No, I get that it is your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
So? That is the whole point! The military objective when working against insurgents is to ensure that do no gain their objective by military means/violence. That is sole aim of the military campaign!
The aim is to break the will of insurgency (the use of military/violent means) to pursue policy by violence and to force them to use non-violent political and diplomatic means.
And I agree that over the past span of recorded history such temporal success have been sufficient to allow the National interests to be serviced with little threat of popular blowback on the folks back home. A deployed army and a Friendly Dictator took care of the occasional dust up.
I just don't think these are tactics that work in the modern age. Info has everyone too linked; and Jet travel has us too close to each other. What happens on the edges of the empire no longer stays on the edges of the empire.
It lands on your front stoop like a burning bag of ####.
I reserve comment on drone strikes in the FATA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
S-2
So Bob, in the absence of solid data indicating that PREDATOR is killing vast sums of innocents for a paucity of terrorists and in light of Ms. Taj's contentions otherwise, what's your view on drone strikes in FATAville?
Thanks.
To me, the greatest insights into the minds of those who live in the FATA were the words of a village elder there to one of our guys during the first operation of the Pakistani military up into that region back in 2002:
"You must appreciate, we really do not like the government forces coming up into our territory; but you we do not mind, because you are here for revenge...and revenge we understand."
But this was back when Pakistan was a largely stable country, and the government forces largely restricted their activities to the Indus River valley.
Assessing the drones value
A short paper The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010 by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, which appears on: http://counterterrorism.newamerica.n...iedemann_0.pdf
My web access defences inserted the Privoxy Force text, so readers may need to access the website as:http://counterterrorism.newamerica.ne
Within I noted:
Quote:
In total, between 100 and 150 Westerners are believed to have traveled to the FATA in 2009.25 So far, however, none of these militants has been able to carry out an attack in the West.
The paper concludes:
Quote:
The drone attacks in the tribal regions seem to remain the only viable option for the United States to take on the militants based there who threaten the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Westerners alike.
A timely response from the Obama Administration
HT to NRO's Weekend "The Corner", Friday, March 26, 2010, Harold Koh on Targeted Killing of Terrorists, by Ed Whelan, re: yesterday's speech to the American Society of International Law by Harold Koh, DoS Legal Adviser.
From the ASIL Press Release, as summed by NRO:
Quote:
[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:
- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…
[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’
The full text is at The Obama Administration and International Law (Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, March 25, 2010).
This speech surprised some because of Mr Koh's prior views (before entering the Obama Administration). E.g., see Kenneth Anderson, Bleg for Harold Koh’s ASIL Speech, vs. Kenneth Anderson, Predators Over Pakistan.
Both legal and practical aspects are covered more fully in this thread, HVTs/Political Assassination, and its many links.
Regards
Mike
Domestic Due Process Leading to Overseas Drone Strikes?
Yes - I suppose that's a rather broad hypothesis, but I hope that I explain my stance a bit clearer here.
Also, if you haven't checked out Current Intelligence, it has some interesting analysis that tends to complement SWJ.
I'd be interested in hearing any feedback on the article.
Bill
Hello O'Razor and Da Big Furry One
I can't answer the question asked (as the title of this thread) because I don't have the foggiest idea what rationales drive the Obama administration to do what they do.
I can say firstly the drone strikes (and implicitly all direct action taken against HVTs) are based on the Laws of War. See this post, A timely response from the Obama Administration, in the Drone Paradox thread. Just a snip from LA Koh's statement:
Quote:
[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:
- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…
Both legal and practical aspects are covered more fully in this thread, HVTs/Political Assassination, and its many links.
I can say secondly that our detention policy is also firmly based on the Laws of War - e.g., take a look at these posts in the War Crimes thread (all on page 12):
222 - Obama DoJ "refines" the standard for detention !!
223 - Statements about the new standard ...
225 - DoJ Memorandum re: detention
226 - continuation of DoJ memo ...
227 - Well, George, if you are asking my opinion on this ...
The key statement in this package is from #226:
Quote:
Moreover, the Commentary to Additional Protocol II draws a clear distinction between individuals who belong to armed forces or armed groups (who may be attacked and, a fortiori, captured at any time) and civilians (who are immune from direct attack except when directly participating in hostilities). That Commentary provides that “[t]hose who belong to armed forces or armed groups may be attacked at any time.” See ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II), ¶ 4789.
(emphasis added). Thus, both direct actions and detentions have the AUMF as their base and are clearly based on the Laws of War.
The Rule of Law (domestic laws, whether in the US or in foreign countries) has nothing to do with either direct actions or detentions.
How did the Rule of Law get into this discussion ? Because folks in the Bush II and Obama administration wanted, or felt it necessary, to go beyond detention and prosecute crimininally. The criminal prosecution approach (going back to the Clinton administration) could go either of two routes: military commissions (Bush II prime choice) or Federal courts (Obama prime choice). In either, the procedures (due process) are spelled out.
Regards
Mike
No, Bob, I can't agree with you
(1) We are engaged in an armed conflict with AQ - and you yourself have stated that AQ is engaged in unconventional warfare against us. Under LE rules, direct actions to kill would be illegal - period, full stop.
(2) The argument about the US violating other national sovereignty is a red herring - at least to the extent that it seeks to make direct actions illegal vice the persons attacked. If we violate sovereignty, the violated nation (not the terrs we kill) have remedies under I Law. In most cases, they seem to have exercised the remedy of diplomatic protest. Fine; once the protest is made, I Law is satisfied. Or, the violated nation could sue for damages, etc.; but they seem not to do that. Instead, they take our billions in foreign aid. :(
Your construct seems to include only "war" (in an all-out sense) or "peace" (which involves only LE rules). I'd say that TVNSAs (Transnational, Violent, Non-State Actors) present us - by their choice, not ours - with a middle ground (armed conflicts, usually of lower intensity than conventional war).
Regards, despite definite disagreement
Mike
Inside the Killing Machine: CIA lawyer talks
Sub-titled:
Quote:
President Obama is ordering a record number of Predator strikes. An exclusive interview with a man who approved ‘lethal operations.
Link:http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/13/i...g-machine.html
An odd article from Newsweek, largely around the ex-CIA senior lawyer talking; yes a book is coming. Nothing startling, especially having heard another ex-CIA lawyer talking.
I don't know Mr Rizzo from Adam or Eve;
but the picture I glean from the Newsweek article is that he is something of a legend in his own mind.
NYT search on John A. Rizzo
John A. Rizzo Confirmation Hearing Statement - an outline of the branches in the agency's Office of General Counsel at end.
The article adds nothing to the serious legal discussion re: targeted killings and the AUMF.
Regards
Mike
Unusually deadly US strike in Pakistan kills 38
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...i025538D16.DTL
I read a comment on this topic on LWJ claiming Sharabat Khan was "good Taliban", and had attempted to liberate Afghanistan from ISI control. Wasn't aware that there was a tiered system within the Taliban based off your level of "good" and your priorities. These guys should really issue badges out so we don't mistake them...
Grant Bramlett
http://www.bramlist.com
Perspective required on Pakistani 'jacking' the USA
Pete,
You are being unduly harsh on Pakistan:
Quote:
The country has been jacking us around for 30 or 40 years by saying if we don't support it financially dangerous radicals might take control of the country.
The religious radicals / extremists have been there throughout its short history and only recently have had significant influence, rarely power IMHO. We have debated the radicals empowerment by the state, notably by ISI, the Army and others before.
So what is the 'jacking about' since 1970-1980? When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, leaving in 1988, Pakistan quickly decided on opposition, yes with some US largesse; without Pakistani support the Mujahhedin anti-communist insurgency would have been far harder, if not impossible.
After the USSR exit an active US role in Afghanistan disappeared and shortly afterwards the Taliban era began. Only after 9/11 did the USA return to Afghanistan, when Pakistan's leader made a decision to back the USA and more funding commenced. Again without that support - however convoluted - the USA would then have struggled in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the USA has been "lead by the nose" by the Pakistani state, it is clear to me the US decision-makers were aware what Pakistan was doing, hard choices were made.
Today though I agree referring to a 'radical takeover' is well past it's use by date and in other threads SWC has debated Pakistan's failings.
Do Drones Make Warfare Too Easy?
Do Drones Make Warfare Too Easy?
Entry Excerpt:
Are Drones a Technological Tipping Point in Warfare? by Walter Pincus, Washington Post.
"Debates are growing at home and abroad over the increasing use of remotely piloted, armed drones, with a new study by the British Defense Ministry questioning whether advances in their capabilities will lead future decision-makers to 'resort to war as a policy option far sooner than previously.'"
Are Drones a Technological Tipping Point in Warfare?.
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.