Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"The Undercover Drone" / Iraq: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-12 11:08 AM
Original message
"The Undercover Drone" / Iraq: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

The Undercover Drone
by Christopher Brauchli

For years it has been accepted that countries routinely place their intelligence agents under cover in other countries in an attempt to learn what is going on in those countries that may affect the spying country’s interests. Now, thanks to modern science, a country is not limited in its spying on another country to boots on the ground. Instead, it can use drones. There is, of course, one small problem with that. The country over which the drones fly may not react cordially to the idea that the United States can fly drones wherever it wants. Indeed, it is likely that the United States would not take kindly to learning that Russia was routinely flying drones in U.S. skies for purposes of gathering intelligence.

It has now been disclosed that the United States, which is responsible for the chaos that reigns in Iraq following the successful conclusion of the war it started, plans to fly drones in order to protect what is the biggest United States embassy in the world. Formally opened in 2009, the embassy will house more than 11,000 people and be protected by 5,000 private security contractors and an undisclosed number of drones. The embassy is as big as the Vatican and includes a 16,000 square foot ambassador’s residence and a 9000 square foot residence for the deputy ambassador. At the opening ceremony in 2009, U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker said the opening signaled a “new era for Iraq and United States relations.” He was probably not thinking of drones. The Iraqis now are and drones promise to become another nail in the coffin in which a “new era for Iraq and United States relations” lies.

The Iraqis are upset at the idea that the United States believes it has the right to fly its drones wherever it wants. They don’t think a foreign country, which the United States is now that its troops have gone home, should have the right to violate its air space. They think the United States should get permission to operate the drones in Iraqi airspace. Commenting on the proposal to use drones, several key advisors to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said they had not been consulted about the Americans’ plans and one of them who opposes the drone program said: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.” That idea might shock the State Department. Another Iraqi, Mohammed Ghaleb Nasser, an enginer from the northern city of Mosul said: “If they are afraid about their diplomats being attacked in Iraq, then they can take them out of the country.” Of course he probably wasn’t thinking of the fact that the embassy is practically brand new. The United States would be as reluctant to leave the new embassy as Saddam Hussein was to leave his assorted palaces for a prison cell.

Permitting the United States to fly drones wherever it wants is the price a country may have to pay for friendship with the United States. Some countries may think that price too high.

More at.....

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/04
Refresh | +2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-12 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. From U 2 pilots to drones.
An embassy housing 11,000. Exactly when did we get this insane?

An embassy housing 11,000, protected by 5000 security contractors, when we have the best military in the world and are cutting defense costs by telling them to go home.

Anything to privatize. Exactly when did we get this insane?

Supposedly, private security contractors cost less because we don't have to pay VA benefits.

I'd love to see the exact figures on that proposition. Yes, you guessed it. I don't believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC