinated...

+14 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:52

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Wouldn't you consider taking up arms if they blamed you for 9/11 and blew up your country?

+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 13:52

mwd870: I do not know who you are but I like you. Your comments are so intelligent and humane.

-1 # mwd870 2011-11-09 06:13

Thanks - Most everyone commenting on this site shows intelligence and insight. I think you referred to me as "he" in an ealier post. I'm actually a she. :)

-6 # Barbara K 2011-11-06 14:50

I'm no bleeding heart for the deaths of these terrorists. I am not a terrorist sympathizer. I agree with mwd870. How quickly some people forget. I hate that we went to war, lost a son-in-law and had limbs lost by 2 nephews, so I am glad these devils are dead.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN

+35 # in deo veritas 2011-11-06 16:47

Unfortunately the most dangerous to our country and democracy are still with us and doing more damage than Al-Quaeda has managed. We have met the enemy and he is us.

+28 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:10

Barbara, are you sure? Or are you caught up in the hype? How long would it take you to become a "terrorist" if someone invaded your country, wiped out your means to a livlihood, killed and raped your family, destroyed your home. Especially if the terrorist being sought was from another country in the first place. You would hope someone sympathized for you. Kill your television.

0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 15:16

Noitall: You are wrong here. A good person whose heart and soul is in the right place would not become a terrorist,murde rer or rapist no matter what abuse they suffered from these heartless criminals. First of all, it would not bring whomever or whatever was lost back, or minimize what they had suffered because it already happened and can never be changed. Secondly, a good and rational human being would denigrate themself by becoming like the terrorist who did such things. To have such hatred and revenge that you become what you despise is worse than anything. Until we understand that hatred and revenge and violence is what keeps human beings from evolving into authentic, rational, peqce-loving beings; war will continue to go on and on. Mostof us want better than us for ourselves and the whole world.

-1 # Barbara K 2011-11-09 16:01

Are you trying to tell me that BinLaden, Ghadaffi, and Hussein were good people who didn't kill their own people? They are the ones I'm referring to. They killed thousands of people and I'm glad they are gone from this Earth. They did those things before the Bush Idiot invaded any country. Know anyone who died in the Twin Towers?

+13 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:48

Devils? Civilized peoples consider killing in self defense (as the people your unfortunate relatives were sent to kill did) as the only justifiable reason for killing. If you indulge in hate and/or wanting someone dead, it should be those that put your relatives in harms way. YOUR OWN RUN AMOK GOVERNMENT!

+10 # pbbrodie 2011-11-07 03:35

You have written so much that has been so relevant and so right but this is simply so sad.
I'm no terrorist sympathizer either but do you not believe that all of the victims of our aggression feel the same way about their losses that you do about your losses ??? As another commenter said, nothing happens in a vacuum and there are consequences to our actions, like the creation of terrorists, and more terror on our part is not going to decrease the terror on their part. We need to stop the terror and the best place to start is on our end. How do you think the people in those countries feel about their innocent dead and wounded who are "collateral damage" from our intent to murder the terrorist leaders? Do you honestly believe this will do anything to end the violence? It has nothing to do with being a terrorist sympathizer.

+3 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 14:59

I agree, Well said.

+45 # Pufferly 2011-11-06 15:25

OBL WAS KILLED (IF HE WAS) BECAUSE THE FBI ADMITTED THAT IT HAD NO EVIDENCE TO CONNECT HIM TO 9/11. IMAGINE A TRIAL IN WHICH THE PROSECUTORS HAD NO EVIDENCE. NOT TO MENTION IT VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, GENEVA CONVENTION AND COMMON SENSE. WE TORTURED MANY WHO WERE INNOCENT BUT KILLED THE ONE GUY SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION? DOES THAT STRIKE YOU AS BIZARRE?

+1 # karenvista 2011-11-09 13:22

Assassination is also against U.S. law. But then again, so was torture.

I have pointed out to many people that OBL was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List but not for 9/11. He was listed on there for the Cole and Embassy bombings. They were questioned about why he wasn't on there for 9/11 and they said exactly what you reported. "We have no information linking him to the 9/11 attacks." So why did we start all these wars? And why have all the people on all sides been killed and maimed?

And the last and most important question is- Who was really responsible for the 9/11 and Anthrax attacks? Could it have been the people who prospered?

Follow the money...........

+48 # Archie1954 2011-11-06 15:35

Assassination as a political tool shows the degradation the American government has fallen to. The whole idea of the president or the Secretary of state standing by to see that some guy 10,000 miles away has been blown to smithereens is disgusting and totally immoral to say the least. The US is no longer the shining light on the hill, it's more correctly described as the shadow deep in the abyss.

+11 # joestecher 2011-11-06 16:55

archie, i whole heaartedly agree. first ike, with hhis lying. then kennedy, with his obfucsation. but, bush pushed it farther than most (or should i say "cheney"). this country is falling faster than a satellite that's lost its orbit. sad to see. torcher. secrecy. invasions. assasinations. holding prisinors without charge or trial for years on end. where does it stop? marshal law? emergency powers?

+12 # readerz 2011-11-06 20:54

You forgot to mention Mississippi making it a crime to be a woman who miscarries. Don't forget that Tuesday is ELECTION DAY and there are a lot of important issues on local ballots (VOTE NO on issue 2 in Ohio, and of course if you are in Mississippi, vote against that bill). Tuesday is also the asteroid flyby.

-5 # wwway 2011-11-06 15:52

Good grief! It took more than 20 years and 3 administrations to get the man. It's finally done.

+13 # chick 2011-11-06 15:53

Barbara K I absolutely agree with you.
Never votge Republican.

They are the ones who got us into this mess we are in. Allround.

And I am a woman and my body belongs to me and no one else.

+7 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:13

...and a democrat has continued the momentum into a few additional 'conflicts' and assasinations, and blows against our constitution and rights. What? you missed the day they taught critical thinking?

+9 # wantrealdemocracy 2011-11-06 18:39

What is the difference between the two corporately funded political parties? I think we need to vote on our Representatives relating to how well they represent us. I think the total Congress is so corrupt that we need a clean sweep of all the incumbents. Kick them out and let's try to do better. Get over that old lesser of two evils ideas. Evil is evil. Kick them out.

+6 # readerz 2011-11-06 20:57

I want real democracy too. Unfortunately, if you look at a demographics map (2010 census), you notice that there are a large number of states with more Senators than Representatives ; and they are conservative, and the Senate confirms everything (Justices, Cabinet, FDA, FCC, etc.) and has that 60 vote rule to bring bills to the floor. We won't be a representative government until we change the map or change how we distribute Senators and Electoral College. PERIOD.

+7 # pbbrodie 2011-11-07 03:39

Amen to most of that! Unfortunately though, if you kick out ALL of the incumbents, you lose real heroes like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. You do need to discern exactly who you are voting out.

-11 # chizables 2011-11-07 05:44

Hey, chick, your body belongs to you and no one else - until there is another little body inside your body.

+24 # truthbug 2011-11-06 15:55

My following two comments should be read as one:

When I hear of the deaths of most of these commanders, I tend to react with the same feelings as I do when I hear of deaths of US commanders and soldiers. To me they're the same, and I'm puzzled why others see the so-called "enemy" fundamentally different than so-called "us." Are we not aware that the basis by which all sides fight in these conflicts are set by a nebulous group of rich and powerful people? All these fighters are in the same boat, fighting for what they believe, in most cases brainwashed into the idea that there's no alternative than to kill the "enemy." I myself don't have the same beliefs and regard the fighting as a form of insanity, and lament the fact that history cannot teach us its true lessons.

I keep my condemnation focused on the decision makers, whom I identify as top politicians (Bush, Obama, etc.) and people in banking, corporations, and the military, making enormous money and power on the carnage. I see no counterpart on the "enemy" side, at that level - the fundamental decision level. I see that "our" side is the fundamental actor causing the conflict, though I don't agree with many of the tactics by the "enemy" leaders. In truth, it's us people, now referred to as the 99%ers, on one side and the decision makers on the other.

+12 # wantrealdemocracy 2011-11-06 18:41

In this article is the question, "are these targeted executions effective?" Should not the question be, "Is such behavior moral?"

0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 19:12

WAR in and of itself is immoral. So how can behavior in war be moral? Your question is illogical.

+1 # readerz 2011-11-06 20:59

I guess you don't know how rich the Saudis are, or the Binladen (correct spelling) family is.

0 # karenvista 2011-11-09 13:31

There was a rational solution offered to the Iraq war.

Saddam Hussein suggested that he and Bush fight a duel rather than starting a war.

Bush chickened out-and besides-his corporate sponsors wouldn't have made much of a profit that way.

+20 # truthbug 2011-11-06 15:55

Here's the second part:

A good analogy is to review the history of the White European's decimation of the native American peoples. Most of us now see it for what it was: naked aggression in order to acquire land. No reasonable person now would justify the white action by saying it was defensive, or that it was justified, because "the Indians attacked and killed innocent white settlers." This statement is true, but it's not an important part of our reasoning process, when looking back in hindsight, in sorting out who's fundamentally responsible. It's obvious now that the White society was the aggressor.

So too the case now with the Muslim world. If I'm allowed to dream, I see a future with all US leaders behind bars for the war crimes they are responsible for.

+12 # Erdajean 2011-11-06 18:40

Yea, verily. I can see nothing ahead for America but more of the mess we have bullied our way into -- unless, we give up our illusion of "entitlement" to assault, invade, exploit and destroy any other country we choose. The cure: keep our bombs, drones, bullets, spies, contractors and -- above all -- our troops -- at home and let others live however they choose, with whatever leadership they select -- whether our Fortune 400 approves or not.
In short, the treatment of our OWN people, within our OWN borders, hardly qualifies us to rule as the Hall Monitor of the World.

+3 # readerz 2011-11-06 21:02

Aggressor? If so, then the population would not be multiplying in Muslim countries. I see both sides as aggressors; but it is unnecessary, and I believe that these people were framed and scapegoated by people who were just trying to make money: on both sides.

-1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 19:16

Bugger, your first part of the comment was good. This is ridiculous. You are obsessing about the wrong things.

+7 # historyguy 2011-11-06 15:59

If the alternative is the killing of young men in the military who are ordered into dangerous areas to protect corporate investment, then I am glad we are, at last, killing the leaders instead of the soldiers. For too long we have had an international understanding that the national leaders were sacrosanct, while young men and women were expendable. Perhaps now leaders in all corners of the world will consider themselves in as much jeopardy as the masses who follow them.

+5 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:32

Including our corner of the world?

+1 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:57

In our corner too?

+12 # DPM 2011-11-06 16:02

Arguing about what we have done and why, is like arguing abortion or religion. What has been done, is done. However, I think that most of us would agree that assassination as an ongoing policy of our government is an immoral, bankrupt policy.
Unfortunately, once the genii is out of the bottle, it is difficult to put back.

+14 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:23

The genie doesn't get back in the bottle by itself. As with the banks, there are crimes on the books that are being ignored that protect civilization from going rogue. As long as our bought congress allows the behavior being conducted in this country and around the world by this country, to go unpunished (and un-charged), Genie will be up to the antics. Why are there so many "above the law", "too big to fail", "too big to jail". What did I miss? I think that there is just not enough timely knowledge for REAL Americans to act and too much treason by elements that protect our system of government. The media, our politicians, our president, our military leaders, everyone is OWNED and not by their morality or their patriotism or their serious adherance to their oath of office. Everyone has sworn to uphold the laws of this land and its constitution...WTF?

+10 # readerz 2011-11-06 21:06

Miss? In Mississippi they are going to vote on Tuesday, and hopefully vote against, a bill that would make it a capital crime to have a miscarriage. At the same time Mississippi is reducing access to health care, services for pregnant women and children. Did I miss anything? Women are not 3/5 of a man there; they are less than the dogs picking up the crumbs underfoot.

0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 19:25

How can a miscarriage be a capital crime when it is a medical problem? I pity the poor subjugated women in MISS! Tell me more, Please.
To READERZ

+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 19:22

noitall" You're good. Really good and smart! But, you need to have more hope and focus on problem-solving and come up with solutions. You can do it. BTW, there is a wonderful editorial by Chris Hedges who was jailed while covering the
Occupiers: "Freedom in Handcuffs".

+18 # TROB 2011-11-06 16:02

Good for the Cockburn. He always writes "outside the box." The couple of responses have been cockeyed to say the least. He is writing factual numbers, don't you know? About "Backlash."
Lest you all forget, we attacked their nations, we murdered kazillions of their innocent children, their mothers and their grandmothers. How do you define terrorist? WHAT KIND OF MEN WOULD THESE LEADERS BE (those we have "droned" in on), if they did not try to defend their innocents and kill as many members of the invading army's soldiers they can, with their inferior weaponry? What do you expect them to do, sit, PRAY, and twiddle their thumbs? Yet one of you idiots calls them "devils"?
Getting back to the thesis of Cockburn's article--Backlash-- we might add another result. They might return the favor, and murder a few of our supermen. Now, how would you wingers like that?

+15 # wcandler1 2011-11-06 16:12

Puffery and Archie1954 Exactly! Were we right to hold Nuremberg? If not, lets say so. If we were right, how come Bush (the "Crusader" for God's sake!) and Chaney are walking round as free men?

No wonder they killed Bin Laden, just imagine a trial where he was able to take the stand! But American's are "slow learners". A trial was exactly what we needed.

Peace,

Will 6/11

+18 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:29

If Nuremberg was right, why the texas-style lynchings of Sadaam, OBL, Ghadaffi. "the first one to em, gets to do em" type of justice? The only thing learned from that is the basis for what the world thinks of America and Americans these days. Just think of what history would look like today if we didnt have sane, moral management that opted for Nuremberg. But then, look what happens to sane, moral, men in this country. JFK, MLK, MX, and so many that died of "unfortunate accidents".

+14 # truthbug 2011-11-06 20:07

I'm sure, in a trial, Ghadaffi would've presented much damning evidence against Western leaders. And your comments suggest to me just how dangerous a situation Wikileaks leader Assange now finds himself in, about to be deported to Sweden, then possibly to the US. We need to help him.

0 # karenvista 2011-11-09 13:55

Noitall, none of the people you mentioned could be allowed to tell what really happened. It would take down too many powerful people here. They knew it and we know it.

Still, we let them walk free with no investigation or charges.

+4 # readerz 2011-11-06 21:07

Can I hit "Like" about 50 times for your post?

+15 # colvictoria 2011-11-06 16:18

I am very disappointed with Obama's foreign policy in Africa and the Middle East. It seems to me he is just like Bush only he is leaving Iraq and Afghanistan to focus his destruction of Africa (AfriCOM). As I become more informed about things I have come to the realization that Obama has no power. There are powers greater than he who advise him and force him to do things he may not agree with. Energy companies along with the military industrial complex are running the show. It does not matter who assumes the presidency. These wars and killings of leaders like Qaddafi will continue as long as we are duped into believing that it is all necessary because of "terrorism". Let's be real it has nothing to do with terrorism. They create the illusion of terror so that we Americans can better swallow the fact that millions are being displaced and thousands of women and children are being raped & slaughtered. We sell the weapons to whatever side benefits our profits.
Sharia Law will be instituted in Libya and it is a fact that members of the NTC rebels were also Al Quaeda members. Human rights groups have also documented cases of torture rape and execution of Black Libyans. Qaddafi was executed so that we can control Libya's oil.
We have to ask ourselves is all of this killing worth it? We sacrifice the lives of others so that we can drive our gas guzzling cars.

+23 # maddave 2011-11-06 16:25

George Bush said it best: "Actions have consequences." To that add: "And it's a two way street."

+6 # PeterAttwood 2011-11-06 16:38

If they were concerned about terrorism they would not have made sure to kill bin Laden so he couldn't talk. They would have made off with him and squeezed him for whatever he knew. The only reasonable inference is they didn't want to know what he could say. If they were concerned about terrorism, rather than keeping their shameful secrets concealed at our expense, they would not have played it that way.

And why not vote for Republicans sometimes. How are the Democrats any different in office?

+10 # ABen 2011-11-06 17:22

If you can't see any difference between the current Democratic Party and GOP, I suggest you look deeper and think of what policies engender and imply. Sure, vote for a rational Republican if/when you can find one. Huntsman seems to be a rational person. I don't agree with many of his positions, but there is a rationale and logic behind them. You can see how much popularity he has in the current iteration of the GOP. Vote Democratic.

-8 # cdcl44@yahoo.com 2011-11-06 16:44

Archie-

Don't forget who killed who first during 911. We had every right to take out the one responsible; in fact it should have been done 10 years earlier.

+4 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:30

If we only knew.

+2 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:59

You tell me who (really) killed first during 9/11. I REALLY don't know. Do you?

+6 # Activista 2011-11-06 21:36

tell me who (really) killed BEFORE 9/11
read here bit of US history of killing -
readersupported news.org/opinion2/287-124/8264-can-revolutionary-pacifism-deliver-peace

+10 # maddave 2011-11-06 22:04

Yeah, Ol' Buddy, 20-or-so non-Iraqi Arabs DID kill 3,000 Americans on 911. In return we attacked Iraq, caused at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths, wounded or disabled five times that number, displaced several million more, and totally destroyed their engineering, technical, professional, educational & social infrastructure.

I admire your patriotism. cdcl44, but this is not the time for BLIND. non-critical patriotism.

+4 # caseymango 2011-11-06 16:49

The thread of the responses is difficult to discern. Are you opposed to the assasionations mentioned in the piece for moral reasons, or because they seem to be ineffective? If the former, is that moral revulsion timeless and universal? Would you have condemned Klaus von Stauffenberg for attempting to assassinate Adolph Hitler in 1944? If the latter, and presuming some sort of battlefield success is desirable, what would be your suggested solution(s) to persistent casualties due to IEDs?

+16 # John Locke 2011-11-06 17:39

stop waging wars!! they are for resources, and have always been... and that is a fact, our men and women are dying and being mained for big business, not to protect America, and Bin Ladin was assinated and so was the leader of Libya, because they could not be brought to trial they would tell too much about US corruption and involvement...

+6 # maddave 2011-11-06 22:22

And why do you think that Saddam Hussain was hauled into an Iraqi prison one night and immediately executed?

Like the guy in DOD said, "I know that Saddam has WMD's. I have the delivery receipts right here."

+19 # noitall 2011-11-06 18:33

Get the $#@& out. If after 10 years you don't know their culture, respect their rights to live their own life, or respect them as people, leave them the hell alone. I think we've got our pound of flesh.

-3 # Doubter 2011-11-06 20:16

Kill ALL leaders! Their ambition is what gets us killed! (dear Vengeful Librarians, I'm just being facetious [kidding])

0 # Doubter 2011-11-07 16:23

Guess you guys don't know how to take a joke. (or I'm not very funny!)

+10 # maddave 2011-11-06 22:16

There is nothing difficult to discern here, caseymango. All you - or anyone else - has to know is that - apart from the 200,000,000,000 o 400,000,000,000 barrels of oil that Iraq is siting on - there was no legal or moral reason for us to be i Iraq in the first place.

Confirm numbers: 200 to 400 BILLION barrels.

-10 # ABen 2011-11-06 17:33

While I do not agree with the idea of assassination as a political tool, the killing of Osama bin Laden was not a political act. I seriously doubt he would have allowed himself to taken alive for questioning. Also, Al-Qaida is not an organized, regulated and directed force. It appears to be akin to a cult of personality--charismatic leaders inspiring followers. To demonstrate that we can find and eliminate the "father" of such a cult while not devastating the innocent bystanders is precisely what was needed. To put it in plain language--paybacks are a bitch!

+5 # Activista 2011-11-06 21:33

The reality is MUCH more complex than war games on the XBOX - very simplistic thinking .. but masses like it ..

+16 # walt 2011-11-06 17:34

The USA has continued to shame itself with killings in addition to the occupation of Afghanistan and the unlawful invasions of Iraq.
Bin Laden could have been captured and we might have learned more about him and his followers. We might even know the truth about 9/11. Yet he was killed even though unarmed.
And Mr. Obama has continued with drone attacks and the killing of Kadafi. Who next? There are indications that Hillary and Obama are catering to Israeli demands for an attack on Iran too. Just what we need--more war.
Add to this already sickening scenario that we sanctioned torture and secret prisons, and the image of the nation is in pretty dire straits!
So far we have not seen a single peace initiative come from the Obama White House. I guess they simply think that killings, drone attacks and the like are going to win peace. And we will finally rid the world of terrorists. Sure.
Sorry, but I continue to be ashamed of our nation's behavior.

-3 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-11-07 15:40

I agree with everything you say, Walt. You made a fine, succinct analysis--esp. that "we sanctioned torture and secret prisons" which Obama promised to stop but has it stopped? Please, leave Israel out of it. Israel is a democracy and a safe haven for Jews promised to them by the US and England following the horrors of the holocaust and without US support their enemies will blow them off the map.

+18 # futhark 2011-11-06 17:48

Assassination as a tool of government policy is ethically wrong and in opposition to the concept of the rule of law as described in the Constitution of the United States. It lowers the executive officers of the American government to the level of a gangster thug.

Once assassination is accepted as a legitimate tool of government policy, it is another step on the way to using it to intimidate political opposition. So we're right back to the law of the jungle, from which we have, as a society, sought to free ourselves, starting with the Magna Carta, then through the Glorious Revolution in England, the American Revolution, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the liberation of the slaves, female suffrage, the civil rights movement, and so on. Was that all for nothing, just so, in the end, warlords can bump off inconvenient people?

+11 # LessSaid 2011-11-06 17:58

They will be coming after us soon with drones. We are going to regard the day we start using drones as as a assassination and war tool. In this case, what goes around will come around.

+24 # HeidiStevenson 2011-11-06 18:41

Why would the increased danger caused by these killings be considered unintended consequences? It seems to me that they are probably exactly what the government and the military want - more excuses to increase the war machine and a means to propagate fear among the people, so they'll go along with it.

+3 # Doubter 2011-11-06 19:22

You saved me the trouble of saying it.

+4 # jwb110 2011-11-06 19:00

If we are going to assassinate the liars cheats and madmen who would commit the assets of their nation for the destruction of others there are a few here, US citizens like Anwar Awlaki, who reside in the US. The same moral outrage applies. These people are also seen as violators of the Geneva Conventions, used faulty intel to commit their own citizens to harms way and death. Lets see how far the moral outrage goes at home.
If we do not, then you can bet that no one is safe at home from the injured abroad who will wreek the same violence on the criminals in hiding in the US.
Say hello to the new "collateral damage".

+10 # readerz 2011-11-06 20:21

And there have been innocents assassinated too.

Cartoons! We've been watching too many. Sure, they took out a few bad guys, and nobody who is good gets hurt... only in cartoons.

Well, we know how many mistakes certain countries make about assassination; they frame the wrong person, then in cold blood take them out. (I'm not speaking of the U.S., but what if they convince the U.S. to go along, and the U.S. doesn't care, or wants to push a right-wing agenda anyway?)

What we then have is a boatload of assassins running around, and you too get to be in your very own personal spy movie. Trouble is, you didn't train like those characters in the movies. There was a case in my little city about 16 years ago; nobody could figure out why, because there was nothing that the victim had done anywhere in the world to warrant being taken out by a foreign agent.

Yes, I'm scared. If the white shirts can do all sorts of crazy things to peaceful demonstrators, their boss's boss can do the same to perceived threats in your own home. It sounds paranoid. It isn't. It's the facts. Use the buddy system; keep your friends up to date as to your whereabouts. In places where people disappear, they have a better chance of being found if their friends know they are missing.

0 # Activista 2011-11-06 21:25

"ringing exhortation for the Libyan leader's death issued by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton just before"
www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy
watch Hillary freedom fighters - US liberation - tribe will get revenge and Americans will again ask? Why ..

+13 # She Cee 2011-11-06 22:35

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

Why do you think these people, some of whom were our friends in the past and were supported by this government, were killed instead of being brought to trial? Why do you think we never heard the testimony by SAdam Husain during his trial, only his outbursts?

Could it be that we didn't want our citizens to hear what he had to say about his prior relationship with the US? About his meetings with Rumsfeld? And if Bin Laden or Kadafi were brought to trial? What secrets would they have told about their prior relations with the US? Dead men tell no secrets. There will be many more killings of people who have knowledge we don't want the world to hear.

And what about Bradley Manning? The information he shared with Wikipedia were wrong doings by our Government and our Military and needed to be exposed.
Whistleblowers should be praised, not held in Solitary confinement and tortured. Bradley Manning and other whistleblowers deserve our support. They are attempting to keep our government honest and deserve our support.

+6 # She Cee 2011-11-06 22:44

No doubt these murdered people were monsters and deserved to die, but not without a trial. And what about the monsters in our government who support torture of people, many of whom may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And what about the prisoners at Guantanamo who have been there for years? What kind of information could be relavent after all these years? And do you think all of these people actually had contact with Bin Ladin and knew what he was planning? Probably the same number of our field troops have had contact with our President and are familiar with our military tactics.

Our people know practically nothing about the crimes our government has committed in the past and continue to do.

It all makes me sick!

+8 # Archie1954 2011-11-06 22:55

Bigkahuna you are missing the whole point. America is the bully, don't you know that? We are talikng of an area that is 10000 miles from America's shores yet a place where thousands American of troops are clustered. Does that give you even the slightest clue as to who is out of place? Don't forget that the 911 fiasco was supposedly planned and executed by 19 hillmen from the mountains of Afghanistan. Please explain to me how the other 4 or 5 million Afghanis are responsible for the tragedy that took place that day. America as usual is out of itsw league and has absolutely no clue as to how it should handle this problem. Amazing isn't it?

+1 # Holyone 2011-11-07 02:36

A police office directed a projectile at an American citizen who happened to have defended his Country during TWO tours to a war that was instgated by lies at the highest level BECAUSE Iraq was SAID to be involved with the death of 3000, innocent citizens.

OBL took credit for the murders on 911.

Now we let police beat, shoot at( rubber bullets and other projectiles)and arrest peaceful Americans and they go scott free?

Yet, we are upset because our international police kill a self proclaimed killer.

Policemen do it everyday, and some of these American CITIZENS are innocent, but have been judged and executed without benefit of capture and due process.

There is something whacky going on in minds that churn out this stuff and failed to see that OBL himself created a "backlash" on himself.It is the outcome of violence .

+8 # Holyone 2011-11-07 02:44

Cut the Pentagon's budget, take the money and fund the jobs bill. This will cut the deficit and provide jobs that do not promote war nor occupations on other people's land.

I don't know what to do about the FBI and CIA.

+7 # mwd870 2011-11-07 07:27

My thoughts exactly. We do not need to continue the warmongering based on propaganda and the need for military-industrial complex to increase their profits and power. I agree with Carolyn none of the ongoing wars is justified.

+10 # Carolyn 2011-11-07 05:21

Obama is very quick to assassinate. After WW11, captured enemies of the Allies were charged for their crimes and legally tried in "The Nuremburg Trials". If the evidence found them guilty they were sentenced to prison terms or death.
It is shocking that we are no longer a nation of laws but of men, no longer a nation of laws but of Obama.
None of the ongoing wars is justified. "Make the oeople afraid and they will do anything you tell them to do." I read that statement, made by one of Hitler's top advisers. Now it is cycling around again and we in America, have learned nothing from it.

+4 # Holyone 2011-11-07 07:58

There is no comparison in the OBL and the other active self proclaimed Killers with the capyured enemies of the Allies of WWII

Most of the criminals of WWII were caught or surrendered after the war was over. Sometimes long over.

We still do not know what happened to Hitler.
We knew when WWII was over.

This is not the case with those who have been killed on the Terroist field which is a totally different field of war.

Iraq was more like WWII and there was a captrue and a trial , if you can call it that.

Lybia was totally unlike WWII because we had no troops on the ground and Mr. K was killed, excuse me, "assassinated" by his own people, as was Mussolini( WWII).

We don't know how many crinimals were "assassinated" during these wars.

When one of our Generals are killed on the battle field is that and assassignation?

We try to make all these polite rules for killing or justify killing .

If we kill someone in the 1% of a county it is an assassignation and we scream bloody murder.

Nothing is being said for the hundreds of thousands of the 99% that were killed with our bombs by the Republican administraion of George Bush.

+6 # David Starr 2011-11-07 14:40

Many years ago I got into a political discussion w/ a couple from Spain. In the course of it, they said they had a friend in their home country whom they discussed politics w/ on a regular basis. They added that one day he told them this: "Americans are the biggest imperialists in the world and they don't even know it." I'll add the following, paraphrasing Marx: Ultranationalis m is the crystal meth of the U.S. people. HOWEVER, all this is not entirely true, as evidenced by many posters here & elsewhere. Thus, I commend U.S. citizens who not only do get it, but are in angry opposition.

+2 # RLF 2011-11-08 04:34

I may be screwed up but I agree with both sides here. I think the US is ultimately to blame for being hated around the world but I also think the LEADERS of both sides should pay the price for the violence, corporate and military if there is a difference. Bush/Cheney should be in jail for their crimes. A moral failure to go along with all of Obama's other failures and treachery.

+2 # bobby t. 2011-11-08 12:01

for five thousand years mankind has been discussing the law of unintended consequences. back then it was called yin and yang. that little circle of black within the white part and the little circle of white within the black part. later on, we had the positive and negative poles, can't have one without the other, matter and antimatter. everyone wants only purity and goodness. never has happened. we also have gotten into the self fulfilling prophecy, that is, to define a false situation as real, and it becoming real in its consequences. bush defined iraq as our enemy, and thus ieds, untold deaths, etc. his father said don't go there, as it will make iran a stronger player, but he did. and he lied to do it. it was not so simple as a battle for his mother or a complex. perhaps he was facing facts. oil is needed for movement of goods and services. oil is the power of today. without it we die. tis yin and yang....

+3 # Pufferly 2011-11-09 05:20

SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN WHY WE TORTURED thousands of innocent or low level counter-terrorists (we were the primary terrorists) for little or no information and then supposedly cornered and killed--not captured-- the mastermind who supposedly knew everything. Was it because, as the FBI confessed, we didn't have evidence to convict OBL in a court of law? Just who are the real war criminals if not OUR global dominance fanatics?

+1 # LAellie33 2011-11-16 12:09

It is time -- more than time that the fox puppets, anti-anti-anti-anti Obama cheerleaders stop the LIES coming out of their foul mouths and look at the truth. If Obama was a republican they would be praising him to the rooftops and if ANYONE would say ANYTHING negative about him, they would circle the wagons around him and protect him with every breath they have. HYPOCRITES! Anyone in their right mind will vote DEMOCRAT and RE-ELECT PRESIDENT OBAMA -- or we are doomed! Back to the 18th century! GOD help us.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.