Monday’s foreign policy debate between Obama and Romney touched on a lot of issues, but only the briefest of caresses was given to drone strikes in the Middle East (the targeted killing by our government of certain individuals found on a “kill list” who are presumed to be suspected of terrorist activity). Because these killings don’t sit well with me, I was dismayed (but not surprised) to hear that Romney agrees with the policy, while Obama remained mute on the subject.
After realizing that the United States and the rest of the world are due for four more years of these strikes, I was even more dismayed today when I read a Washington Post article by Greg Miller that states we may be in for DECADES of drone attacks and targeted killings. An article by Glen Greenwald goes on to say that Obama’s legacy could be the institutionalization of extrajudicial assassinations and a permanent “War on Terror”. The ACLU has also weighed in against the expansion of the kill list into a “disposition matrix”.
These and other reports also talk about a vast intelligence gathering network focused on American citizens (which I don’t fully understand), and seem to conclude that Obama and our current government are making it too easy to kill people without accountability.
I was following the previous thread on drone strikes, and now wonder if this doesn’t change things. How substantially different is this new program compared to the previous? Are things as nefarious as they seem? Because they seem pretty nefarious…
The “War on Terror” was started by Bush and continued by Obama.
It is far too convenient a crutch to expect any American president to end. They get a “war” that is open ended and never ending. The president gets extrajudicial powers that I doubt any president, be it Romney or Obama or whoever comes after, will forgo willingly.
Which means there would have to be some sort of popular public outcry against the drone strikes or the “war” in general. Up to this point, I haven’t been aware of much grumbling about either. If these new measures are as extreme as has been reported so far, that might change.
It would be easy for Americans to shrug their shoulders and say “well, that’s how the world is now”, though.
Well, according to Wikipedia, the War on Terror is: 7 October 2001 – ongoing. In comparison, the Iraq War is: 20 March 2003 – 18 December 2011. Obama ended the Iraq War. The question is: Can Obama end the War on Terror?
The US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement ended the Iraq War - all Obama did was follow through.
And he didn’t even do it willingly! He wanted to go back on the decision that US troops would lose their immunity from prosecution for any crimes they might commit in Iraq, and it’s only when Iraq refused that he pulled out completely.
I’m glad people question these sorts of programs, because there isn’t much difference in principle between good guys executing bad guys without due process, and bad guys executing good guys without due process.
In practice, there is a difference, so I think it’s a better choice to develop a matrix system and kill bad people without due cause. I much prefer killing bad people individually with limited collateral damage for innocents than waging war against an entire nation with large collateral damage for innocents, and I prefer a systematic decision-making matrix to a less-considered approach.
I also suggest that, whatever their public posture, most countries in which the sort of naughty people we are boinking hide, are OK with us killing the bad people. Al Qaeda in the Khyber Pakhtunkwa is an example. Consider how muted was Pakistan’s response to the US assassination of bin Laden. I cannot believe we executed that operation without some tacit approval…
Without due process, how do you tell the difference? With Obama as judge and jury and the CIA as executioner, are you just going to take his word for it that everyone he’s assassinating is a bad guy? He’s already been caught lying when his administration calls every adult male victim a “militant”.
What is the alternative? If you don’t want to do targeted killlings you either have to stop the targeted part and invade, which the American people don’t want, or you have to stop the killings part. That means grabbing the terrorists, locking them up and interrogating them, which was condemned when Bush did it. This also means putting more soldiers at risk, because you have to have bases near where the terrorist live, making the bases a target. Plus there is danger of a Mogadishu situation where an extraction team is ambushed.
The other alternative is to let terrorists live and hope they either tire of killing Americans or grow to like us.
That’s kind of the problem (unless you deny there are terrorists). That doesn’t entirely obviate the due process concerns and other issues - the U.S. foreswore assassinations decades ago, but for practical purposes this is same thing - and the issue of how terrorists are counted also matters. But the alternatives are also bad.
Bush was condemned for locking up the terrorists indefinitely without trial and torturing them, not for capturing and interrogating them. Obama ended the torture and if anything has been too lenient in refusing to prosecute Bush’s people.
He was not caught lying. There are, rightly, questions about this methodology because they’re looking to make the statistics look as favorable as possible.
The US has always tried to kill enemy leaders, assination implies killing a political leader during a time of peace. Everyone knows there is a war on terror, and Al-Queda is a military organization as much as a political one. Therefore killing an Al-Queda leader is no more an assination than killing a German general in WW2.
As you point out the same people who are protesting the targeted killings were protesting detaining the terrorists. The only remaining alternatives are to try them as criminals or leave them alone. Since trying them as criminals is next to impossible in effect they are advocating to leave them alone.
A young woman is recovering from a gunshot wound right now. She was shot by the Taliban because she thinks girls should go to school. The Taliban has vowed to finish the job. Our choice is to do something about this or do nothing. Doing something about it doesn’t leave a lot of possibilities. Drones are one of the things we can do. It is the way that will make it a war of attrition, certainly not ideal. But the alternatives are dropping bombs or invasion. Bombs will involve a lot more collateral damage than drones, and will actually cost more because they aren’t accurate unless we have someone on the ground guiding them. A large scale invasion will be costly and very messy. It will be very risky in Pakistan which has nukes, and is generally a powderkeg because of internal divisions and their ongoing cold war with India. Other countries where the terrorists hide are also problematic for invasion. We don’t want to create more enemies than we already are. Small scale invasion with commando raids is also very risky. The more we do it the more prepared our enemies will be for it, and the risk of failure will increase. Consider what would happen to a US commando captured by these twisted people.
As I see it, though less than an ideal situation, drone attacks are our best choice right now. It’s either that, or do nothing. And doing nothing won’t make the problem go away.
Detaining them is fine. Detaining them indefinitely without trial or due process and torturing them is not fine. This is not a complicated point.
If you can detain someone, you can try them. That’s also a very simple point. I agree that it’s not practical to capture or detain many of these people, and I’m not opposed to using drone strikes in those instances.
Isn’t this a matter for the local authorities? I’m pretty sure if I look at today’s newspaper I’ll hear about somebody shooting somebody for something here in the states. Would it be ok for Canada to launch a drone strike into a crowded market, killing a few dozen people in order to take out the guy who “might” have done it?
