Funny the back and forth of extremes...
That's the problem with extremes.
Jason: Both parties are just as bad.
Exactly. False equivalence.
Others: The Dems do it strategically.
Which is true.
Yes.
I said "strategically necessary" not "strategic and/or necessary." It's not a binary, so it can't be separated.
So, let's go to your source and look at it in regard to strategically necessary as opposed to self-serving, which was my metric:
A strike on an Islamic State training camp in western Libya in February killed more than 40 people
That would appear to have been a strategically necessary mission and not a self serving one, but if you have additional evidence--as we do in regard to Trump's recent actions--that would argue Obama ordered that strike for self serving reasons, by all means present it.
a drone strike in Somalia against al-Shabab on March 5 killed 150 people. Another drone strike, in Yemen in February, killed dozens.
Absent additional information, it's difficult to assess whether or not those were strategically necessary or self serving, but, again, in light of the President who ordered them, I would go with strategically necessary. Do you have any evidence that
these attacks were in any way self serving?
The U.S. came under heavy criticism for a drone strike several years ago against extremists in Yemen, which critics said actually hit a wedding party and killed women and children.
Which would fall under a strategically necessary TARGET--i.e., "extremists in Yemen"--that evidently got fucked up in the execution. That doesn't change the fact that the target may (or may not) have been strategically necessary to attack as opposed to attacking it for self serving purposes.
In October, an AC-130 gunship mistakenly hit a hospital in Afghanistan that was run by the charity organization Doctors Without Borders.
You've already noted the "mistakenly" part, so no need to go further.