The Iraq War, the Next War, and the Future of the Fat Man 380
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?'"
Self defense is ambigious (Score:3, Interesting)
It can be stretched to mean defense of any US interests abroad. How many military actions since WW2 have truly been about protecting the homeland from attack?
Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Were these ever about self-defense?
No no but hell no. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Iraqis were NEVER going to attack us. The doctrine is a lie.
The Taliban / Pashtuns were NEVER going to attack us. The doctrine is a lie.
Al Qaeda was an is a huge threat and needs an asymmetric warfare response to its tactics.
Never forget that we adopted the Blitzkrieg and our modern army's systems from the Nazis all we needed to become the monster wee defeated was a president to fucking stupid to know that he was a fascist ( in the classical Mussolini definition ) and a people to complacent and stupid to know that we had been cooped from within.
Re:No no but hell no. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no idea why this is modded troll. The first two are practically indisputable. The 3rd is debatable, but not an unreasonable proposition.
I WISH I could say the 4th had no merit whatsoever, but I don't think that would be very honest. It's fairly clear that the whole leadup to the Iraq war was was a fabrication directed from the top. Not only were no WMDs found, but nothing that could have been misinterpreted as WMDs was found.
Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, you would never be acquitted for that, even if you could prove 100% that he was going to do something next week.
You would be expected to present your evidence to the police and let them handle it. In the case of international actions, that would mean bringing it before the U.N.
Alternatively, you could just be ready when he actually did do something.
Re:Of course it's not self-defense (Score:1, Interesting)
All right. So you don't care about the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, or plain human rights, and will kill (or torture) anyone you consider suspect without prior notice. All for a greater good. Collateral damage be damned.
This raises the question, what is the difference between you and the terrorists (TM)?
Why should we (i.e., the rest of the world) not hate you?
Re:Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it's strictly business [blogspot.com]...
Re:Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Score:5, Interesting)
To me the line between self-defense, and self-offense, is reactive vs proactive. From that standpoint, Afghanistan is self-defense (though arguably, using drones *way out of proportion* to the original attack) and Iraq was a pre-emptive offensive war- and that's even IF you believe the government really believed in what they were saying about Iraq to begin with.
I personally agree with Augustine of Hippo- that wars should not only be limited to self defense- but should be limited to fighting on your own territory against an invasion. From that standpoint, the only legal use of drones would be as automated security guards on the border in an area where there are no checkpoints- and limited by GPS programming to that area.
Re:No no but hell no. (Score:5, Interesting)
And in retaliation, we attacked......Iraq!
Meanwhile, the Taliban WAS foolish to have anything to do with Al-Queda, but did sever ties with them. It's fairly clear that Al-Queda never considered itself subject to the Taliban's orders. Prior to that, the U.S. itself had ties with Al-Queda. Shall we invade ourselves? Perhaps we should declare the CIA a domestic enemy and send the drones to take them out.
Re:Of course it's not self-defense (Score:1, Interesting)
The real question is ofcourse if you would allow an other country to send drones into american soil to kill americans that they think are a threat
No, the real question is would the US deliberately allow a group of people responsible for many terrorism deaths, and responsible for a recent attempt to kill hundreds of people in and below an approaching commercial aircraft, to continue to operate, recruit, train, and murder they way around (for example) the hills of Appalachia? No. Such a person/group would be apprehended, and not put into wet paper bag of a prison (a la typical Yemeni lock-up). If the murdering had been done in, say, France, there would have been quick extradition. Completely out of the question in the case of al-Awlaki, and he knew that. That's exactly why he was where he was, operating the way he was, and sending other guys with bombs in their pants to kill hundreds of people while he went on to set up the next guy to do the same.
Re:Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that while the war in Iraq could never be considered as self defense, the justification about Afganistan does have some merit. However, I also think that there was probably an element of opportunistic regime change too. Let's face it, the 911 attackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden was eventually found in Pakistan (with no thanks to the Pakistan government) and yet we managed to refrain from actually invading those two countries. I guess the difference was that those countries allowed us to enter them in force. I presume Afganistan would not (did someone actually ask them?).
Iraq was absolutely about regime change, and was a serious misstep IMHO. A lot of countries around the world rallied behind the US after 911, but were caught off guard by the sudden posturing by the US against Iraq about WMDs. It came out of the blue, and seemed to be quite unprovoked. A lot of genuine goodwill towards the country evaporated, almost overnight. The real shame is that while the war in Iraq may have divided the nation, the reaction to the criticism by other countries seemed to unite everyone again. Look at the strong feelings that are still prevalent towards France because they dared to question the existence of WMDs, even though they turned out to be right.
The people who still harbor a grudge against the French seem to be as arrogant as a bloodly Frenchman!
Re:Of course it's not self-defense (Score:5, Interesting)
The point about torture is well taken. Torture is NEVER justified. Not only does it not produce useful information (people will say anything under torture) its use does immense harm to your cause. It is very, very difficult for a torturer to lay claim to the moral high ground.
So we agree there.
But having had first-hand experience with UAV strikes, I am a big fan. Partially because UAVs are very good at minimizing collateral damage; they use precision munitions with a very small footprint. You get orders of magnitude less damage (of all kinds) than you do with big stick munitions like air strikes or cruise missiles.
But the true value of a UAV is that it allows you to be patient, take your time, and ensure that the target really is what you think it is and that conditions - all conditions - are ideal for the shot. I can't tell you the number of times when I saw UAVs with legit targets NOT shoot because the identity of the target was in question or because the risk of collateral damage too great. And with no jet jockey hopped up on amphetamines itching to drop his bombs in the air (and the sole determinant of if he drops or not) you instead get careful and reasoned opinion on go/no go from a panel of experts, legal and otherwise.
With nobody from your side at risk, attacks need not be made on snap decisions in the heat of battle by people scared for their lives. Instead, the decisions are made by safe, clear-thinking minds with more on their minds than just killing.
DG
That's the point, it's become a police action. (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't think to oppose the pursuit of criminals by our police. That's effectively what has happened to the terrorists. This is made much easier with the drone war because we don't take the same sort of causalities. We just play whack-o-mole with the terrorists. And assuming we can manage the politics, we can logistically sustain the campaign indefinitely.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. I think he's right in saying that if we don't oppose it soon it will just become an institution like the drug war. This thing that sits there and we do but we don't actually think about it. It just happens. It has it's own momentum, budget, and everyone just expects it to keep rolling along for various reasons forever.
It's possibly too late to stop it already. The CIA has built it into their budget and that is one of the harder budgets to penetrate.
I'm torn... I don't want to fight anyone or kill anyone. But of course I recognize that if people are going out of their way to kill me or people I care for then they must themselves be engaged and destroyed. The whole fat man thin man situation is somewhat confusing in that we're not really dealing with any fat men. It's all thin men... lots of them. It's a very target rich environment. And we're capable of icing them with a high degree of efficiency. But then there's blow back, reprisal, revenge... it just this endless struggle to balance an enemy's fear and hatred. I don't want to be hated. But I do want to be feared if only because I think it will make me safer.
Fear might not be the right term. Respect would be a better term. And i don't mean respect as in liked or admired. I mean respect in the same way you respect a tidal wave, the sun, or a mountain. You don't mess with these forces. They will break you if you don't respect them. That's how I want my nation regarded. Like the mountain, I don't have any ill will against anyone else on the planet. But don't mess with my people or I'm going to find a reason for you to change your mind. Lets just not go there. Everyone go to their little corners and swear peace. First bastard that breaks the peace gets pounded into the ground like a tent peg.
Re:That's the weird part. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
Of course, Goering was speaking in a time of conscripted armies... people are happier nowadays to send others to war. The systematic problem is that there is a huge profit to be made from war, and so the people who would profit will find ways to drag the country to war. The vast majority of people have nothing to gain from war. Smedley Butler proposed several ways to fix the system: [wikipedia.org]
1. Making war unprofitable
2. Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it
3. Limitation of militaries to self defence
Interesting ideas. There was another interesting proposal that I once saw on slashdot: insist that every war must be fully funded ie. when a war is declared, then an immediate tax must be enacted to pay for all of running costs, and for all of the long term medical and care costs of all the soldiers who are injured. I suspect that would make the war cheerleaders think twice.
Re:targeted killing (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah?
When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane?
Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"?
Yeah. Do you guys do that?