The memo was on Twitter I think Tom, so it was easy to miss.

We have been at war in the Mideast since at least 1980, struggling for control there with (largely) Iran in a geopolitical sense, and with a loose confederation of ideologues we'll label "Islamic fundamentalists" for convenience sake. The war ebbs and flows; an embassy bombing here, a proxy attack there, a weird period where our interests and the fundamentalists' united in Afghanistan in the last gasp of the previous (Cold) war.

Our allies, mostly thug dictators like Saddam and the Sauds, all have their days numbered. That frightens the US and has caused the war to bloom into a more overt format this year. We have flagged and uniformed military in contact now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and whatever all those places in the Horn of Africa are called. It is likely that we have more covert military in play in many other locales.

The question is obviously not if the regional war has begun, but how will it play out. There certainly is no end in sight.

Peter wemeantwell.com

I would be a bit prudent on how I proceed in Yemen. Killing four non-combatants in what was probably a non-ground controlled piloted air strike to take out an Al-Qa’idah supernumerary won't win many "hearts and minds" among the fractious tribal society that populate Yemen, and in my view wasn’t worth the risk for that short term gain.

Quite frankly, Yemeni support out of Sana'a, under Saleh as a partner with the U.S. in our war on terror against Al-Qa'idah on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been a bit sketchy at best, and little ole me sees as a looming huge power vacuum once Saleh finally steps down, which I'm sure the Sa'uds are telling him this minute he must.

Who eventually, if anyone (remember Somali?) fills that power vacuum is what we should be working on, while continuing to gather intelligence on AQAP, and tracking their movements and further calling a temporary moratorium to drone or piloted air strikes against all but the likes of Anwar al-'Awlaqi, who just happens to be a U.S. citizen. . .an interesting legal question?

One of my SLJ's in my role as the "Vet-rans Guy" (sic) in the Court House complex where I work is to monitor the announcements from the Governor's Office authorizing half-staff for all government buildings in NYState for NYS residents or Ft Drum attached soliders KIA in various live fire Sandex's around the places of "American Interest". Nobody cares, I no longer write the day's rememberance trooper's name on my desk calendar because nobody (except my wife) notices the national colors doing a daily jack-in-the-box.
The American population collectively just doesn't give a hoot except to mumble "thanks for protecting our freedom" or other such nonsensical things when they actually gave a damn to even mention anything.
Congress is all wrapped in Weinergate and apparently lost in space somewhere. "Do we even have a Congress anymore?" stated one responder to the NYT article that TR references above.
Now we find that live pilot aircraft are free dry in Yemen doing ordnance drops? Congress cares nothing about Libya, due to seemingly political self survival, why would they care about a 4th war zone?
" Suddenly you begin to see..." No offense Tom (and maybe others), but WTF IS this all about other than a total break down in governmental responsibility within the Legislative and Executive branches HQ'd in DC? And, why is Bob Gates in Europe chastizing Germany and Poland for not participating in dumber-than-a box-of-rocks whack a mole in Tripoli?
Does the USG have ears and 'nads anymore? Can we not attempt change other than putting American boys in yet another live fire scenario?
I'll take my answer off line at the local watering hole...

We've been in Yemen for quite a while. I have a great war story about the hot, crazy Polish lounge singer in Sanaa.

Yemen is home to AQ in the Arab Peninsula. They moved because they felt the heat around the corner in Saudi. Brennan said Yemen is the frontline of the war on terror, in Bergen's book. Of course, if we decided to intervene and try to resolve this particular civil war, the bad guys would move the frontline somewhere else... again.

Civil wars are bad, but I think our "wicked problem" dancecard is full and limited involvement here is a pretty good idea. However, the war does shake things up and gives the CT guys a wonderful opportunity to kill some folks that need killin' in a permissive environment that won't last forever. We've been tracking some of these guys for years and some of them have attempted attacks on US soil. This is a very clear cut a case for assasi..., pardon me, extrajudical targetted kinetic disruption operations.

1. Yes, congress is largely ceremonial. Most vivid recent display of this: the excited please-keep-the-funds-flowing-for-my-reelection frenzy when the Israeli prime minister was speaking. Great day for ceremony watchers. Another, this week: the I'm-obviously-untrustworthy-but-see-no-reason-that-should-disqualify-me-from-congress ritual of expectant father Anthony Wiener of New York state.

2. At last the expression "Obama's wars" has some fairness to it. It's sorrowful to see he's just as short-term in his view of world affairs as many predecessors.

3. The force of American arms ain't what it used to be. JSOC has been warring with folks in Yemen for some time, and now, it's clear, the US government doesn't think it's been beating them. In fact, they look like winners. The military and the administration call these folks al-Qaeda but public proof that this is correct is not abundant.

4. The US has retired hurt from bombing Libya, an enterprise that many skilled and experienced person warned as probably not enough to do what the US government wanted. The current step-up in Yemen seems to ignore the Libyan lesson.

5. Knowledge that the American style of war necessarily kills many innocent civilians, women and children, is not seen officially as any reason to change or curtail it. (Why should it? The press release announcements of its "successes" are usually greeted with unquestioning domestic trust. Brookings Institution estimates that drone bombs kill about ten civilians for each "Taliban leader." Better than "Taliban leaders" seems to be "targets," not targets nominated with uncanny accuracy.)The remarkable lack of success of this program -- Talibs soldier on -- seems to suggest its basis is the rather sly one that if American weapons can kill foreigners in ways that don't get American troops killed, then this is effective and moral action.

6. As much as possible of what's going wrong in Afghanistan is laid at the feet of Pakistan's ISI. If this claim is true, why isn't the US bombing ISI rather than refugee women and children who fled American military exercises in their homeland?

7. The US spends huge sums in cash and repute by bombing its ally, Pakistan.

8. The US also spends plenty on bombing its ally, Afghanistan. The horror about this of the Afghan government elected exactly as the US wanted it, seems to be regarded as nothing but bleating. Possibly, US military commanders in Afghanistan still apologise to the host nation's president when they kill innocents. If so, public announcements of this seem to have dried up.

9. In Las Vegas style, the US is now placing expensive bets on how domestic affairs are going in other Muslim nations. Nobody seems fully aware of whom exactly it helped to replace Mubarak in Egypt. That nation now manifests homicidal attacks on its native Christians, something of a surprise even though post-Hussein Iraq behaved exactly the same. As another poster points out -- insurgents in Lybia GOOD, insurgents in Yemen BAD, judgments liberally followed up by licenses to kill in those nations.

10. The US makes frequent public claims that what it wants is peace. Increasingly, its gifts to the rest of the world indicate something else. The rest of the world notices, and doesn't like or respect it much.
________________________

In a rare semi-disagreement with GOLD STAR FATHER, I point out that assessing the battle for liberty solely by the number of men in American uniforms slain in foreign lands is little or no tool for judging their success or morality. What's your sense of the death toll in Vietnam? To the Vietnamese, it was about two and a half million.

"including one that killed an American citizen on purpose, something that I still don't get in legal terms."

There is legal precedent for this; they killed Leonidas K. Polk on purpose with a 3" shell down at Marietta.

As soon as we get used to the idea of the war being an actual war, with people fighting and dying it is possible to make the adjustment.

No way do I look at the situation solely from the American casualty list. I fully regard the data in your #5 of non-combatant deaths as prime importance in the need for national doctrinal (strateregy?) change. Cap't Noval prob thinks I just wish we'd stick our heads in Mississippi mud and wish it all away. Nothing of the sort. My very basic concern is shoot first, disregard all other options.
My current fuming is more in-cockpit piloted aircraft are involved in a new location without Congressional notice, approval or maybe even concern. Slippery slopes, indeed.
Thanks.

they are actively engaged in their primary purpose: to get reelected! The secondary goal of the Congress is to ensure that members of the opposite party do not get reelected. All the rest is window dressing.