The Iraq War, the Next War, and the Future of the Fat Man

An anonymous reader writes "The Stanford Law Review Online has just published an Essay by Yale's Stephen L. Carter entitled 'The Iraq War, the Next War, and the Future of the Fat Man.' He provides a retrospective on the War in Iraq and discusses the ethical and legal implications of the War on Terror and 'anticipatory self-defense' in the form of drones and targeted killings going forward. He writes: 'Iraq was war under the beta version of the Bush Doctrine. The newer model is represented by the slaying of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen deemed a terror threat. The Obama Administration has ratcheted the use of remote drone attacks to unprecedented levels — the Bush Doctrine honed to rapier sharpness. The interesting question about the new model is one of ethics more than legality. Let us assume the principal ethical argument pressed in favor of drone warfare — to wit, that the reduction in civilian casualties and destruction of property means that the drone attack comports better than most other methods with the principle of discrimination. If this is so, then we might conclude that a just cause alone is sufficient to justify the attacks. ... But is what we are doing truly self-defense?'"

targeted killing

[Anonymous Coward]

assassination by any name is just as illegal
so is torture and a war of aggression

Re:Iraq and Afghanistan wars

[g0bshiTe]

I was under the impression it was about business.

New Label = Profit!

[CanHasDIY]

From summary:

...that the reduction in civilian casualties and destruction of property means that the drone attack comports better than most other methods with the principle of discrimination.

relabel every corpse created as a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant," and bang! Less "civilian" casualties.

Winning the hearts and minds, one bullshit semantic after the next; the sad part? it fucking works.

What sheep we've become...

Re:Of course it's not self-defense

[gnick]

So, when a SWAT team shoots someone who has already killed people, has said he's going to kill more people, and shows every sign of preparing to do just that, that's self defense (of the inevitable victims), or not?

No, that's not self defense. In that case, unless the suspect was immediately threatening the SWAT team there to execute the warrant or another innocent, if they shoot him they're in serious trouble. If he has a gun to somebody's head or pointed at the team, they can drop him. But even if they know he's already blown up a dozen crowded churches and they find him with blueprints of the church he said he's targeting next, a van full of ANFO, and a manifesto announcing his intent to light it up in 30 minutes time, they'd better take him alive unless there are lives in immediate danger or they'll be facing charges. So, if I understand your purposed case correctly, that is not self-defense.

Realize this..

[SuperCharlie]

A doctrine of pre-emptive strike allows anyone to do anything to anyone at any time. All you need is to instill some fear and get away (quite literally) with murder.

A different interpretation.

[khasim]

It is quite clear that either most everyone in the government was lying, or it was really believed that he could be a major threat.

I will go with a different interpretation. Although very similar to the "lying" option.

I'll say that they were "blustering" and "posturing" against a subject that the vast majority of voters would say was "not good".

My pessimistic point of view is that those people were doing so in an attempt to distract the public from other events (said events being less favourable to the person blustering) or to make themselves look as tough as their political opponents at the time.

... but Saddam himself was doing everything in his power to make it look like he was a threat.

More blustering and posturing. This time on Saddam's part.

Every reasonable examination points to the government as a whole honestly believing he was a major threat in a region that possesses massive amounts of economic resources and in some cases nuclear weapons which could lead to catastrophic disaster should he ever choose to act.

I disagree with that. I still think it was the posturing and blustering that so many politicians involve themselves in.

The REAL question is whether the people making those statements were willing to take the political risk of committing the USofA's military.

Talk is cheap.
Soldiers coming home in boxes is very expensive.

At the time? No one did.

I will disagree with that as well.

There were worldwide protests AGAINST our invasion.

The protests were so bad that almost none of our allies going into Afghanistan joined us in our Iraq invasion.

We sent 150,000 troops.
England sent 46,000 troops.
Australia sent 2,000 troops.

Everyone else sent a total of under 2,000 troops.

Talk is cheap.
Dead troops are expensive.
No one else believed the talk enough to risk the political expense of dead troops.

I will just say that retrospect offers amazingly clear vision.

No. It was pretty clear at the time. As evidenced by all those countries that did NOT participate. Even though Iraq is a LOT closer to them (and would have an easier time striking them) than the USofA.

Re:Iraq and Afghanistan wars

[Gadget_Guy]

Then again, the war in Iraq was at least based on the technicalities of Iraq breaking the UN resolutions.

Why? Because Iraq wouldn't produce all those weapons of mass destruction that they didn't actually have? While the US kept referring to Resolution 1441, a lot of other countries argued that there was not any proof of significant non-compliance - especially enough to justify 8 years of war.

The 9/11 attack is still considered a crime here and not an act of war. The reason for the rallying behind the Americans was probably something to do with military contracts, rents, investments and economic support, while fully knowing who is going to pay the cost in blood.

No way! There was genuine heartfelt grief for the events that happened on September 11, even from some countries that were not traditionally supporters of the US. When I said that "other countries rallied behind the US" I was referring to public support. The public doesn't care about military contract or economic support. They saw a people who were in shock and morning and they wept for them.

I don't have a faintest idea why those anti-war protestors protested against the war in Iraq while sleeping through the actions in Afghanistan. From my perspective they simply didn't get it.

I find it amazing that you think that allegedy breaking a technicality of a UN resolution can be justification for war while killing thousands of civilians in a horrendous act is not. Either all those anti-war protesters were wrong, or you are wrong. I'm thinking that it is you.

Re:I thought the Taliban didn't like poppy farmers

[DG]

I was there, right?

The Taliban constantly pressured the local populace to grow poppy and pot. It was how they financed all their operations. Being Taliban has WAY more to do with drugs than ideology (although you cannot separate the Pashtun from Pashtunwali)

That "the Taliban eliminated poppy farming" trope is a myth. The Taliban eliminated COMPETITION in poppy farming.

ISAF left the poppy farmers alone as a matter of policy, because it meant depriving a farmer of what little livelihood he had left. We pushed alternative crops (wheat, grapes, pomegranates) very hard, and where the security situation was good the farmers would happily take up the alternate crops (poppy farming is backbreaking manual labour) the Taliban were always keen t apply pressure to get the farmers growing poppy again.

DG