Obama's "New" Counterterrorism Strategy

[CoolHandCox]

Yesterday, June 29, Obama released his new counterterrorism strategy (it really just formalizes the approach that’s been used the last two+ years). An extremely brief overview of it is: attack Al Qaeda (and affiliates) where they are found under the laws of war (i.e., kill as a measure of first resort) without resorting to big (Iraq/Afghanistan) engagements.

The strategy was laid out by Obama’s counterterrorism chief John O. Brennan. Here’s theentire boring speech in full.

Here’s some quotes a Washington Post article had:

…“not designed to combat directly every single terrorist organization in every corner of the world,”…

…the president’s goals “track closely with the goals” of the George W. Bush administration…

…identified the group’s Yemeni affiliate, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, as the “most operationally active”…

…focus on specific regions, including Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and North Africa, [and] Pakistan.

AnotherLA Times article on same subject:

The Obama administration has concluded in a newly released counter-terrorism strategy that precision strikes and raids, rather than large land wars, are the most effective way to defeat Al Qaeda…“Going forward, we will be mindful that if our nation is threatened, our best offense won’t always be deploying large armies abroad but delivering targeted, surgical pressure to the groups that threaten us.”

[The] U.S. will pursue a war in the shadows [relying] heavily on missile strikes from unmanned aerial drones, raids by elite special operations troops, and quiet training of local forces to pursue terrorists.

Agree, disagree? It presumes a “war” with Al Qaeda. Is that view just accepted now? If not, would it hinder your vote towards Obama’s re-election? Further, with the whole detainee mess, does this policy encourage killing enemies, instead of trying to capture them (e.g. outside Iraq/Afghanistan, some captured detainees are now literally kept on US ships because no country will accept them and their baggage, US included). Ships are not a long term solution, but Guantanamo, the most logical detention place, is pretty politically off limits.

I actually agree with a “war” on terrorists, in general. I believe it’s effective and lawful. I do find many disagreements on captured terrorists and whether having a proper place to detain them actually encourages just using drones to kill (drones more susceptible to collateral damage than a SEAL raid for instance).

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

I agree unless the terrorists are likely to provide information we should focus on killing them (as in a war) rather than arresting them.

[Kozmik]

@CoolHandCox

Here’s some quotes a Washington Post article had:

…the president’s goals “track closely with the goals” of the George W. Bush administration…

The Washington Post* is vague and inaccurate. From The New York Times:

Mr. Brennan’s speech highlighted themes contained in a 19-page document, “National Strategy for Counterterrorism,” which the White House released on Wednesday. It replaces a strategy President George W. Bush approved in 2006.

Of course, the President’s counterterrorism adviser would give a 35 minute speech on a 19-page document. For comparison, the President’s speech was 13 minutes.

[CoolHandCox]

Of course I used the Bush reference as a hook for the OP. It’s not inaccurate though. Here’s the full quote:

Acknowledging that the president’s goals “track closely with the goals” of the George W. Bush administration, Brennan said Obama’s strategy “neither represents a wholesale overhaul, nor a wholesale retention, of previous policies.”

(emphasis added)

And it does not replace the core counter-terrorism paradigm goals Bush had, such as: (1) A war against a terrorist organization. (2) Killing them wherever found. (3) Indefinite detentions. (4) Trial by Military Commission. Same. Same. Same. Same.

[Kozmik]

What I’m getting from WP is: The President’s goals. The George W. Bush administration’s goals. Same. Same.

What I’m getting from NYT is: National Strategy for Counterterrorism. 2006. 2011. Same. Different.

And now the quote by John O. Brennan, the President’s counterterrorism adviser, in full context:

In many respects, these specific counterterrorism goals are not new. In fact, they track closely with the goals of the previous administration. Yet this illustrates another important characteristic of our strategy. It neither represents a wholesale overhaul—nor a wholesale retention—of previous policies.

They are not new because they were in the 2006 National Strategy for Counterterrorism. They track closely with the goals of the George W. Bush administration because the Obama administration achieved some of those goals, killing bin Laden, drawing down the troops in Afghanistan. So that’s what Brennan means by “strategy”. Then he states it “neither represents a wholesale overhaul—nor a wholesale retention—of previous policies”.

**Obama’s “New” Counterterrorism Strategy **
Yes.

Obama’s “New” Counterterrorism Goals
No.

[Kozmik]

Make that -

Obama’s “New” Counterterrorism Strategy
No.

Obama’s New Counterterrorism Goals
No.

[CoolHandCox]

One way in which the strategy has changed is the increased use of drones. See here (drone strikes in Pakistan):

From June 2004, when the strikes in Pakistan began, to January 2009, the Bush administration authorized 44 strikes in the rugged northwestern region of Pakistan. Since assuming office, Barack Obama has greatly accelerated the program, likely as a result of better on-the-ground intelligence in Pakistan. In just two years, the Obama administration authorized nearly four times as many drone strikes as did the Bush administration throughout its entire time in office – or an average of one strike every four days, compared with one every 40 days under Bush.

(emphasis added)

While I don’t have a problem with drones strikes per se, I do question who carries them out. DoD or CIA. The strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq are done by the military. The ones in Yemen and Somalia are done by the CIA. It matters because the CIA is not part of the “armed forces of the United States” as that term is used by the War Powers Resolution (e.g., Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines - anything under the DoD). The WPR only requires reports to Congress when the armed forces of the United States are introduced into hostilities. So no WPR trigger meaning you can bomb with CIA drones indefinitely. Also, I have no idea how the CIA is trained in the laws of war (do JAGS train them?) And do they feel they are constrained by them - is it even legal under the laws of war to do this? (they are not part of are armed forces, and that likely makes them unlawful combatants, so is the act of killing illegal under the laws of war?)

So yea, the goal of killin’ al Qaeda terrorists is the same, the strategy of how to make them dead is different.

[Chronos]

Goal: Get rid of terrorism. Well, I don’t think very many people on either side of the aisle would disagree with that one. It’s the methods for achieving that goal which are really the subject of debate.

[fumster]

@Chronos

Goal: Get rid of terrorism. Well, I don’t think very many people on either side of the aisle would disagree with that one. It’s the methods for achieving that goal which are really the subject of debate.

I like Obama’s strategy of killing the guy that planned the 9/11 attacks.

[BrainGlutton]

If I become Supreme Leader, I promise to promote serenity and defeat the anxiety-inducers. zikzik*zik

[CoolHandCox]

Here’s a recent Washington Post article about the use of drones: “Assassination by Robot: Are We Justified?”

Increased reliance on drone attacks is part of the administration’s long-range counterterrorism strategy. According to the New America Foundation, which tries to keep track, there have been 215 drone attacks in Pakistan alone since January 2009.

Since the program is supposed to be secret, officials use euphemisms when speaking about it publicly. John Brennan, President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, said in a recent speech that “our best offense won’t always be deploying large armies abroad but delivering targeted, surgical pressure to the groups that threaten us.”

The word “surgical” is used a lot to describe the drone program, although surgery is designed to save lives, not take them.

I don’t really agree with it, but it’s an opinion many share. It’s not so much the drone that’s the problem, but the legal justification to kill as a measure of first resort that should be troubling.

[Chronos]

Drones aren’t robots (at least, most of them aren’t: There might be a few that are, in limited applications). Drones have human controllers somewhere, and it’s ultimately the human who decides whether to take the shot.

As for “surgical strikes”, the analogy obviously spans multiple scales. Many surgeries are, in fact, designed to kill. Kill a tumor, and you can save the body that’s hosting it. The idea, of course, behind surgical strikes is that by killing a few precisely-defined targets, you can save the nation that hosts them.

[CoolHandCox]

Now this is interesting, Obama will try a terrorist suspect with ties to Al Qaeda in a civilian court in New York. See NY Times article here - U.S. to Prosecute a Somali Suspect in Civilian Court:

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it would prosecute in civilian court a Somali accused of ties to two Islamist militant groups. The decision to fly the man to New York for trial, after interrogating him for months aboard a United States naval vessel, is likely to reignite debate about the detention and prosecution of terrorism suspects.
…
Mr. Warsame was taken to a naval vessel, where he was questioned for the next two months by military interrogators, the officials said. They said his detention was justified by the laws of war, but declined to say whether their theory was that the Shabab are covered by Congress’s authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; whether the detention was justified by his interactions with Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch; or something else…After about two months, Mr. Warsame was given a break for several days. Then a separate group of law enforcement interrogators came in. They delivered a Miranda warning, but he waived his rights to remain silent and have a lawyer present and continued to cooperate, the officials said, meaning that his subsequent statements would likely be admissible in court.
…
Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame was charged with nine counts related to accusations that he provided support to the Shabab in Somalia and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen…The indictment says that Mr. Warsame has fought on behalf of the Shabab since 2007. Starting in 2009, it says, he began to work with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, providing money, training and equipment. It also alleged that he went to Yemen in 2010 and received explosives and other military-type training, and helped broker a weapons deal between the groups…

[H]is case is likely to have outsize significance in the political arena because it resonates with intense debates surrounding the administration’s counterterrorism policies — including whether to bring newly captured detainees to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; whether to prosecute terrorism cases in civilian court or before a military commission; and what rights terrorism suspects have during interrogation.

Obama is able to bring him to the States for trial because he bypassed holding him at Guantanamo. Plus, I like the idea of the military and police working together. Any problems with indefinitely detaining a combatant under the laws of war and questioning for intelligence reasons, and then turning him over to police for questioning related to charging him with crimes?