US 'in secret overseas strikes'

The US has carried out nearly a dozen anti-terror attacks in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere in the past four years, the New York Times has reported.

The previously unreported attacks were authorised in 2004 by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Times quoted senior officials as saying.

The order gave US forces permission to attack terror targets anywhere in the world without prior specific approval.

The Times said the defence department declined to comment on its claims.

The White House also made no comment.

'Called off'

The paper said it had spoken to more than six officials, "including current and former military and intelligence officials" as well as senior policy makers in the Bush administration.

They said that the order, signed by Mr Rumsfeld with the approval of President George W Bush, was intended to make it easier for the US military to act outside officially declared war zones at short notice.

In total, 15 to 20 countries were covered by the mandate and attacks had been carried out in Pakistan, Syria and "several other countries," the paper reported.

Some were conducted in coordination with the CIA and one was broadcast live to CIA headquarters in Virginia, via cameras mounted on aircraft.

The paper's sources also claimed that "as many as a dozen" attacks had been called off - "often to the dismay of military commanders" - due to lack of evidence or because they were considered too dangerous or "diplomatically explosive".

The US has carried out many attacks along Pakistan's border areas recently and was blamed for an attack in eastern Syria last month.

From the BBC.

I guess this isn't surprising, but I am not sure about the wisdom of it. There are probably times when this sort of thing is necessary--a "gott'em in your sights situation." But still, much like the ticking bomb torture justification, I am not sure how often that situation ever arises and what it is likely to gain. What is most likely to happen, I would think, is that innocent people are killed in "collateral damage" and the event tarnishes the image of the US. It would be nice to know how often the attack kills its target versus the number of civilians killed.

It is not like Bush is the only one to do this sort of thing either. Clinton did the same when he attacked a training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. In the former, the attack seemed to accomplish little. In the latter I think a couple of people were killed in what turned out to be a an Asprin factory.