Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts

Monday, March 4, 2013

Barack Obama a 'dithering, controlling, risk-averse' US president




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9908260/Barack-Obama-a-dithering-controlling-risk-averse-US-president.html


Barack Obama a 'dithering, controlling, risk-averse' US president




Barack Obama is a "dithering" president whose controlling tendencies and extreme risk-averse attitude to foreign policy has damaged US interests in the Middle East, according to a new book by a senior former State Department adviser.

Barack Obama a 'dithering, controlling, risk-averse' US president
The book sets out in detail how Mr Holbrooke, left, and Hillary Clinton tried to argue the dangers caused by the overuse of drones Photo: AP/AFP
The insider-account of the damaging divisions between the White House and the State Department comes as diplomats around the world wait to see if John Kerry, the new US secretary of state, can persuade Mr Obama to greater engagement on Syria, Egypt and the wider Middle East.
Vali Nasr, a university professor who was seconded in 2009 to work with Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, records his profound disillusion at how a "Berlin Wall" of domestic-focused advisers was erected to protect Mr Obama.
"The president had a truly disturbing habit of funnelling major foreign policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics," Mr Nasr writes in The Dispensable Nation: America Foreign policy in Retreat.
The book sets out in detail how Mr Holbrooke, appointed with great fanfare in 2009, was systematically cut out of decision making as both he and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, tried to argue the merits of engaging with the Taliban and the dangers caused by the overuse of drones.
(AFP)
"The White House seemed to see an actual benefit in not doing too much," Prof Nasr writes, "The goal was to spare the president the risks that necessarily come with playing the leadership role that America claims to play in this region."
Admiral Mike Mullen, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until September 2011, is quoted lamenting how little support Mrs Clinton received from the White House, even though she remained on good personal terms with Mr Obama.
"They want to control everything," Admiral Mullen is quoted as saying of a White House that Prof Nasr says was "ravenous" in its desire to manage foreign policy, even by the to-be-expected standards of turf wars between diplomatic and national security teams.
As Mr Kerry prepares to return home from his first trip abroad in his new role, Western diplomats in Washington say they are watching carefully to see whether he will be able to put meat on the bones of his promise yesterday to "empower" Syrian rebels in their fight against the Assad regime.
John Kerry and Moaz Al Khatib in Rome on Friday (AFP)
Last week Mr Kerry pledged $60m in new support, including medical kits and food aid, which will go direct to rebel fighters for the first time, but still falls far short of British and French ambitions to provide more military materials such as flak jackets and night-vision goggles.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, is expected to announce a British aid package this week and has done little to hide his impatience on the issue.
Diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Kerry had been "left under no illusion" by his European allies of the desire for greater action, but that it was still very far from clear if the White House was serious about stepping up aid. Rebel groups remain openly sceptical.
Analysts looking for signs that Mr Obama might be prepared to be more engaged on foreign policy in his second term found little to suggest a change of heart in his Second Inaugural speech and last month's State of the Union address.
"American foreign policy has been on a four-year autopilot, which I argue has been excessively risk averse and domestically focused. I don't see any clear decision yet to change that," said Mr Nasr in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
"I wrote this book to problematise the way Obama has approached this whole region, and that it is dangerous to disengage and confuse a low-level foreign policy with success in foreign policy," he concluded.
"My hope is that Kerry will be able to do more, but it is still early. He's definitely trying to create more US engagement, but there has to be a fundamental, strategic decision in the White House to reorientate our approach."

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Professor: Drones Will Soon Be Able To Kill During War Without Human Assistance


What would one do if it encountered the white house?

Share this
331
View Comments
File photo of a drone. (credit: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)
File photo of a drone. (credit: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Latest Polls
US Senate Virginia
Kaine             44% Allen              44%
Source: Suffolk/ WWBT 9/24-26
US Senate Virginia
Kaine             47% Allen              43%
Source: FOX News 9/16-18
Presidential Election Virginia
Obama             49% Romney           47%
Source: ARG 9/24-27
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Drones could soon operate without the help of humans.
Agence France-Presse is reporting that the Pentagon wants its drones to be more autonomous, so that they can run with little to no assistance from people.
“Before they were blind, deaf and dumb,” Mark Maybury, chief scientist for the U.S. Air Force, told AFP. “Now we’re beginning to make them to see, hear and sense.”
Ronald Arkin, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, believes that drones will soon be able to kill enemies on their own independently.
“It is not my belief that an unmanned system will be able to be perfectly ethical in the battlefield, but I am convinced that they can perform more ethically than human soldiers are capable of,” Arkin told AFP.
Arkin added that robotic weapons should be designed as “ethical” warriors and that these type of robots could wage war in a more “humane” way.
The U.S. military says people will be on the ground to control the drones despite the unmanned robots gaining more independence.
Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at The Brookings Institution, believes there could be legal hurdles in regards to using robot-controlled drones.
“These responses that are driven by science, politics and battlefield necessity get you into areas where the lawyers just aren’t ready for it yet,” Singer told AFP.
Earlier this year, Singer wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times about the use of drones. In the piece, entitled “Do Drones Undermine Democracy?” he says the use of drones is “short-circuiting the decision-making process.”
“Without any actual political debate, we have set an enormous precedent, blurring the civilian and military roles in war and circumventing the Constitution’s mandate for authorizing it,” Singer wrote. “Freeing the executive branch to act as it chooses may be appealing to some now, but many future scenarios will be less clear-cut. And each political party will very likely have a different view, depending on who is in the White House.”
AFP reports that new military drones will most likely be implemented with more powerful jet engines and have longer range in combat.
There are currently more than 7,000 drones being used in combat.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

El Presidente's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak and "he's" watchin you

"he" is watching you - all the time. But I don't think you gonna like this pix.




WASHINGTON – First there were satellites in the sky that could read license plates from space.
Then there were cameras on every major street and highway.
Then there were full-body scans at airports.
Then came the proliferation of drones over the skies of America.
Barack Obama announced today the next phase of government national surveillance – with a budget of billions.
It’s called “the National Strategy for Biosurveillance.”
But, don’t worry, it’s all for the public good, health and safety, officials say.
The announcement came in the form of a short press release from the White House press secretary today:
“As a nation, we need to protect the health and safety of our people from naturally occurring or intentional threats. Early threat detection and sustained situational awareness are critical to saving lives and improving outcomes when there is a national health emergency. The administration’s new National Strategy for Biosurveillance aims to unify national effort around a common purpose and establish new ways of thinking about providing information to enable better decisionmaking.
“The strategy promotes an all-of-nation approach that brings together federal, state, local, and tribal governments; the private sector; non-governmental organizations; and international partners to identify and understand threats as early as possible and provide accurate and timely information to support life-saving responses. The strategy calls for focusing on the most important information, and shaping the enterprise to meet that need, so that we can do more with less.
“The strategy emphasizes four key biosurveillance functions which are critical for the effectiveness of the biosurveillance enterprise. They are:
  • Scan and Discern the Environment
  • Integrate and Identify Essential Information
  • Alert and Inform Decisionmakers
  • Forecast and Advise Impacts
“Advances in technology, the advent of social media, and new science provide opportunities to strengthen our national biosurveillance enterprise. As a next step, during the next 120 days, the administration will lay out specific action steps going forward in an implementation plan. It is by working together that we can best promote the resilience of the nation and act to protect the American people.”
But what does it all mean?
It’s one more way America’s life changed as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the homeland.
A few days ago, PositiveID Corp., which describes itself as “an emerging growth company and developer of sophisticated airborne bio-threat detection systems for American’s homeland defense,” announced it was preparing a request of $3.1 billion from the Department of Homeland Security for ‘BioWatch Generation,’ an early warning system designed to detect the intentional release of airborne biological agents.”
The Department of Homeland Security already uses 600 secret air filters to detect lethal pathogens – either naturally occurring or those intentionally released in a bio-attack. Local health officials in the roughly 30 cities that have the filters manually retrieve them every day and take them to labs for testing. But, if terrorists released something deadly into the air, it would still take about 36 hours before the toxin was identified.
PositiveID seeks to sell to Homeland Security computerized “labs-in-a-box” that that can quickly detect deadly pathogens in the air anywhere.
The Obama administration wants to upgrade the technology, known as BioWatch, to cut the response time to six hours or less. Estimates to buy and maintain the new sensors have surged to $5.7 billion – six times the initial price tag.
The 2,500 new sensors and bio-attack alert system Homeland Security wants to buy from PositiveID or other companies would be fully automated. Air sniffers would collect samples at least four times a day, and an internal computer would run a DNA test on the particles for traces of anthrax, smallpox, Ebola, and other pathogens. The so-called labs-in-a-box would then send the results immediately over a secured network to local and federal officials, who would verify them and dispatch drugs to hospitals in the event of an attack.
According to reports, Homeland Security has already spent at least $30 million trying to develop the new system. It was originally scheduled to go live this month, but a series of bureaucratic delays and tech glitches have held up progress.
PositiveID and Northrop Grumman say they’ve worked through these problems and Homeland Security is ready to open bidding on a $3.1 billion contract for the labs-in-a-box before October.
Under Homeland Security’s plans, 2,500 labs would be installed in 30 cities, including Boston, New York, Las Vegas, and Houston.
The BioWatch program began 10 years ago – in the aftermath of the anthrax scare on Capitol Hill and at major media outlets. Over the last decade, however, there have been many false alarms and other problems that have led some to question the efficacy of expanding the program. In that time period, the government concedes that of the dozens of Biowatch “actionable results,” none were connected with evidence of bioterrorism or even cases of human illness.
But that hasn’t stopped plans to greatly expand the program in the form of billions of dollars.
One of the problems for the program, according to the National Academy of Sciences, is that pathogens and their close genetic relatives exist naturally in water and soil.
“Distinguishing natural background levels of endemic agents from a bioterrorism threat and separating genetic ‘near neighbors’ from the target agent present technical challenges,” reports the academy.
BioWatch has already cost the U.S. taxpayers approximately $1 billion. The next phase – Generation 3 – is expected to cost $3.1 billion over the next five years. These costs, along with perceived false alarms, have led some to question whether the program is a potential waste of funding or research.