General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Petraeus v Obama [View all]reusrename
(1,716 posts)I give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he talks about moving forward, and how he is not seeking to punish war criminals from the previous administration.
Now, it has become clear that war crimes have been committed on his watch, by folks pretty high up (the policy-making level) in his chain of command.
I think he asked for his resignation because he believes him to be a war criminal.
The specific incidents are the "double tap" drone strikes which targeted wounded and first responder non-combatants in direct violation of US and international law.
These crimes are currently being investigated by the UN.
I agree with waterman's notion that the president has always been at odds with the general. This understanding makes it more plausible that the president was not involved in the decision to launch the "double tap" strikes. Their purpose could only be to foment hate and anger and is antithetical to winning hearts and minds, which truly appears to be the president's strategy.
More>>>http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021821820
By the way, although I give him the benefit of the doubt wrt his sincerity in his decision to not punish Bush era war criminals, I strongly disagree with that approach.