The release of a secret Justice Department memorandum on
criteria used to eliminate Al Qaeda members, via drones, if they are a “senior
operational leaders” of that group, even if they are not actively engaged in a
plot to attack America, has aroused major criticism from well -intentioned
liberal groups and Republicans. The opposition to these drone attacks is far
more vociferous if the Al Qaeda members involved are American citizens.
This release of this document has resulted in many questions
that one would hope would arise in any open society. The most glaring query is
why on earth was this document secret and not in the public domain a long time
ago? Also it precipitates the examining of the changing world threats and what
the response there should be to these threats. In the American political
context, the release comes at a time when Obama’s nomination for CIA Director,
John Brennan, is up for confirmation. John Brennan is the architect for Obama’s
drone policy and well meaning Democrats and cynical Republicans did not feel
uncomfortable about making him uncomfortable in his confirmation hearings.
However, nothing vented in the lengthy hearings changed any of the facts.
There appear to be two issues that need to be examined:
- Are
drone attacks, wherever and on whom they are sanctioned, legally, morally
and politically defensible? This assessment should be made whether the
targets are American citizens on anyone else. Also are they the best way
to ensure the USA’s security.
- If, on
balance, drone attacks are the way to go, are the present criteria as to
when, and whether they should be affected appropriate. Also what reviews
should be put in place.
THE THREATS FACING THE STABILITY OF THE WORLD AND THE USA IN
THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY.
Before looking at the drone issue let us look at look at the
world situation.
The future ain’t what it used to be. The Cold War is over.
However, there is instability in a number of areas.
* The major
threat, to the USA specifically and other nations generally, is the emergence
of Jihadist, totalitarian fundamentalist groups lead by Al Qaeda that threaten
USA and world stability.
* The Arab spring has created uncertainty. While the general
feeling is positive as these are generally movements supporting individual
freedoms, women’s rights and against totalitarianism generally, there are
fears. These fears generally relate to the danger of the totalitarian Jihadist
groups seizing control of some of the States. The major instability at present
is Syria but there is also uncertainty all round that even extends to North
Africa.
* The Middle East impasse. This is complicated by the Arab
spring but more so by Iran. Iran is a supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas
terrorist groups in the Middle East. These are akin to the Jihadist Al Qaeda
groups. Hezbollah have been found to be extremely active in Europe. As one of his first actions US Secretary of State Kerry has called upon the European Union to declare Hezbollah, as the USA have done have, a terrorist organization.
* There are nuclear rogue nations, specifically Iran and
North Korea that have to be threatening the world order. North Korea is
generally off the charts and the only hope to contain them is via China. Iran
and its nuclear potential, coupled with its desire to become a world power, its
terrorist surrogates and its pathological hatred of Israel is probably
potentially the most imminent threat to world stability.
OBAMA RESPONSE TO ASSYMETRY IS ASSYMETRY
The Obama administration has taken a number of discernable
policy changes in relation to defense. They have taken the position that most
of the threats that the world and the USA face are “asymmetrical”. These
threats emanate from terrorist groups that are numerically small but can cause
disproportionate damage. Many of the threats to world order listed above have
terrorist organizations potentially or directly involved.
The key change in policy is the escalation of drone attacks
and the withdrawal of forces from conventional wars. Asymmetry was to be met by
asymmetry in the form of unmanned drones that were able to attack specific
targets. While the majority of the drone attacks have been directed at Al Qaeda
operatives in Pakistan the program has been expanding to other areas including
notably Yemen.
The success of the program was even noted before the US Navy
Seals eliminated Osama Bin Laden. Osama’s documents indicated that the drone
program was doing so much damage that he wanted to relocate all Al Qaeda
operatives to the mountainous area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The argument for this approach is irresistible. Large
numbers of soldiers need not be deployed in dangerous territory to eliminate a
few terrorists and potentially fewer civilians get killed in the crossfire. So
for the moment let us examine the validity of this form of warfare whether the
terrorist is American born or not.
FACTS AND ATTACKS ON DRONE ATTACKS
* Drone attacks cause collateral damage. The debate is how
many and why? The percentage and number of civilians vary according to studies
and where they come from. While the CIA has argued there have been no civilian
casualties since 2010. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated
that approximately 400 to 800 civilian deaths have occurred of which a 150 were
children. The Bureau believes that these casualties occurred out of a total
of between 1,658 and 2,597 deaths.
(Compare these numbers to deaths associated with the Iraqi
war, for example, that are most conservatively estimated at 100,000 and more
broadly estimated as over a million. Nearly, 5,000 Americans died in this war.
This war was not waged on the basis of an “imminent” threat but on the basis
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they could use against the
West).
* The local Pakistani sentiment is anger over these civilian
deaths and increased animosity towards the USA. However, the biggest furor
occurred when in November 2011, 24 Pakistani soldiers were accidentally
targeted. This did not stop Drone attacks that restarted 2 months later. Jay H.
Ell also has to ask what the responsibility a country has that harbors these
terrorists.
* The Rand
corporation found that the drone attacks decreased suicide bombings, both the
frequency and militancy of terrorist attacks and the placement of IEDs.
* Since 2008 The UNO Human Rights Council have been critical
of the United States drone attacks maintaining that they are “indiscriminate”.
Also the failure to provide information on them and particularly the collateral
damage they cause has been criticized by the Council. More recently the Council
have called upon the Obama administration to attempt to capture Al Qaeda and
Taliban suspects rather than assassinate them.
THE MERITS OF THE OPPOSITION TO DRONE ATTACKS.
* None of the criticisms of drone attacks differ from those
of any warfare activity. There is collateral damage, friendly fire death, anger
from the civilian population and criticism of war in general and the rationale
for it in the first place.
* Conventional warfare is supposed to be conducted by the
Geneva and Hague Conventions and this makes it easier to shout the odds at
someone who isn’t “fighting fair”. These conventions discuss humanitarian
considerations for combatants, behavior towards noncombatants and what weapons
of war should not be used. The latter include poisonous gasses and biological
warfare.
* It is very hard to stick to Geneva and Hague conventions
when the other side is not remotely interested. Jay H. Ell is sure that the
conventions would not sanction flying airplanes into buildings where there are
only civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately into civilians and sending
young people to their death in suicide missions expressly to kill civilians.
The perpetrators are not wearing uniforms so that you can engage in combat with
them and “fight fair”. Nor are they occupying any definable state rather they
hide themselves among civilians and when attacked they wail that civilians they
were hiding among were targeted!
DANGER OF DRONE ATTACKS THAT WERE “NOT JUSTIFIED”
Once there is war there is always
criticism of the “tactics”. If one looks at the Second World War the allies
were blamed for the attacks on German cities towards the end, not bombing the train
lines to Auschwitz and dropping the Atomic bombs to end the war. In the Vietnam
War the Americans were attacked for using napalm when they did and on and on.
So attacking the criteria as whether an Al Qaeda operative
was “bad” enough to be eliminated does not seem to make any more sense than
blaming a combatant country for firing on all the enemy soldiers when some were
not so bad!
To expect the protagonists in a war to sit around and wait
for the “terrorist” to be ready for the attack rather than to “get” him when they can, also makes no sense.
COMES DOWN TO REALITY
So there is a new reality and a new paradigm of war. The
other side takes no notice of the Conventions and has as their objective to
cause chaos, disruption, fear and death to civilians. This they have already
done and have changed the way we live our lives. It stands to reason that it
would be ridiculous to do as has been done up to now – send in the marines who
as they march are blown up by IED’s, whose barracks are attacked by suicide
bombers and then tell them to capture terrorists rather than kill them. Rather send
in unmanned drones and rely on intelligence, human and gained by satellite, to
locate the enemies. Not only will this save blood it will save treasure.
So why the abhorrence at it all?
As we have seen, unhappily, mistakes are made in any type of
warfare so why the disgust when it happens with drones? This especially when
the numbers killed are of a far smaller order than conventional war.
WHY THE ABHORRENCE?
The answer lies in the fact that person or persons or
agencies are making the actual decision to execute an individual. In
conventional warfare the killing is so impersonal. The thought of those
designated to make the life or death decision making a mistake is against every
tenet that we cling too. Psychologically, in our ordered society, we are not
attuned to perpetrate or legitimize, what amounts to murder or assassination.
In any civilized society if an individual is to be sentenced
to death he or she must have due process. After all there were the Nuremberg
trials. We never just strung up the perpetrators of unspeakable crimes against humanity. But the Nuremberg trials were
after the war was over. Those criminals would have got short shrift if they
were still a danger. So killing someone who has declared war and has made it
quite clear how they are going to kill you or your loved ones is probably an
appropriate response.
All war is abhorrent and this type, as much as it offends
our sensibilities, is no more abhorrent than the rest.
AMERICAN AL QAEDA
There are those that make the distinction between American
born Al Qaeda and those who are not. The reason for this is that all Americans
are entitled to due process before being sentenced to death. The fact that
these “Americans” have sworn allegiance to an enemy that is at war with America
and participate in atrocities that kill Americans surely means that they have
forgone their rights as American citizens? So why they should be protected heavens
only knows?
In fairness many of the civil right activists who oppose the
drone program, especially towards citizens, believe that this is giving the
government too much power. The
Government has immense power anyway when it comes to war. Again it comes down
to the belief if you take a decision kill someone who is anonymous, and could
well be an American, it is ok but if you name him or her it is murder.
THE SOLUTION
The Government and whoever is in charge need to spell out
the parameters whereby these attacks can take place. They need to brief
Congress, secretly if necessary, as they so often do, about the process. The
onus is on them to at least inform a group, that are disconnected with the
decision making, with what is going on. Obama never slow to take a point is
handing all the classified documents on the drone policy to the respective
Intelligence Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives.
If Congress is
not happy there should be a mechanism whereby they should have access to the
decision makers. However, Congress or anyone else really have as much right to
second guess the decisions as they had to second guess Eisenhower as to his D
Day operations. There is a war on in case anyone has forgotten. Maybe they can
remember it every time they have to take their shoes off in the endless
security lines at the airport.
The Government should lose their own distaste at what they
are doing and be upfront as to their response to the asymmetrical warfare they
are fighting. They need to legitimize what they are doing as not doing so lends
credence to the fact that they are hiding something because it is wrong. They
need have no fear at loss of public support as 90% support the drone program.
However, they do owe an explanation to those who hold civil liberties dear.
A final thought, it is not going to be long before other
entities obtain drones, so hopefully, the powers that be are working on
counters to defend against enemy drones.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment