Meanwhile Bloomberg, citing American military officials, says Niger and the U.S. government have “reached an agreement allowing American military personnel to be stationed in the West African country and enabling them to take on Islamist militants in neighboring Mali, according to U.S. officials.… No decision has been made to station the drones.”
The irony is that surveillance drones could become the reason the “threat worsens,” and could provide the pretext to use drones armed with Hellfire missiles—the same kind used over 400 times in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, killing hundreds of noncombatants. Moving from surveillance to lethal strikes would be a boost for jihadist recruiters.
I have no problems with using Hellfire missiles against our crazed Islamic jihadi enemies. However, we would do far better to use our forces against those regimes that train, finance, protect, and use these people for their own purposes against us.
Maintaining jihadis in the field costs a lot of money – not as much as keeping a modern, fully equipped military force up and running, but still, a lot. So who is paying to keep these people armed, fed, sheltered, and trained? I submit that much of the money comes from a handful of regimes – principally Saudi Arabia (and the rest of the Oilbag Muslim regimes) from the Sunni side, and Iran from the Shiite side. Hellfire-armed drones should be patrolling Tehran and Ryadh, if we ever want to seriously do something about combating Islamist terror against us.
Of course, given that today America suffers a regime that is perfectly willing to let one of the primary financiers of Islamic terrorism, the Iranian regime, obtain nuclear weapons, I doubt that we are likely to start waging effective war against such terrorism any time soon. Besides, the Obama regime is far too busy waging war on the liberties of American citizens to worry about the assaults of those who share a similar worldview to our own Dear Mullah Leader.