The Drone Presidency
August 10, 2016 1:13 PM Subscribe
"Remote killing outside of war zones, it seems, has become business as usual [...] a remarkable development [for] Obama, who came who came to office as an antiwar president" "The question for President Obama is whether he wants to be remembered as the leader who ushered in the era of permanent, low-level drone warfare. His actions will be looked to for justification by those that follow, here and abroad. As David Reisner, former head of the Israel Defense Forces legal department, has said, “If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it…. International law progresses through violations.”"
International law progresses through violations.
regresses not progresses.
posted by srboisvert at 1:36 PM on August 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
regresses not progresses.
posted by srboisvert at 1:36 PM on August 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
“If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it
Interesting. I wonder where his family migrated from.
posted by infini at 1:36 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting. I wonder where his family migrated from.
posted by infini at 1:36 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, too, with torture. The greatest generation's war crimes are our SOP.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:39 PM on August 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 1:39 PM on August 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Obama Expands the ISIS Bombing Campaign to a 4th Country, the Media Barely Notice:
Meanwhile, an anti-ISIS bombing campaign that began as “limited,” “targeted” air strikes in Iraq two years ago expanded to Syria six weeks later, to Afghanistan in January of this year, and to Libya this week. Combat troops and special forces have also crept into play, with US military personnel first appearing in Iraq and Syria in 2014, 2015, or 2016, depending on how one defines “boots” and “ground.”posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:41 PM on August 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
All of this has unfolded with US media that almost never put these developments in a broader context. Instead, news outlets report each expansion as if it were obvious and inevitable. The war just is, and because it’s done piecemeal, there doesn’t seem much to get outraged over.
The question pundits should be asking themselves is this: Had Obama announced on August 7, 2014, that he planned on bombing four countries and deploying troops to two of them to fight a war with “no end point,” would the American public have gone along with it?
I'd like to say that I hope Clinton will put a stop to the practice if elected, but I very much doubt it.
I will eat a damn haberdashery.
posted by atoxyl at 1:44 PM on August 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
I will eat a damn haberdashery.
posted by atoxyl at 1:44 PM on August 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
I'm not going to hang around in this thread, but I posted the article specifically because I DON'T think that the US drone program is a moral crime or a horrific policy. (It may well be counterproductive, but that's a pragmatic consideration.)
I think there are two ways to consider using drones to kill people. One is that drones are used to kill people because it is easy and pain-free (for the US), and therefore they lead to more killing by the US over time, and more civilian deaths. I assume that this is the position of most people who think that the drone program is morally abhorrent. The other way to look at it is that drones are used in place of larger conventional assaults, and therefore, since conventional assaults kill more people and cause more infrastructure damage, the drone program actually saves lives. (Please note, I'm not trying to make a moral calculation about lives saved by killing bad actors.) I tend to think, with the world as it is, that the places where the US has been using drones (that are not already US war zones) are at bad risk of becoming US war zones, of one sort or another. To the extent that drones prevent that, that seems to me like a good thing.
I realize this is not a popular view on Metafilter, but it very much is not a view about the moral worth of the US exercising military power all over the place. But I don't think we are in any kind of political climate where the US won't be exercising military power all over the place. We haven't been since WWII.
posted by OmieWise at 1:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [28 favorites]
I think there are two ways to consider using drones to kill people. One is that drones are used to kill people because it is easy and pain-free (for the US), and therefore they lead to more killing by the US over time, and more civilian deaths. I assume that this is the position of most people who think that the drone program is morally abhorrent. The other way to look at it is that drones are used in place of larger conventional assaults, and therefore, since conventional assaults kill more people and cause more infrastructure damage, the drone program actually saves lives. (Please note, I'm not trying to make a moral calculation about lives saved by killing bad actors.) I tend to think, with the world as it is, that the places where the US has been using drones (that are not already US war zones) are at bad risk of becoming US war zones, of one sort or another. To the extent that drones prevent that, that seems to me like a good thing.
I realize this is not a popular view on Metafilter, but it very much is not a view about the moral worth of the US exercising military power all over the place. But I don't think we are in any kind of political climate where the US won't be exercising military power all over the place. We haven't been since WWII.
posted by OmieWise at 1:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [28 favorites]
Perhaps the only good thing a Trump presidency could bring would be a chance that American war criminals would face justice.
posted by fredludd at 1:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by fredludd at 1:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't really see much talk of this anymore. Certainly not a lot of mentions of the fact that the Obama administration assassinated like what....three American citizens? One of them being a 16 year old. Not a lot of talk since like, 2012 at the latest.
I'd like to say that I hope Clinton will put a stop to the practice if elected, but I very much doubt it
I'll eat a big ass building if that happens
posted by todayandtomorrow at 1:48 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd like to say that I hope Clinton will put a stop to the practice if elected, but I very much doubt it
I'll eat a big ass building if that happens
posted by todayandtomorrow at 1:48 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
"We’re not going after people—we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy."
I wonder how much of the reduction in the number of drone attacks in recent years is a result of the targets belatedly making some attempt at communications security discipline.
posted by sfenders at 1:51 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder how much of the reduction in the number of drone attacks in recent years is a result of the targets belatedly making some attempt at communications security discipline.
posted by sfenders at 1:51 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with air dropped bombs and incendiaries in WWII. Then we did it some more in Korea and Vietnam. This is a thing we do.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:52 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:52 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Drones are an easy sell to the American people. Their use prevents injury and deaths to our military personnel in war zones. They reduce risks and costs. And collateral damage and the death of innocent civilians is probably not reduced if a human military force fights in an area where civilians are present. Public opinion seems to shrug off their dehumanizing effects and other negatives.
They'll remain a popular tool for the American military for all of these reasons... right up until someone hacks and takes one or more of them over and uses them against our people.
posted by zarq at 1:52 PM on August 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
They'll remain a popular tool for the American military for all of these reasons... right up until someone hacks and takes one or more of them over and uses them against our people.
posted by zarq at 1:52 PM on August 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
First, Obama has not claimed the power to kill “terrorists,” but only those fighting on the other side in an armed conflict authorized by Congress against al-Qaeda and organizations allied with it....
Second, Obama has not asserted the power to use lethal force “anywhere…in the world,” but only in war zones—where drones are just another weapon—and, outside war zones, only where an enemy fighter poses an imminent threat that cannot otherwise be addressed...
This analysis is seriously flawed in that it doesn't question - or acknowledge skepticism about - the administration's definition of terms. Some of the harshest criticism of the drone program and the War on Terror has been that "war zone," "combatant" and "imminent threat" are all so loosely defined as to render them meaningless. Talking about the drone program without talking about this flexibility of terms makes for an incomplete discussion.
posted by teponaztli at 1:54 PM on August 10, 2016 [29 favorites]
Second, Obama has not asserted the power to use lethal force “anywhere…in the world,” but only in war zones—where drones are just another weapon—and, outside war zones, only where an enemy fighter poses an imminent threat that cannot otherwise be addressed...
This analysis is seriously flawed in that it doesn't question - or acknowledge skepticism about - the administration's definition of terms. Some of the harshest criticism of the drone program and the War on Terror has been that "war zone," "combatant" and "imminent threat" are all so loosely defined as to render them meaningless. Talking about the drone program without talking about this flexibility of terms makes for an incomplete discussion.
posted by teponaztli at 1:54 PM on August 10, 2016 [29 favorites]
I disagree that the alternative to drone assassination is a conventional offensive. The alternative is diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and propaganda. Engaging in targeted aerial assassinations in a country brings us closer to a conventional war, because it normalizes violence against that country and forments hatred of the US amongst the people there.
It also happens without a shred of due process. There is no need for the President to seek authorization for drone attacks in the way that there would be for a significant troop mobilization. He says "let it be done," and it is done.
The fact that we use drones to kill our own citizens is just icing on this shit cake. "Extrajudicial" is just a polite euphemism for "illegal."
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:12 PM on August 10, 2016 [46 favorites]
It also happens without a shred of due process. There is no need for the President to seek authorization for drone attacks in the way that there would be for a significant troop mobilization. He says "let it be done," and it is done.
The fact that we use drones to kill our own citizens is just icing on this shit cake. "Extrajudicial" is just a polite euphemism for "illegal."
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:12 PM on August 10, 2016 [46 favorites]
There is no need for the President to seek authorization for drone attacks in the way that there would be for a significant troop mobilization. He says "let it be done," and it is done.
He had authorization under the AUMF and has inherent authority under self-defense principles. Politically it's much more difficult, but legally it's the same whether he sends in special ops, missiles, or drones.
posted by jpe at 2:17 PM on August 10, 2016
He had authorization under the AUMF and has inherent authority under self-defense principles. Politically it's much more difficult, but legally it's the same whether he sends in special ops, missiles, or drones.
posted by jpe at 2:17 PM on August 10, 2016
Interesting and measured read. I'm still not sure how I feel about drone strikes, but this article helped me think about the legal, political, and practical ramifications.
posted by mosschief at 2:20 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mosschief at 2:20 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
inherent authority under self-defense principles
Everybody got all excited about their pocket Constitutions recently, maybe someone can point to the bit where it says that the President can just shout "They're coming right for us!" and start lobbing bombs.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:22 PM on August 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Everybody got all excited about their pocket Constitutions recently, maybe someone can point to the bit where it says that the President can just shout "They're coming right for us!" and start lobbing bombs.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:22 PM on August 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Where his blanket authorization derives from is not important, as far as I am concerned. The point is that he has it, and because of the relative cheapness of drones and the fact that they don't involve putting soldiers in the countries we're attacking, he has great political freedom to use it. We didn't do these assassinations nearly as often when special ops and missiles were the only options. That sort of thing has become much easier to do with drones, and Obama has shown a willingness to use that ease to greatly expand the scope of our assassination program, to the point where it has become totally normalized where once it was exceptional. We no longer question it when it happens; we just assume it's happening all the time, because it is.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:23 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:23 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the real effects of the application of power can be made distant, invisible, and not immediately felt to the people of a country or an institution, then almost no one one int hat country or institution will question or fight it long enough to change things.
posted by kewb at 2:24 PM on August 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by kewb at 2:24 PM on August 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Working off of OmnieWise's idea above, are drones the new "secretly funding right wing mercenaries to go commit war crimes against civilians"? Are we no longer funding and training secret groups to disrupt organizations and massacre civilians and have simply jumped to doing the killing and massacring and torturing ourselves?
I don't think this is a good thing, even if drones do kill less people than black budget funded death squads do. With the US doing it openly, it gains an aura of respectability that the Contras (to take an example) never had.
If we are still secretly funding death squads and I just don't know it, well, then this is even worse. Have there been any exposés about secret money getting funneled anywhere lately? In the era of Snowden and Greenwald (and formerly Wikileaks, before they went off the rails), I figure that that sort of thing would come out quickly.
posted by Hactar at 2:26 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think this is a good thing, even if drones do kill less people than black budget funded death squads do. With the US doing it openly, it gains an aura of respectability that the Contras (to take an example) never had.
If we are still secretly funding death squads and I just don't know it, well, then this is even worse. Have there been any exposés about secret money getting funneled anywhere lately? In the era of Snowden and Greenwald (and formerly Wikileaks, before they went off the rails), I figure that that sort of thing would come out quickly.
posted by Hactar at 2:26 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Everybody got all excited about their pocket Constitutions recently, maybe someone can point to the bit where it says that the President can just shout "They're coming right for us!" and start lobbing bombs.
It's inherent in the power of a commander in chief. Or maybe it's in the same section with the rights to abortion and gay marriage. Because we all know that if something isn't clearly stated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.
posted by jpe at 2:27 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's inherent in the power of a commander in chief. Or maybe it's in the same section with the rights to abortion and gay marriage. Because we all know that if something isn't clearly stated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.
posted by jpe at 2:27 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The argument that drones are acceptable because they are less bad than ground invasion bothers me because it suggests that there is no way to have a United States which is not constantly going to war - that no solutions exist but war or that the United States cannot exist without provoking war.
From my standpoint, I think that's true - that is, I think nation states fight wars for basically evil reasons and that this is a feature of nation states, not a bug. But that's because I am deeply, deeply skeptical of the US government, imperial powers and governments generally. Most people who feel that drones are better than ground invasion seem to have a fairly positive view of the US and statism generally.
posted by Frowner at 2:30 PM on August 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
From my standpoint, I think that's true - that is, I think nation states fight wars for basically evil reasons and that this is a feature of nation states, not a bug. But that's because I am deeply, deeply skeptical of the US government, imperial powers and governments generally. Most people who feel that drones are better than ground invasion seem to have a fairly positive view of the US and statism generally.
posted by Frowner at 2:30 PM on August 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
If the leader of a foreign country started launching missiles against our citzens that it didn't like, on our soil, we would absolutely consider it an act of war. We wouldn't accept "uh, it's not a war, it's just a targeted strike allowed under a blanket authorization bill passed by our legislature." What we are doing in other countries, with impunity, would absolutely be considered war, murder, and terrorism if it were perpetrated against us. We get away with it because of our power. Think on that.
That we also do it against our own people only makes it worse. It's political murder. When other countries murder their own citizens for political reasons, it's a crime against humanity.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:34 PM on August 10, 2016 [47 favorites]
That we also do it against our own people only makes it worse. It's political murder. When other countries murder their own citizens for political reasons, it's a crime against humanity.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:34 PM on August 10, 2016 [47 favorites]
I disagree that the alternative to drone assassination is a conventional offensive. The alternative is diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and propaganda.
I guess I have to add to my comment above to say that I believe that this is what Obama entered office wanting, what he has pursued when he could, and that, ultimately, my assessment of the President is that he is a genuinely good person who wants to limit bloodshed, American and otherwise. It actually informs my opinion A LOT that drone use has expanded during his presidency. I take that to be an indication that they meet Obama's goals as closely as possible given all the circumstances. I'll freely admit that were this Bush's drone program we were talking about, or, god forbid, Trump's, I would not feel as sanguine about the moral calculus leading to their use.
BTW, the FA was written by David Cole, who is not some neocon.
posted by OmieWise at 2:36 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I guess I have to add to my comment above to say that I believe that this is what Obama entered office wanting, what he has pursued when he could, and that, ultimately, my assessment of the President is that he is a genuinely good person who wants to limit bloodshed, American and otherwise. It actually informs my opinion A LOT that drone use has expanded during his presidency. I take that to be an indication that they meet Obama's goals as closely as possible given all the circumstances. I'll freely admit that were this Bush's drone program we were talking about, or, god forbid, Trump's, I would not feel as sanguine about the moral calculus leading to their use.
BTW, the FA was written by David Cole, who is not some neocon.
posted by OmieWise at 2:36 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
First, Obama has not claimed the power to kill “terrorists,” but only those fighting on the other side in an armed conflict authorized by Congress against al-Qaeda and organizations allied with it....
Right, except ISIS is very definitely not allied with the Al Queda that the AUMF was talking about. It's a murderous terrorist organization, but there's a good argument it's not covered by the AUMF.
The strikes in Pakistan, Iraq and Libya are probably technically internationally legal, because an arguably sovereign government has invited the Americans in (in Libya's case, one of three "governments" did). Whether they're actually authorized under domestic law by the AUMF, I dunno.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:38 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, except ISIS is very definitely not allied with the Al Queda that the AUMF was talking about. It's a murderous terrorist organization, but there's a good argument it's not covered by the AUMF.
The strikes in Pakistan, Iraq and Libya are probably technically internationally legal, because an arguably sovereign government has invited the Americans in (in Libya's case, one of three "governments" did). Whether they're actually authorized under domestic law by the AUMF, I dunno.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:38 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we are still secretly funding death squads
Your rulers prefer the term "moderate rebels" for their beneficiaries these days.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:39 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Your rulers prefer the term "moderate rebels" for their beneficiaries these days.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:39 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bill Clinton normalized this with tomahawk cruise missiles decades ago.
posted by aydeejones at 2:43 PM on August 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by aydeejones at 2:43 PM on August 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
It actually informs my opinion A LOT that drone use has expanded during his presidency. I take that to be an indication that they meet Obama's goals as closely as possible given all the circumstances.
So, it's a just action because it's a done by a just president, who we know to be just because he takes just actions?
Yep, no circular logic there. None.
Still smells like a war crime to me.
posted by signal at 2:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
So, it's a just action because it's a done by a just president, who we know to be just because he takes just actions?
Yep, no circular logic there. None.
Still smells like a war crime to me.
posted by signal at 2:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hillary is almost certainly not going to reign this in, and the "drone warfare is better than carpet bombing" false dilemma is being pounded (promoted that is) hard by her surrogates.
posted by aydeejones at 2:46 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by aydeejones at 2:46 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Perhaps the only good thing a Trump presidency could bring would be a chance that American war criminals would face justice.
Can't. Tell. If. Serious.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:46 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Can't. Tell. If. Serious.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:46 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
If we are still secretly funding death squads and I just don't know it, well, then this is even worse.
Do you really need to ask?
I guess one could debate how secret it is.
posted by atoxyl at 2:52 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do you really need to ask?
I guess one could debate how secret it is.
posted by atoxyl at 2:52 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Before 9/11 there was a ton of deliberation as to whether "targeted killings" were a lesser evil than tomahawk attacks and the like. The tomahawk was the predator of its time. Israel's Mossad was notorious for surgical assassinations that don't create any collateral damage. I see the false dilemma as being between drone warfare and all out war or even funding death squads. If we're going to assassinate people I think we do need more skin in the game. More SEALS and the like, like the special ops team at Tora Bora that had a chance to kill bin Laden forever ago. These sorts of killings still rile up tension but it's far easier to justify them to foreign governments and get away with less resentment overseas when you're specifically shooting a couple of clearly identified enemies with well placed sniper fire.
posted by aydeejones at 2:53 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aydeejones at 2:53 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
In attack on Trump, Clinton accidentally admits drone killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki may have been a war crime.
posted by lalochezia at 2:53 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 2:53 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton's foreign policy is the one thing I have serious moral reservations against. I'm planning to vote for her, because the alternative is worse -- but I believe that in order not to be complicit (as a voter, and as a citizen more generally), I need to do more to fight these policies.
So, what is the most effective way to do this? Voting for candidates with better foreign policy positions in all possible races is already on my list. Donating money is not, because I'm poor. Volunteering is not because I will be overseas (although it's not out of the question when I get back). Are there organizations etc that have action plans I could read about?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:02 PM on August 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
So, what is the most effective way to do this? Voting for candidates with better foreign policy positions in all possible races is already on my list. Donating money is not, because I'm poor. Volunteering is not because I will be overseas (although it's not out of the question when I get back). Are there organizations etc that have action plans I could read about?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:02 PM on August 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Where his blanket authorization derives from is not important, as far as I am concerned.
It's very important to me, and I like to think I'm not alone. The buck has to stop somewhere. Once you start taking lives, I want accountability.
I'll freely admit that were this Bush's drone program we were talking about, or, god forbid, Trump's, I would not feel as sanguine about the moral calculus leading to their use.
Because you are an honest and thoughtful man. For which reason I want to know, any thoughts as to why? I find it hard to give someone a moral pass just because I happen to like them.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:11 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's very important to me, and I like to think I'm not alone. The buck has to stop somewhere. Once you start taking lives, I want accountability.
I'll freely admit that were this Bush's drone program we were talking about, or, god forbid, Trump's, I would not feel as sanguine about the moral calculus leading to their use.
Because you are an honest and thoughtful man. For which reason I want to know, any thoughts as to why? I find it hard to give someone a moral pass just because I happen to like them.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:11 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
He was never anti-war. He was anti-"dumb war" ie Iraq. Drones are basically his ideal method and people should have realised he'd do this kind of stuff. It was totally clear that he would judiciously apply American military force where he thought it necessary.
posted by knapah at 3:16 PM on August 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by knapah at 3:16 PM on August 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
atoxyl, I should have phrased my question better. Is the US funding death squads these days? Or did we get out of the business and they're now sponsored by either other governments or corporations?
posted by Hactar at 3:22 PM on August 10, 2016
posted by Hactar at 3:22 PM on August 10, 2016
I find it hard to give someone a moral pass just because I happen to like them.
Family man, tall, soaring oratorical prowess, extremely attractive by virtually any metric you could use, good singer, amazing smile...it gets a bit tricky with those types.
posted by todayandtomorrow at 3:27 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Family man, tall, soaring oratorical prowess, extremely attractive by virtually any metric you could use, good singer, amazing smile...it gets a bit tricky with those types.
posted by todayandtomorrow at 3:27 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
atoxyl, I should have phrased my question better. Is the US funding death squads these days? Or did we get out of the business and they're now sponsored by either other governments or corporations?
Did you read my links? I would argue we are.
posted by atoxyl at 3:44 PM on August 10, 2016
Did you read my links? I would argue we are.
posted by atoxyl at 3:44 PM on August 10, 2016
If someone wants to argue it's not the same they can go ahead. But it certainly appears that we have recently been providing material support to a coup regime which fields death squads.
posted by atoxyl at 3:51 PM on August 10, 2016
posted by atoxyl at 3:51 PM on August 10, 2016
I'm confused about the claim that these drone strikes are happening outside war zones. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc seem to be areas of ongoing significant conflict.
posted by humanfont at 4:07 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 4:07 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Area of significant ongoing conflict" is not "war zone" except in a colloquial sense. I mentioned the Constitution above for a reason, because while the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces the power to declare War resides with Congress.
Invading and bombing sovereign nations without a declaration of war was a crime when Bush did it, it continues to be a crime while Obama does it, and it will still be a crime when Clinton does it.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:23 PM on August 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Invading and bombing sovereign nations without a declaration of war was a crime when Bush did it, it continues to be a crime while Obama does it, and it will still be a crime when Clinton does it.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:23 PM on August 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
keep going
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia to name but a few...
posted by lalochezia at 4:25 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
keep going
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia to name but a few...
posted by lalochezia at 4:25 PM on August 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
To critically evaluate drone warfare, citizens would do well revisit or learn about the Vietnam protests, and think about how the ideas they tried to protect applies today in face of new technology. Not sure what more needs to be said.
posted by polymodus at 4:55 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 4:55 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The US continues to use its 70,000 "elite special forces" to engage in military actions in non-conflict zones. Some of these acts are what I would call the acts of a 'death squad'. It is not a secret. The world outside the US is not lying, nor is it mistaken in its belief the US is the greatest perpetrator of terrorism on this planet.
Calling the use of a drone to drop a 500lb bomb on the suspected location of a mobile phone a "targeted assassination program" is part of the problem. The use of drones are not a replacement for ground warfare, they are an excessive use of force to kill without trial or presumption of innocence, with little to no regard for civilian casualty or destruction of private property, in countries where no official conflict has been declared or their use is pushed on that country despite protestation.
This position would have been taken for granted 20 years ago. Technical ability and a hawkish desire for vengence and cash flow does not change the ethics.
posted by bigZLiLk at 5:21 PM on August 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Calling the use of a drone to drop a 500lb bomb on the suspected location of a mobile phone a "targeted assassination program" is part of the problem. The use of drones are not a replacement for ground warfare, they are an excessive use of force to kill without trial or presumption of innocence, with little to no regard for civilian casualty or destruction of private property, in countries where no official conflict has been declared or their use is pushed on that country despite protestation.
This position would have been taken for granted 20 years ago. Technical ability and a hawkish desire for vengence and cash flow does not change the ethics.
posted by bigZLiLk at 5:21 PM on August 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Interesting fact. JFKs brother was killed flying a early protype of a drone; a WW2 autopilot flying bomb.
posted by clavdivs at 5:53 PM on August 10, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 5:53 PM on August 10, 2016
The AUMF is fairly clearly unconstitutional, and certainly deeply immoral in the sense that it is exactly the sort of thing the Founders were attempting to prevent by ensuring that only Congress can declare war. A blanket, unending authorization to do warlike stuff wherever you want with virtually no democratic oversight is itself a travesty of democracy. The fact that Obama uses that freedom not just to bomb middle eastern countries at will, but to push the left into accepting a new definition of "war" that allows any killing in any area with violence, is an even worse disaster.
Here's the thing about legacies. You can do a million great things, but all you have to do is rape (at least) one slave, or assassinate a few dozen innocent civilians, and that's it -- your legacy is garbage. Yes, it's unfair that "war criminal" is such a loose term that it encompasses both Bush and Obama, when the former was a thousand times worse than the latter. But that's the thing about really bad stuff -- it doesn't take much to convict (morally; legally, of course, there's no hope). History is a slow but a tough judge, and unlikely be swayed by charisma, other good acts, or the fact that the alternatives (arguably including Clinton) are likely worse.
posted by chortly at 6:00 PM on August 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Here's the thing about legacies. You can do a million great things, but all you have to do is rape (at least) one slave, or assassinate a few dozen innocent civilians, and that's it -- your legacy is garbage. Yes, it's unfair that "war criminal" is such a loose term that it encompasses both Bush and Obama, when the former was a thousand times worse than the latter. But that's the thing about really bad stuff -- it doesn't take much to convict (morally; legally, of course, there's no hope). History is a slow but a tough judge, and unlikely be swayed by charisma, other good acts, or the fact that the alternatives (arguably including Clinton) are likely worse.
posted by chortly at 6:00 PM on August 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
The other way to look at it is that drones are used in place of larger conventional assaults
a stirring defense of death squads for sure. however, the moral sanctimony of this "argument" is perhaps more grotesque than the argument itself. kill if you must, but don't try to convince yourself that it's a good thing.
anyway, aside from the original sin against the Indians, the modern American death squad goes back to the colonization of the Philippines after the Spanish American war. it's been a centerpiece of practically every American presidents policy portfolio since then. people get hung up on the technology, but the policy has stayed remarkably constant: defeat the rebellious natives by waging an unrelenting campaign of murder.
Philippines
Mexico
Guatemala
Panama
El Salvador
Honduras
Vietnam
and on and on...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:50 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
a stirring defense of death squads for sure. however, the moral sanctimony of this "argument" is perhaps more grotesque than the argument itself. kill if you must, but don't try to convince yourself that it's a good thing.
anyway, aside from the original sin against the Indians, the modern American death squad goes back to the colonization of the Philippines after the Spanish American war. it's been a centerpiece of practically every American presidents policy portfolio since then. people get hung up on the technology, but the policy has stayed remarkably constant: defeat the rebellious natives by waging an unrelenting campaign of murder.
Philippines
Mexico
Guatemala
Panama
El Salvador
Honduras
Vietnam
and on and on...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:50 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Obama seems fairly comfortable with his legacy, given that his final State of the Union contained an enumeration of the people he's had killed.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:17 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:17 PM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't worry about Obama's legacy, and clearly neither does he. He joked about calling drone strikes on people who would date his daughter. He's not ashamed at all; he likes drone strikes and thinks we should too.
I worry that the true legacy of the drone program is that it is now acceptable to the mainstream Left. It was clearly wrong when Bush did it, but now, well, we need to defend ourselves somehow, and this seems to be the best way. I've been hearing that argument for years, while the strikes were at their highest, while the death-by-drone of a 16 year old US citizen was all over the news. "Look, we should defend ourselves against people who want us dead."
We've known for years that "enemy combatant" is literally any man of a certain age in a hostile zone. We know about "double taps," where we – our commander in chief, acting on behalf of the American people – will bomb someplace, wait for people to rush in to aid survivors, and bomb again. Do those "enemy combatants" represent an imminent threat?
I said before that this article made for an incomplete discussion, and what I meant by that is that for all its criticism of the drone program, it still accepts that the people killed are, indeed, combatants. That they do, naturally, represent an imminent threat. To talk about drones without addressing those points means quietly accepting that it's all true, that these people are an imminent threat, and that it's us or them. And Obama is just such a wonderful guy that there's no reason to doubt that this is true. And I worry that we've gotten to the point where that will always be what frames the conversation among Serious people. We'll always need to defend ourselves, right? So now we can talk about it, casually.
posted by teponaztli at 10:09 PM on August 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I worry that the true legacy of the drone program is that it is now acceptable to the mainstream Left. It was clearly wrong when Bush did it, but now, well, we need to defend ourselves somehow, and this seems to be the best way. I've been hearing that argument for years, while the strikes were at their highest, while the death-by-drone of a 16 year old US citizen was all over the news. "Look, we should defend ourselves against people who want us dead."
We've known for years that "enemy combatant" is literally any man of a certain age in a hostile zone. We know about "double taps," where we – our commander in chief, acting on behalf of the American people – will bomb someplace, wait for people to rush in to aid survivors, and bomb again. Do those "enemy combatants" represent an imminent threat?
I said before that this article made for an incomplete discussion, and what I meant by that is that for all its criticism of the drone program, it still accepts that the people killed are, indeed, combatants. That they do, naturally, represent an imminent threat. To talk about drones without addressing those points means quietly accepting that it's all true, that these people are an imminent threat, and that it's us or them. And Obama is just such a wonderful guy that there's no reason to doubt that this is true. And I worry that we've gotten to the point where that will always be what frames the conversation among Serious people. We'll always need to defend ourselves, right? So now we can talk about it, casually.
posted by teponaztli at 10:09 PM on August 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
The question pundits should be asking themselves is this: Had Obama announced on August 7, 2014, that he planned on bombing four countries and deploying troops to two of them to fight a war with “no end point,” would the American public have gone along with it?
And the answer to that question, whether you like it or not, is that the majority of Americans back drone attacks in the Middle East. 58% approve and only 35% disapprove. Even among Democrats 52% approve and 39% disapprove.
Republicans in particular have ramped up the fear of ISIS so that Americans pretty much will go along with anything.
posted by JackFlash at 10:22 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
And the answer to that question, whether you like it or not, is that the majority of Americans back drone attacks in the Middle East. 58% approve and only 35% disapprove. Even among Democrats 52% approve and 39% disapprove.
Republicans in particular have ramped up the fear of ISIS so that Americans pretty much will go along with anything.
posted by JackFlash at 10:22 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ignorance, parochialism, narrow minded black and white judgements, all of these and and an education system that doesn't teach geography as a subject, taken together are extremely concerning to those less privileged.
Twice in the past couple of weeks, women in scarves have been offloaded from their flights because crewmembers of US owned airlines felt threatened. This level of fear is also one of the factors for a Trump presidency. And this collective PTSD is an additional burden for the rest of the planet to bear along with airborne vectors of that trauma.
posted by infini at 1:04 AM on August 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Twice in the past couple of weeks, women in scarves have been offloaded from their flights because crewmembers of US owned airlines felt threatened. This level of fear is also one of the factors for a Trump presidency. And this collective PTSD is an additional burden for the rest of the planet to bear along with airborne vectors of that trauma.
posted by infini at 1:04 AM on August 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
With no proof that "drone diplomacy" makes America safer long term. None.
posted by Beholder at 1:34 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Beholder at 1:34 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
We're normalizing assassination politics so eventually it'll get used against us. Just because we use flying robots changes nothing.
Also, these drones will become smaller, cheaper, and smarter until everyone can build and use them. Yeah, a killer drone built by modifying kids toys will not be nearly as reliable as a military drone built, but it'll become effective enough.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:17 AM on August 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, these drones will become smaller, cheaper, and smarter until everyone can build and use them. Yeah, a killer drone built by modifying kids toys will not be nearly as reliable as a military drone built, but it'll become effective enough.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:17 AM on August 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
One is that drones are used to kill people because it is easy and pain-free (for the US), and therefore they lead to more killing by the US over time, and more civilian deaths. I assume that this is the position of most people who think that the drone program is morally abhorrent. The other way to look at it is that drones are used in place of larger conventional assaults, and therefore, since conventional assaults kill more people and cause more infrastructure damage, the drone program actually saves lives.
I don't think there's any argument that these are both valid ways of looking at drone strikes. The question is, which is the one actually taking place on the ground, and on whose evidence and word are you making your assumption? I think it's safe to say neither the US government nor the media no longer deserve any such trust. So your information must be coming from elsewhere . Where is that?
posted by vanar sena at 2:37 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think there's any argument that these are both valid ways of looking at drone strikes. The question is, which is the one actually taking place on the ground, and on whose evidence and word are you making your assumption? I think it's safe to say neither the US government nor the media no longer deserve any such trust. So your information must be coming from elsewhere . Where is that?
posted by vanar sena at 2:37 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just wait until our troops have to deal with IFEDs (improvised flying explosive devices) in addition to IEDs, or some diplomats convoy is targeted by a swarm of explosive packed drones, automated to fly to a target and detonate with no further human intervention. Then we will finally get a taste of the anonymous dread and terror and rage our drone program already inspires.
posted by Chrischris at 3:48 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrischris at 3:48 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would like to know if these attacks would be labelled "terrorism" by the US:
1) truck bomb on drone pilot facilities
2) drone attack on US military or political figures in the USA
3) targeted assassinations of drone pilots while out shopping, while they sleep, etc.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:51 AM on August 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
1) truck bomb on drone pilot facilities
2) drone attack on US military or political figures in the USA
3) targeted assassinations of drone pilots while out shopping, while they sleep, etc.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:51 AM on August 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
We know about "double taps," where we – our commander in chief, acting on behalf of the American people – will bomb someplace, wait for people to rush in to aid survivors, and bomb again."Look for the helpers, and then take them out with secondary hellfire missile attacks"—Fred Rogers (feat. B. Obama), 2016 remix version.
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:00 AM on August 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
meatbomb, one would think that if one had had the experience of having something done to one's own community, one would be less likely to hypocritically condone it for "the Other" but there's something about brown skin that seems to lower the barriers to such considerations.
posted by infini at 4:20 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by infini at 4:20 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know if anyone's had a chance to look at Rosa Brooks's How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon, which has just come out, but she makes some apposite points about the legal and governance issues raised by the normalisation of drone assassination:
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:59 AM on August 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
When we lose the ability to draw clear, consistent distinctions between war and not-war, we lose any principled basis for making the most vital decisions a democracy can make: Which matters, if any, should be beyond the scope of judicial review? When can a government have “secret laws”? When can the state monitor its citizens’ phone calls and email? Who can be imprisoned and with what degree, if any, of due process? Where, when, and against whom can lethal force be used? Should we consider U.S. drone strikes in Yemen or Libya the lawful wartime targeting of enemy combatants or nothing more than simple murder?Rosa Brooks, How the Pentagon Became Walmart, Foreign Policy (9 August 2016)
Rosa Brooks’ new book opens with a striking anecdote from her time working in the Pentagon during the first Obama administration.Jeb Sharp, For Rosa Brooks, how drones turned from the abstract to the stuff of nightmares, PRI (8 August 2016)
Brooks was counselor to Michele Fluornoy, then the under secretary of defense for policy. She recounts attending a briefing on an impending drone strike in 2010, witnessing the careful but bureaucratic machinations that go on as officials review intelligence on the terrorism suspect who is the target. As she sits there, the meeting doesn’t strike her as particularly unusual. If anything, it’s almost humdrum and routine.
She doesn’t think about it again until she’s eating dinner with her kids a few days later and the phone rings. It’s a colleague calling to let her know that the “window of opportunity” they were hoping for had opened up, meaning the drone strike had been carried out and the targeted individual was dead. They couldn’t say much more on the phone. Brooks went back to the dinner table.
“And then that night I had a terrible nightmare,” she recalls. “A terrible nightmare. It still scares to think of it, this awful nightmare of someone I loved, murdered, and body parts all over, and I kind of woke up shaking and it sort of hit me, whoa, you know on some level I should have known this already, but you go to work at the Pentagon and even if you’re not the one who pulls any triggers ever or gives any orders, you’re part of a vast bureaucratic enterprise that kills people, that reaches down out of the sky and kills people, thousands of miles away.”
Lest you think that means Brooks opposes drones strikes, it’s not that simple. Nothing is, in her analysis. In her latest book, "How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything," she views changing national security dynamics through a nuanced lens that reflects the many parts of herself: child of peaceniks,* human rights advocate, wife of an Army Green Beret, law scholar, Pentagon official, foreign policy thinker.
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:59 AM on August 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
meatbomb, one would think that if one had had the experience of having something done to one's own community, one would be less likely to hypocritically condone it for "the Other"
Sadly, we know abuse victims are more, not less likely to become abusers themselves. I doubt humanity suddenly becomes more emotionally rational at the collective level. In fact, aren't most conflict regions just basically places where one oppressed group fought and won control, kept punishing the oppressors so long the former oppressors cause became righteous enough to trigger further conflict? Humans seem to be wired to fight injustice with more injustice.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:00 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sadly, we know abuse victims are more, not less likely to become abusers themselves. I doubt humanity suddenly becomes more emotionally rational at the collective level. In fact, aren't most conflict regions just basically places where one oppressed group fought and won control, kept punishing the oppressors so long the former oppressors cause became righteous enough to trigger further conflict? Humans seem to be wired to fight injustice with more injustice.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:00 AM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you accept that government is essentially a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force and, as Webber says, "this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state", what the US is saying, by seeing themselves as being entitled to murder people anywhere in the world and doing so openly and 'legally', is that they're a form of world government.
Which I have have like 99 different kinds of problems with, but how likeable Obama seems to be ain't one.
posted by signal at 7:20 AM on August 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Which I have have like 99 different kinds of problems with, but how likeable Obama seems to be ain't one.
posted by signal at 7:20 AM on August 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
In fact, aren't most conflict regions just basically places where one oppressed group fought and won control, kept punishing the oppressors so long the former oppressors cause became righteous enough to trigger further conflict?Well, if you completely ignore religion, ideology, geopolitics, and the competition among great powers for resources, energy supplies, and access to markets, maybe ...
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:31 AM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Invading and bombing sovereign nations without a declaration of war was a crime when Bush did it, it continues to be a crime while Obama does it, and it will still be a crime when Clinton does it."
How about Kennedy or Johnson and Nixon (perhaps Ford) Carter...what is truly appalling is making excuses for Obama or "Bush lite" comments that make a mockery of comparitive analysis. History becomes the conflation retort of the vocal and mystified.
Grow up America.
posted by clavdivs at 8:40 AM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about Kennedy or Johnson and Nixon (perhaps Ford) Carter...what is truly appalling is making excuses for Obama or "Bush lite" comments that make a mockery of comparitive analysis. History becomes the conflation retort of the vocal and mystified.
Grow up America.
posted by clavdivs at 8:40 AM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, if you completely ignore religion, ideology, geopolitics, and the competition among great powers for resources, energy supplies, and access to markets, maybe ...
Aren't most of those conflicts about power more than belief, though? The Catholic church has it's own bank for a reason. If it were purely about belief, there'd be no conflict. It's about having the power to impose a dominant group's beliefs and priorities on everybody. That's usually what's called oppression, isn't it?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:31 AM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Aren't most of those conflicts about power more than belief, though? The Catholic church has it's own bank for a reason. If it were purely about belief, there'd be no conflict. It's about having the power to impose a dominant group's beliefs and priorities on everybody. That's usually what's called oppression, isn't it?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:31 AM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Humans seem to be wired to fight injustice with more injustice."
This is from your perspective, to those fighting, countering an injustice with another injustice may not seem to be injustice at all.
posted by clavdivs at 10:00 AM on August 11, 2016
This is from your perspective, to those fighting, countering an injustice with another injustice may not seem to be injustice at all.
posted by clavdivs at 10:00 AM on August 11, 2016
Americans=privileged
Poor third-worlders=vulnerable and oppressed
Like literally being killed dead by our government. Yet we have folks on this supposedly progressive website hemming and hawing about the moral calculus...because....Obama. Fuck. That. Noise.
Even worse, the argument has somehow become about what method of murder is more efficient and effective. The incipient fascism festering in America is metastacizing. When so-called progressives have reached the point where they can casually talk about murdering human beings in such urbane, and dare I say banal, language the dominant form of liberalism in this country would seem to have lost its way beyond any hope of salvation.
At least previous Presidents felt the need to hide similar activities from the American people and Congress. That we aren't rioting in the streets is a damning indictment of our moral character. We are a country of preening, self-serving moral cowards.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:12 AM on August 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Poor third-worlders=vulnerable and oppressed
Like literally being killed dead by our government. Yet we have folks on this supposedly progressive website hemming and hawing about the moral calculus...because....Obama. Fuck. That. Noise.
Even worse, the argument has somehow become about what method of murder is more efficient and effective. The incipient fascism festering in America is metastacizing. When so-called progressives have reached the point where they can casually talk about murdering human beings in such urbane, and dare I say banal, language the dominant form of liberalism in this country would seem to have lost its way beyond any hope of salvation.
At least previous Presidents felt the need to hide similar activities from the American people and Congress. That we aren't rioting in the streets is a damning indictment of our moral character. We are a country of preening, self-serving moral cowards.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:12 AM on August 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
We tried taking to the streets. It didn't work.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:39 AM on August 11, 2016
posted by tobascodagama at 10:39 AM on August 11, 2016
Then you have failed history and do not blame anyone but yourself.
I would love to slap "progressive" label on these actions but it's closer to old school anarchy labels that conflate real problems to perceptions of injustice. The reason there are no wide scale riots is futility and second guessing/ hand wringing. It is as though there seems to be an explanation for every bad deed and its fix is mere interpolation.
posted by clavdivs at 10:47 AM on August 11, 2016
I would love to slap "progressive" label on these actions but it's closer to old school anarchy labels that conflate real problems to perceptions of injustice. The reason there are no wide scale riots is futility and second guessing/ hand wringing. It is as though there seems to be an explanation for every bad deed and its fix is mere interpolation.
posted by clavdivs at 10:47 AM on August 11, 2016
As a third worlder born in one of history's poorest hellholes (albeit, I acknowledge, privileged) I cannot see the endpoint to this except more and more and more. At some point, I tell myself in the deep of the night, the tide has to turn, must turn, before more adn more and more of those who look like me are devastated. This is one reason, probably the main reason, I walked out and abandoned my residence 9 years ago, to prevent my taxes from paying for this banality.
posted by infini at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2016
posted by infini at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2016
Yet we have folks on this supposedly progressive website hemming and hawing about the moral calculus...
Hope you didn't mean me. I'm definitely not with Obama or most of the voting public on the use of military drones. My point was meant to augment and consider the context not to rebut any previous comments.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:07 AM on August 11, 2016
Hope you didn't mean me. I'm definitely not with Obama or most of the voting public on the use of military drones. My point was meant to augment and consider the context not to rebut any previous comments.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:07 AM on August 11, 2016
"The third peculiarity of aerial warfare was that it was at once enormously destructive and entirely indecisive"
-H.G. Wells. The War in the Air, 1907.
posted by clavdivs at 12:43 PM on August 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
-H.G. Wells. The War in the Air, 1907.
posted by clavdivs at 12:43 PM on August 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hope you didn't mean me.
I mean you, me...all of us.
Then you have failed history and do not blame anyone but yourself.
I do blame myself. I pay taxes for this shit. I am no moral paragon.
Unlike the majority of Americans I have traveled and lived among populations directly affected by American Imperialism. So believe me when I say that I take this shit very seriously and have spent countless nights in the bottom of a bottle because of it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:48 PM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean you, me...all of us.
Then you have failed history and do not blame anyone but yourself.
I do blame myself. I pay taxes for this shit. I am no moral paragon.
Unlike the majority of Americans I have traveled and lived among populations directly affected by American Imperialism. So believe me when I say that I take this shit very seriously and have spent countless nights in the bottom of a bottle because of it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:48 PM on August 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Like literally being killed dead by our government. Yet we have folks on this supposedly progressive website hemming and hawing about the moral calculus...because....Obama. Fuck. That. Noise.
Even worse, the argument has somehow become about what method of murder is more efficient and effective. The incipient fascism festering in America is metastacizing. When so-called progressives have reached the point where they can casually talk about murdering human beings in such urbane, and dare I say banal, language the dominant form of liberalism in this country would seem to have lost its way beyond any hope of salvation.
It's armed conflict. If we take for granted in a given situation that diplomacy has failed or is no longer an option and people are going to be shooting at each other with guns or conventional bombs or worse, then the inescapable conclusion is that some people on either side are going to die. Because of this, any time you have armed conflict between nations, there should be moral calculus. So that civilian and military casualties on both sides are deliberately kept to a minimum and wholesale slaughter is prevented. We want our leaders to embrace those ideals.
This is certainly not a new or progressive concept.
There are a lot of issues here that can be discussed. Including that drones are being used extralegally, that attempting to avoid mass civilian casualties does not absolve us of killing them, that we would never, ever allow another country to bomb our military or government installations and use "We are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid the loss of innocent civilian life" as an excuse, that because warfare by remote is easier than sending in troops there's a danger that it will become an increasingly common choice rather than diplomacy or negotiation.... the list goes on and on.
But complaining about the use of moral calculus in armed conflict makes no sense unless you're calling for an end to all wars and armed conflicts everywhere. Unless everyone agrees to stop fighting with each other, that seems exceedingly unlikely.
posted by zarq at 1:31 PM on August 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Even worse, the argument has somehow become about what method of murder is more efficient and effective. The incipient fascism festering in America is metastacizing. When so-called progressives have reached the point where they can casually talk about murdering human beings in such urbane, and dare I say banal, language the dominant form of liberalism in this country would seem to have lost its way beyond any hope of salvation.
It's armed conflict. If we take for granted in a given situation that diplomacy has failed or is no longer an option and people are going to be shooting at each other with guns or conventional bombs or worse, then the inescapable conclusion is that some people on either side are going to die. Because of this, any time you have armed conflict between nations, there should be moral calculus. So that civilian and military casualties on both sides are deliberately kept to a minimum and wholesale slaughter is prevented. We want our leaders to embrace those ideals.
This is certainly not a new or progressive concept.
There are a lot of issues here that can be discussed. Including that drones are being used extralegally, that attempting to avoid mass civilian casualties does not absolve us of killing them, that we would never, ever allow another country to bomb our military or government installations and use "We are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid the loss of innocent civilian life" as an excuse, that because warfare by remote is easier than sending in troops there's a danger that it will become an increasingly common choice rather than diplomacy or negotiation.... the list goes on and on.
But complaining about the use of moral calculus in armed conflict makes no sense unless you're calling for an end to all wars and armed conflicts everywhere. Unless everyone agrees to stop fighting with each other, that seems exceedingly unlikely.
posted by zarq at 1:31 PM on August 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Part of moral calculus is stratagem. One of the oldest precepts of warfare is take the fight to the enemy before they bring it to you.
How's that working for us.
posted by clavdivs at 3:14 PM on August 11, 2016
How's that working for us.
posted by clavdivs at 3:14 PM on August 11, 2016
Chemical weapons attacks in Syria may normalise war crimes, experts warn
posted by rosswald at 7:52 PM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rosswald at 7:52 PM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I refuse to accept the premises that armed conflict in these areas is a given, and that the US is going to continue dealing with the world by holding it at gunpoint. I think we are using drone strikes in a lot of areas and situations where violence would otherwise not be feasible or politically expedient, and that using them in this way creates a stepping stone on the path to war that didn't exist before. I think that US foreign policy is far, far too bellicose and that one of the major goals of the political left in this country should be changing that stance such that the rest of the world sees us as a positive or at least neutral entity, rather than as "those people who will blow up your family if they don't like you, and there's nothing you can do about it."
Military action should not be such a central, normalized part of how we deal with the rest of the world. It should be exceptional, truly a means of last resort. Obama's drone program has increased the already grossly outsize role that violence plays in US foreign policy, and from both a moral and a political perspective I see that as a great wrong. We need to learn to talk more, or at least to live and let live more. Even from a purely humanitarian perspective, it seems obvious to me that our decades-long practice of trying to fix places by blowing them up has failed. I can't imagine why anybody ever thought it would work, but anyway it hasn't—it's made things much worse, and continues to do so. We're the powerful ones here. We're the ones who have the luxury of walking away from the fight. We need to step up, show the world what a mature, fearless, free, peace-loving society looks like, and break the cycle of violence. We can't bomb our way to peace. War breeds war.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:08 AM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Military action should not be such a central, normalized part of how we deal with the rest of the world. It should be exceptional, truly a means of last resort. Obama's drone program has increased the already grossly outsize role that violence plays in US foreign policy, and from both a moral and a political perspective I see that as a great wrong. We need to learn to talk more, or at least to live and let live more. Even from a purely humanitarian perspective, it seems obvious to me that our decades-long practice of trying to fix places by blowing them up has failed. I can't imagine why anybody ever thought it would work, but anyway it hasn't—it's made things much worse, and continues to do so. We're the powerful ones here. We're the ones who have the luxury of walking away from the fight. We need to step up, show the world what a mature, fearless, free, peace-loving society looks like, and break the cycle of violence. We can't bomb our way to peace. War breeds war.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:08 AM on August 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also, I think that we need to collectively realize that in a lot of situations there is no right action we can take, that as bad as a situation might be and as much as we want to change it, anything we do is going to make it worse. We need to learn that sometimes non-action is the wisest course, even if it's painful, even if people are suffering. I think a lot of people in this country, especially on the political left, justify war and violence in general by saying that it's the only choice left when something terrible is happening in the world or something is happening in the world that threatens our safety or values, and talking has failed. That's false: we can always choose to do nothing. It hurts, but we need to accept that very often resorting to violence is worse than doing nothing, because it worsens the situation—look at Iraq for a recent example, where we deposed a vile dictator and made things much worse as a result. We need to temper our desire to intervene, even when our goals are laudable.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:14 AM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:14 AM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Libya is the better example. At least Saddam invaded something.
posted by clavdivs at 6:57 AM on August 12, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 6:57 AM on August 12, 2016
But complaining about the use of moral calculus in armed conflict makes no sense
My problem isn't the use of moral calculus. It's the normalization and white washing of atrocities by the so-called progressives.
It's armed conflict.
Of whose creation? And for whose benefit? And to which armed conflict are you even referring?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:13 AM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
My problem isn't the use of moral calculus. It's the normalization and white washing of atrocities by the so-called progressives.
It's armed conflict.
Of whose creation? And for whose benefit? And to which armed conflict are you even referring?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:13 AM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I try to think about how I'd react. Let's say the US government thinks a guy in my (US) neighborhood is a terrorist so they target him. My kids are outside and get killed in the strike. I like to think I'd turn the other cheek, but more likely it's Game On as I get revenge on everyone I can remotely connect to the perpetrators. People can only be pushed so far.
We don't need to be breeding that kind of resentment all over the world.
posted by freecellwizard at 10:52 AM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
We don't need to be breeding that kind of resentment all over the world.
posted by freecellwizard at 10:52 AM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, one does not even need an army of revenge-seekers - one just needs a large population who have lost family, colleagues, friends, doctors, teachers, etc under horrifying, tragic circumstances and who therefore are all like "Oh, you expect me to cooperate when you are looking for suicide bombers? I see. Yeah, it sure would be sad if someone killed your family at random, wouldn't it." A few actual violent people and a sea of people who are sad and angry enough that they either support those people or turn a blind eye.
posted by Frowner at 12:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:04 PM on August 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Imaginary revenge fantasies of how you would respond to a hypothetical drone strike are not reflective of the realities of life in these areas. Life in those places isn't some quiet, peaceful thing punctuated by a US drone strike. It is a life under constant violence and threat of violence. The drones are just one more element, but hardly the most significant. Mostly people are just trying to get away or avoid provoking the local thugs. That's the human reaction to that kind of fear.
If people reacted as you expect; these thugs would have been run off long ago. Most of the recruits are from these incidents don't come from the neighborhood of the strike. They get recruited from more comfortable places where people were lured by propaganda and fantasies of revenge.
posted by humanfont at 5:42 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
If people reacted as you expect; these thugs would have been run off long ago. Most of the recruits are from these incidents don't come from the neighborhood of the strike. They get recruited from more comfortable places where people were lured by propaganda and fantasies of revenge.
posted by humanfont at 5:42 PM on August 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
In a very short space of time, less than two decades, the demonization of the brown has come to resemble the centuries long demonization of the black.
posted by infini at 12:15 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 12:15 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
it seems drone operators spend more time with the target then traditional air strikes with pilots. I guess that dispels all the remote, emotionless target malarkey.
posted by clavdivs at 7:29 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 7:29 AM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The folks in Manjib Syria seem pretty pleased with the outcome of recent drone strikes on their city Even though it was no without tragedy.
posted by humanfont at 3:24 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 3:24 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
'Drones playbook' shows key role played by White House staff in deadly strikes
posted by homunculus at 6:04 PM on August 13, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:04 PM on August 13, 2016
Who’s Next To Borrow from America’s Drone Strike “Playbook”?
posted by homunculus at 6:05 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:05 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older The Sudden Closure of Canada's Only Deepwater... | Madam you have got to be joking. You cannot... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is probably the one horrific thing that I place squarely at Obama's feet. To me, it's an unanswerable crime that cannot possibly be morally justified. It also seems incredibly, blatantly counterproductive. I'd like to say that I hope Clinton will put a stop to the practice if elected, but I very much doubt it. I think this is one of those things that there's no going back from—short of an international accord (which the US would never agree to be party to) drone assassinations are now the new normal.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 1:22 PM on August 10, 2016 [46 favorites]