So what is it exactly? Let's assume it's not just the fact that we are killing al Qaeda affiliates. I opposed the Iraq war. I was fine with Afghanistan. I will leave aside for the moment the group of you that don't think we should be taking military action against al Qaeda at all.
So given that, what is it exactly?
When we send troops into an area it's based on some kind of intelligence about al Qaeda or Taliban activity in that area. Often we may even know the identity of the leader that's there. So in that sense it's every bit as much a "targeted killing" as the drone attacks, right? I'm guessing in almost all cases it's not an American citizen (I personally don't see why that makes a difference if he's fighting with the enemy in a war, but I know that complicates things for some people - so let's just leave that aside too since in most cases it will not be an American citizen).
So it's probably not that we're killing them. It's probably not that we are targeting who we are trying to kill based on intelligence.
So what is it? Collateral damage? I could be wrong, but I'd assume collateral damage is much lower for drones than for boots on the ground. That seems to be one of the key points recommending drones!
Not collateral damage. Not the targeted killing aspect.
The other thing you hear is that because it's all by remote control it doesn't put us at risk so we are more reckless with it.
But this sounds like an absurd argument at best and an offensive one at worst. If what we want is skin in the game, then we don't we bring back the draft and send them into combat in boxer shorts weilding paintball guns? I mean, seriously. Are people being genuine with this one? Is conducting war less safely for our troops really the moral high ground?
I don't get it - on what level are drones not morally superior to normal military operations?
If you're referring to posts like mine, I was thinking of al-Awlaki, and you'll notice my objection was to the "secret trial/evidence/justification", and the fact the crime was (very arguably) constitutionally protected. I was not objecting to the technology per se, or even differentiating based on his citizenship.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato-unbound.org/january-2012-how-drones-are-changing-warfare/
ReplyDeleteAside from dehumanizing war to both the public and the drone operators, there aren't a lot of arguments against the mere idea of flying death robots.
ReplyDeleteMost people who express disdain for the drone program are bothered in the sense of how drones are actually being used:
1) Targeting rescuers of drone victims
2) Targeting funerals of drone victims
3) Targeting children of drone victims
4) Defining any military-aged male as a militant, unless proven innocent post-mortem
5) Targeting domestic civilians for 'surveillance'
It should also be pointed out that predator drones are weaponized with Hellfire missiles and bombs, not rifles or snipers.
I'm one of those people who is deeply disturbed by the drone killing. I've thought through what you bring up because it is indeed a problem. The problem I see is roughly this: this isn't really war. There are many arguments I could make for this: The enemy isn't a country. There is no serious threat to sovereignty. There is no territorial dispute. But really, long story short, it's a "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. I see this and it's not war. When I hear about what Al Qaeda operatives do, I don't think "enemy", I think "criminal". (there are some cases of genuine enemy combatants of course) And if Al Qaeda operatives are criminals, then the rules we need to play by are the rules of the justice system, not the rules of war: You attempt to arrest them and bring them to a court of law so they can be tried, convicted and sentenced. You don't just kill them.
ReplyDeleteAnother concern which I think may be a little closer to what you are looking for: in a traditional battle, the battle develops progressively. You can sort of see how things are heading and have an opportunity to say: "OK, you guys win, I surrender." The laws of war state that it is prohibited to say that you will give no quarters. If your enemy surrenders, you must accept their surrender, house and feed them. (That is where the phrase "no-quarters" comes from btw) In many ways, a drone strike is a "no-quarters" statement. Battle begins, you die, battle ends. You cannot surrender and there is no one there to accept your surrender.
ReplyDeleteI understand this isn't entirely new. After all, you can't surrender to high-altitude bombers. But bombers don't really fight individuals and anyways, they are rarely all that the battle is about. The bombers soften you up and then the ground troops show up to finish the job giving you an opportunity to surrender.
Finally, I think drone strikes offend my sense of fair play. I understand we won't get Al Qaeda and the Marines to form up and kill each other like civilized people, but this is just too one-sided. You're just having breakfast at home and without seeing or hearing anything, you're dead. My traditional self is appalled by this. I of course understand that's not a sensible reason to make policy but you asked.
I am being dead serious with this comment, Daniel. What do dystopian portrayals of the future look like? Well, they often have valiant yet outgunned rebels scampering to find cover as flying death robots come to eradicate them, sent by their imperial overlords (who may or may not be robots themselves).
ReplyDeleteWe keep getting closer to that day. Now we understand (or should) how such a nightmare can become a reality. At each step in the chain, a bunch of people are saying, "Well shucks, this isn't much different from how we did things last year, right?" And yet, the people from 50 years ago would have been absolutely horrified at the progression.
I am old enough to remember arguments about banning cigarette smoking in bars etc., and conservatives/libertarians would say, "What next? Will the government ban soft drinks or tax salt?" And "reasonable," "serious," "health conscious" liberals/progressives mocked them as paranoid doofuses. Give me a break, like the government in the United States of America, land of the free, would EVER, in a million years, try to tell people they were drinking too much soda. Go back to the John Birch club, you zealots.
Please believe me Daniel when I say that I am NOT accusing you of being a Sith lord. I am, however, quite sure that we are moving in that direction, and the people watching our movie would be appalled that you and so many others don't see it.
Have you read Snow Crash Bob? There is a great discussion of the security arrangements of a little "country" called "Little Hong Kong". Basically, they talk about the fact that when protecting rich people, it's dangerous to depend upon humans. The reason is that when the low-paid armed goons realize they outnumber you, they might decide to take your stuff rather than work with you. This is a problem with force multipliers. A hundred years ago, if the President decided to become a tyrant, he would have needed the support from half the population in order to repress the other half. Today, the use of force multipliers means that he could probably do it with some 40% of the US population. (Disclaimer, the numbers are made up for illustrative purposes) Drones (especially if they become more autonomous) are awesome force multipliers. It is not unconceivable that the development of drones could lead in 50 years to the US Government being able to stand alone against 80% or perhaps even 90% of the population. At that point, the greatest check on governmental power (the need for consent of the governed) will be reduced to nothing. Of course, you need the right 10-20% on your side, so it's still an unlikely scenario, but it is becoming more and more likely.
DeleteAlso, Daniel, if Bob is wrong and you are a Sith Lord, please let me know. I will most definitely become an ardent Keynesian if it means I get a light-saber and force powers. This whole libertarian thing doesn't apply if I have a shot at ruling the galaxy. :-)
Its partially the collateral damage (as noted by Anonymous our military seems to be liberally targeting funerals, mourners, children etc.), partially the governments loose definition of the word militant in selling it (for instance were I killed in a drone strike I would be a "militant" solely do to my age), and partially the cold sort of warfare it seems to be pioneering as Promeetheu noted above. A very important thing to me is that its also proven to be an absolutely horrible "hearts and minds" strategy in Pakistan which given the roots of terrorism seems pretty damn important if we're concerned about not having to put boots on the ground in the future.
ReplyDeleteI'm completely with you on them being largely preferable to conventional warfare or an outright invasion of Northern Pakistan. That, however, doesn't make our concerns invalid it just means this isn't the worst of all possible worlds.
I think Klaidman attributes a total straw-man to his opponents in the video from Sullivan's blog btw, but thats for another time.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414704/may-31-2012/the-word---two-birds-with-one-drone
ReplyDeleteI'm not really bothered by drone by themselves. What worries me more is the course that the US (and others) have taken during recent wars. In my opinion there are two courses that a developed nation can take that will be successful in wars with developing nations. The first is simply to fight them once they come to the territory of the developed nation. This strategy has been greatly underused recently. Through careful border controls and other strategies of vigilance aggressive elements in the middle east could have been kept at bay without resorting to warfare in the middle east. What we should never forget is that most aggressive governments (and tribes) want war to distract from problems at home. If developed nations try hard in defence and border controls then that means the convenient and easy war is always a local one.
ReplyDeleteThe only other workable strategy is true imperialism, to invade another country conquer it and rule it as a colony. Colonialism works to some degree because the imperial power can enforce better institutions on the colony than the place had before, and often bring capital infrastructure and trade. That then leads to a better quality of life for the subjects which incentivises them not to rebel. Of course, they will rebel from time-to-time meaning swift and violent subjugation will be necessary. The British and French both did this often in the 19th century. This is not to say that imperialism is defensible, I'm simply saying it's not crazy.
The modern half-way house that's been followed since the Korean war by the US and it's allies is much worse. The superpower essentially invades a developing nation, but allows whatever local ruler to continue ruling. The countries institutions and infrastructure are not really improved, just granting democracy and creating parliament doesn't count. Billions of dollars of "aid" may be given too, but, as has been proven throughout the 20th century that doesn't help in the long term if the target country is a mess. This strategy gives the worst of both world, the superpower must retain it's dominance by killing opponents, but it doesn't give better institutions in return.
I guess there is concern that drones strikes don't really feel like war and thus create an incentive for the commander in chief to engage in war-like activities without the consent of the general public or without much caring for international dispute over it. As regards the US I can't say if this is true, but when I try to figure out the situation here in France, where the public is certainly more hostile to any war activity, I see the following problem.
ReplyDeleteFrance has soldiers in some of its former colonies, most notably in Côte d'Ivoire, and massively influences the political fait of the country, always under the disguise of "averting a civil war / a human tragedy" etc. etc. I do not say these cannot be true reasons, but I guess it's hollow talking points most of the time. And even if these are the true reasons, one should question the effectivity of a military intervention if it doesn't produce any results after 50+ years, other than the conclusion that everything has to stay the way it is, basically forever.
There is a powerful force checking any attempt by the government/the president to expand this kind of military intervention or even to prolong the intervention with the same arguments over and over again: the public cares about the fate of the soldiers France sends there, and it cares about what French soldiers are doing to others. To take the extreme example of drone strikes at a funeral/wedding: it would be a major scandal if real soldiers would have been involved in such an attack. Don't misunderstand me: I don't mean to say that we have to have some of our soldiers killed so that the public cares. But on the other side, the depersonalisation of war is a real issue. A French soldier killing bystanders creates a major discussion about the worthiness of the mission - even if the kllling of those bystanders might be justified colateral damage: after all, a Frenchman killed innocent people. The public discussion and awareness of such cruel realities of war is a crucial in any country at war, IMO, regardless of your eventual position on the topic. A drone strike with the same outcome might create some mourning, but I guess if le Président orders a drone strike, much fewer people will care.
Of course, this might be wrong. But the depersonalisation of war is not just an issue to simply be shrugged of or be welcomed because "our" soldiers are not killed any more. Perverting this argument as you do it in your "boxer shorts weilding paintball guns?" example is quite offending, and I don't think you're really engaging in the argument people mean to express with this. It's like saying:"Oh, so if you have problems with the unchecked use of pesticides you clearly want us to hug trees, talk to flowers, and perhaps also people to starve? So, where is your argument now, huh? Huh?"
Chris Bertram on crookedtimber has further comments, though from an obvious pacifistic point of view. He raises exactly this issue: that the US are currently expanding attacks via drone strikes to countries and activities that would not go undiscussed (by the US public, but also by the international community) under "ordinary" circumstances.
Daniel
ReplyDeleteWhat matters in a war is not our moral view of ourselves but how others view what we are about.
How do drone attacks appear to third parties. I believe that they are morally repugnant, nothing but the US being a ugly ugly bully.
Nothing is, in Patton's words, glorified or reaffirmed.
"I will leave aside for the moment the group of you that don't think we should be taking military action against al Qaeda at all."
ReplyDeleteWhy leave that matter aside?
Because it's a quite different question from drones, which is what I'm interested in talking about.
Delete"I don't get it - on what level are drones not morally superior to normal military operations?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps because normal military operations aren't usually conducted against civilians.
"Because it's a quite different question from drones, which is what I'm interested in talking about."
ReplyDeleteOK. Normal military operations are conducted against people who are operating under orders of governments. They are conducted against people who are armed.
Drone attacks are conducted primarily against civilians (not against people who are operating under orders from a government). That is, drone attacks are primarily extrajudicial executions, against suspected criminals. Extrajudicial executions are illegal.
If you just want to call anyone not under orders of a government "civilians", then you're right by virtue of the way you're choosing to define these things - but that doesn't seem to be an appropriate way of approaching al Qaeda and Taliban forces. Just because the operations are not normal doesn't mean that what we're dealing with is extrajudicial executions, Mark. I don't think it's appropriate to make that leap.
Delete"If you just want to call anyone not under orders of a government 'civilians,' ..."
ReplyDeleteThat's not my definition. That's a definition one obtains by simply googling "define civilian":
"A person not in the armed services or the police force."
"...then you're right by virtue of the way you're choosing to define these things - but that doesn't seem to be an appropriate way of approaching al Qaeda and Taliban forces."
Al Qaeda does not have "forces," any more than the Mafia has "forces." Al Qaeda is a criminal organization, not a government.
The only legally sanctioned way to deal with suspected members of a criminal organization is through the government of the country in which the suspected criminals are located.
"Just because the operations are not normal doesn't mean that what we're dealing with is extrajudicial executions, Mark. I don't think it's appropriate to make that leap."
It's not a leap. When someone executes a suspected (not convicted) criminal, that's an extrajudical execution.
1) Suppose, instead of capturing Timothy McVeigh and putting him on trial, he had been killed by a drone strike. Wouldn't you agree that would have been an extrajudicial execution?
2) Or suppose Ayman al-Zawahiri is found ("thought to be found" is more accurate) to be living in an apartment in Passaic, NJ. Or Paris, France. He (or more accurately, someone thought to be him) is killed by a drone strike. Wouldn't you agree that's an extrajudicial execution?
3) Now, suppose he is found (thought to be found) in Iran, and is killed by a drone strike. Wouldn't you agree that's an extrajudicial execution?
4) Now, suppose he is found (thought to be found) in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and is killed by a drone strike. Wouldn't you agree that's an extrajudicial execution?
Mark you're missing my point. I know that's a definition of civilian that is used, and that's fine. You are using that to imply they are not legitimate targets of a military operation. Perhaps I should have approached this just by asking "exactly why must military targets be under the order of governments?".
Deletere: "Al Qaeda does not have "forces," any more than the Mafia has "forces." Al Qaeda is a criminal organization, not a government."
Nobody said it was a government, Mark.
I don't know if you're deliberately avoiding my point or you just don't understand it.
re: Timothy McVeigh - right, that would be an extrajudicial killing. But if McVeigh was part of a widespread organization declaring war on the United States government and American citizens, using military force against him and his compatriots would be entirely appropriate.
re: al-Zawahiri. Extrajudicial execution implies that what should be pursued in the courts is pursued without regard to the justice system. al-Zawahiri probably could be dragged before the courts - he is guilty of crimes here and abroad - but since he's also a member of the sort of widespread organization I described above, which has declared war on the United States government and American citizens, nobody is flaunting the justice system by pursuing him through military channels.
re: NJ/France/Iran/Pakistan - It seems to me where he is doesn't affect whether it's appropriate to pursue military or judicial action against him. It seems legitimate to take both types of action in any of these places. It may be more or less wise to take a particular action in one place vs. another. This seems to depend on circumstances and relations with each of those governments.
Last I checked, the mafia never declared war on the United States or vowed to kill Americans indiscriminately. They just do a lot of illegal stuff.
Last I checked, the fact that one can be legitimately hauled in front of a judge and jury does not automatically mean that that person can't also be hunted down by a SEAL team. There is nothing in the former that automatically makes the latter illegitimate. We tried a bunch of Nazis way back when. We could have just as easily dealt with them on the battlefield.
Daniel, have you just said it would be okay for the US to take military action against someone on French territory, or am I mistaken?
DeleteIf so, what ybout this: Would it be OK for France to take military action against a target (as defined by the French president) in, say, New York? And I note that the relations between France and the US are excellent (as compared to US/France-Pakistan, for example). So, based on the "relations with each of those governments", which would be the better choice to ignore national souvereignity to take military action on their national territory?
Ummm... you are very mistaken. I took great pains to say that while there's nothing inherent in the location of an individual that invalidates the case for either military or judicial action the circumstances may make one or both very unwise.
DeleteI don't want to make a hard rule here... if Osama was vacationing in France I'd be fine with a SEAL team taking him out while he was there. I'd obviously defer to the military and the diplomats on whether that's the best idea, but limited actions like that seem quite reasonable, particularly if everyone (meaning the French too) are on board, so I don't want any hard rules.
But generally speaking, no, you have badly misread me if you got "it would be OK for the US to take military action against someone on French territory" out that. If you attribute anything close to that to me you need to weigh it down with a lot more qualifications, or I'd suggest that you'd be misleading people about my view.
And let's be clear here - of course I wouldn't like it if France did that to us. I'd pull the same jurisdiction stuff that they would inevitably pull "why didn't you inform the CIA and FBI and let them handle it?!?!?!". Etc. etc. If this sort of action makes sense (which is going to be the very rare occasion, I want to emphasize once again), it's going to be on something important enough that French displeasure is not going to dissuade us. In other words, it's not clear at all that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" makes sense as an international policy rule. It's perfectly consistent to not like it if the French did it to us and still support it if we do it to the French. Making the French happy should only be a foreign policy goal if it makes sense.
DeleteWell, Mark said "Or suppose Ayman al-Zawahiri is found ("thought to be found" is more accurate) to be living in an apartment in Passaic, NJ. Or Paris, France. He (or more accurately, someone thought to be him) is killed by a drone strike." And you answered, referring to this quote:"It seems to me where he is doesn't affect whether it's appropriate to pursue military or judicial action against him. It seems legitimate to take both types of action in any of these places." I'm happy that what I thought follows quite directly from this is not, in fact, your opinion. So I hope it's clear where my question came from. I'd say that it's problematic that it's not clear who you're referring to when you say that it's "consistent... [to] support it if we do it to the French". After all, we are talking about a violation of state sovereignity, so who are those people supoorting this, especially if the whole mission is carried out surrepticiously (which mich well be in the national interest... or not, who decides?)? Not every target is as clear-cut and known as bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.
ReplyDeleteFor the record: I did not attribute anything to you, I asked. If I'd ever make any statements about your opinion to anybody, I would ask you before if this this opinion is what you are actually thinking. I am not Noah Smith.
re: "I'm happy that what I thought follows quite directly from this is not, in fact, your opinion."
DeleteYou wouldn't have thought it follows directly if you read more than those two sentences.
re: "So I hope it's clear where my question came from."
Yes, it is clear. Your question seems to have come from selective reading from my response.
Yes, it's possible that these two sentences got too much weight from me and that I thusly got to a wrong conclusion. However, I have not concisously picked them out, or read just those two - and I repeat: I asked a question, it was meant sincere. I'd be grateful if you could stop this kind of imputations. I cited them to show you where I came from, as that apparently was not clear, not to prove that I am "right" in my conclusion, or something.
ReplyDeleteWhat imputations? I never said you attributed anything to me, I said "IF you attribute...", you'll note. Nobody suggested you were being insincere. I do think you might have wanted to read it a certain way since I had a lot of qualifications even in the initial comment. But again, I'll emphasize that "you might have"... I don't know I can only infer.
DeleteAnyway - it's all cleared up now I hope. No need to think you are being attacked when I'm just trying to answer your question.
Just a note, though, writing "or am I mistaken" suggests you've formed an opinion on what I think. You may be "asking" me in the sense of seeking confirmation, but you could only be mistaken if you've already taken a position on what my views are.
"But if McVeigh was part of a widespread organization declaring war on the United States government and American citizens, using military force against him and his compatriots would be entirely appropriate."
ReplyDeleteTimothy McVeigh certainly considered himself a soldier in a war. So if Timothy McVeigh had compratriots in 10 states, or 50 states, then it would have been legal to blow up his car via drone attack on I-35 outside Perry, Oklahoma, rather than arrest him as was done at the time? Or what if he had compatriots in all 50 states, plus Canada and Mexico...would a drone attack on his car then have been legal?
If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, how do you square your answer with the Fifth Amendment, which says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."?
"Perhaps I should have approached this just by asking 'exactly why must military targets be under the order of governments?.'"
Military targets must be under the order of governments (or must be immediately dangerous to the troops involved...every soldier has the absolute right of self-defense, and so may legally shoot even a 6-year-old child aiming a gun at the soldier) because wars are matters between governments. Governments wage war against one another.
It's illegal (a violation of the Geneva Conventions) to deliberately target civilians in wars. This is pursuant to Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
It is dangerous to treat alleged criminals as soldiers. First of all, they are only alleged criminals. But perhaps more important, being a soldier is being a member of an honest and valuable profession. Being a criminal is not. Thus, when the distinction is blurred, we are made less safe, rather than more safe.
"re: al-Zawahiri. Extrajudicial execution implies that what should be pursued in the courts is pursued without regard to the justice system."
Yes, exactly. He is an accused criminal. He has been indicted for his alleged role in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. Until that is proven in a U.S. court of law (U.S. court, because the embassies were U.S. embassies) he is considered innocent of any crime according to U.S. law.
"al-Zawahiri probably could be dragged before the courts - he is guilty of crimes here and abroad..."
Not according to U.S. law. According to U.S. law, a person is innocent of all crimes until proven guilty of court of law. So as a matter of U.S. law, you are wrong.
"...which has declared war on the United States government and American citizens, nobody is flaunting the justice system by pursuing him through military channels."
The U.S. (AFAIK) is a signer of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits waging war on civilians. So people who kill an unarmed Ayman al-Zawahiri would indeed be violating U.S. law. Further, if the attack was carried out on U.S. soil, it would be a violation of al Zawahiri's Fifth Amendment right to not be put to death without due process of law. And if it was conducted in any country with which we had an extradition treaty for dealing with criminals, it would probably be a violation of that treaty (and therefore a violation of U.S. law).
"It seems to me where he is doesn't affect whether it's appropriate to pursue military or judicial action against him."
It does, because if he is in the U.S., all persons are protected by the Fifth Amendment. And if he is in a country with an extradition treaty with the U.S., it would depend on what the terms of the treaty were. (Note that it's unlikely any extradition treaty says, "Any suspected members of Al Qaeda can simply be killed wherever they are, and no extradition to stand trial is necessary.")
"Last I checked, the mafia never declared war on the United States or vowed to kill Americans indiscriminately."
ReplyDeleteThe declarations or vows of nut jobs have no relevance to whether the U.S. is engaged in a war. The U.S. Constitution (until amended otherwise) has only one method for the U.S. to be engaged in a war; that's for Congress to declare the war. There is no Constitution "nut job" clause such that every time some group of crazies not connected to any government decide they're at war with the U.S., the U.S. somehow becomes at war with the nut jobs. The Founding Fathers would have had to be nut jobs themselves to put such a clause into the Constitution.
"Last I checked, the fact that one can be legitimately hauled in front of a judge and jury does not automatically mean that that person can't also be hunted down by a SEAL team."
The last I checked, the U.S. government does untold thousands of things that are unconstitutional. Just because a person can be hunted down and killed by a SEAL team does not make it legal.
"There is nothing in the former that automatically makes the latter illegitimate."
Yes, there is. For example, as I noted previously, the Fifth Amendment protects all "persons" in the U.S. from extrajudicial execution. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the deliberate killing of civilians. Extradition treaties with countries state how accused criminals are to be moved from one country to the U.S. (or from the U.S. to that other country) for trial. None of those extradition treaties probably has as "SEAL kill" clause.
"We tried a bunch of Nazis way back when. We could have just as easily dealt with them on the battlefield."
There are no battlefields in Pakistan. Pakistan is not at war with the U.S.