Kevin Drum has been excerpting a new book about Obama’s evolution on national security and terrorism policy, and its fascinating. Today he talks about Gitmo and drone strikes. My feelings on the former are clear, I’m not even slightly upset with the president for failing to close it because presidents are restrained by congress and in this case they made their views very, very clear. I continue to believe Gitmo has to go and am upset its still open, its a national disgrace, but the blame for its non-closure lies with congress.
Drone strikes, however, are a different story. Obama seems to whole heartedly embrace them. If you are of the opinion that America should be killing terrorists, then drone strikes are the superior option. They don’t endanger American soldiers, they reduce collateral damage and civillian casualties (relative to bombing runs, and yes I said reduce, not eliminate), and they’re a hell of a lot better than a full bore invasion to physically go get the bad guys with ground troops. Of course, that’s if you’re of the opinion that America should be killing terrorists. As for me, I’m conflicted.
(the following is me thinking out loud, and not meant to be a coherent argument)
Generally, I don’t think we should be running around blowing up people in countries were not involved in. I am very sympathetic to the blowback arguments, as I myself have made them in the past. But at the same time, I can’t help but feel that at this point we can’t really go back. Were in the middle east now and we won’t be leaving ever, if history is any guide. I’d love to say we should just stop blowing stuff up and go home (and I think we should) but I’m afraid that’s just not realistic. I wish it were. But if we are going to keep blowing up terrorists, drones seem to be the best option. I’m not as hawkish here as Andrew Sullivan, but I agree that drone strikes may just be the least bad of a lot of bad options. I wish they weren’t.
Like I said, I’m conflicted.
Does someone have some more coherent thoughts here? I’m very much open to them.
I’m sorry this is so long. Here’s my argument. Drone strikes are an exercise of war powers. We are not engaged in a war, we are engaged in police action in foreign territory; therefore, the rules of war do not apply, but police rules do apply. Drone strikes are not an acceptable use of police power.
Let me elaborate. I think we can agree that drone strikes are not an acceptable use of police power. My reasoning hinges on the idea that we are not engaged in a war, but in a foreign police action. We accept the notion of war powers like the indefinite detention of prisoners of war without trial and shooting to kill while in combat or to achieve a strategic advantage during a war.
I believe we accept this for two reasons. First, we have a practical fear of preserving our civilization. If we obliged ourselves to follow our traditional rules of evidence before we harmed or captured an enemy soldier we would put ourselves at real risk of destruction. Desperate times call for desperate measures? Second, we know that the war will end, and when it does end we will release the prisoners. War powers are by very definition temporary.
Concerning our “war on terror”, does anybody think our nation faces actual destruction? I think not. Sure, we face the potential of attacks on our population, but don’t we generally face the same threat from organized crime? Does anybody think this “war” is temporary? I get the distinct impression that the people we attack with drones, or imprison without trial, are viewed as criminals. They shall never be released, and our conflict will never end. The ones killed by drone strikes don’t give us any particular strategic advantage; they don’t bring us close to “victory”. The best case the government offers is that we killed some people involved in a plot to do us harm. By that logic it would have been OK to drone strike the homes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School massacre).
Here’s a thought experiment. The police get a tip from a trusted source that there is somebody in town with a bomb and the intent to use that bomb on a civilian target. Presume, for the sake of argument, the police can narrow down the suspect to 500 people (in the geographic area of the tip). Should the police arrest and detain those 500 people and search through all of their possessions to prevent the attack? Let’s say, again for the sake of argument, we know the massive police strike will be successful. Is it justified? I say no, it is not justified. The risk of that bomb going off is the price of liberty, and I think it’s a fair price.
All people deserve liberty, not just citizens of the United States. It is an affront to liberty for us to continue summary executions from the sky so that we might be a little safer. Ask yourself, would you be comfortable with drone strikes against the same people if they happened to be in Nebraska planning the same dastardly deeds? We are not at war with Pakistan, or Yemen, or technically Afghanistan (although I can let that one slide).
Well, I’m not sure I would agree with the characterization of a police action. I do agree that we probably view it as that domestically, but to our armed forces deployed in the middle east it’s a war. And to the guys were fighting, its a war (hence jihad, holy war).
But in either case, I think your logic that we could have used drone strikes to prevent Columbine is pretty flawed. The reason drone strikes are so favored by the White House is that they accomplish our objective (getting the bad guys) at an absolute minimum cost relative to other options (ground troops, COIN tactics, invasion/occupation). In the case of the Harris / Klebold houses, there would be no need to use drones, we have much better options (a couple cops). The same goes for the hypothetical strike in Nebraska. I wouldn’t support drone strikes in that case because, relative to other options, they would be the most damaging. In Pakistan, however, to the extent that I would support drone strikes (and, as I mentioned, I’m conflicted) I would support them because, relative to every other option to accomplish our goals, they are the least bad.
Perhaps they are the least bad to for us, but I would argue they are not the least bad for the citizens of Pakistan who are not at war with us.