Obama and the attack of the drones

Given that it was its foreign policy which first drew me into about US politics, and that it was above all (but not only) due to George W. Bush's actions abroad that made me so glad to see him and his neocon cohorts replaced by the Obama administration, it is particularly disconcerting to see Obama and his drone policy being described as 'George Bush on steroids' (two recent articles are here and  here ).

Not that I believed that Obama would usher in some dewy eyed peacnik era of US global hug-emony,  since the status quo and existing US interests and activities would only provide any leader with a limited set of practical options, but I had at least hoped, and been led to believe, that there would be some changes, or reversion, to principles, with respect to the Bush era. After the 'bring it on', 'axis of evil' and 'with us or against us' playground rhetoric, there was the promising reasonableness of "We will outstretch the hand if you unclench your fist. ”
While I am (grudgingly) sure Bush was no dunce, and just seemed that way given his swagger, I viewed his policy as coming from the heart (or his beliefs) not the head, and to me this was always more dangerous in the international sphere, where there are no easy good and evil divisions. In contrast Obama, the law professor, represented deliberated rationality.

Above all, I felt that Bush was actually risking his own goals (US security) by (to put it mildly) going round the international system, with a war of aggression (Iraq, which posed no danger to the US) and illegal anti-terror operations (rendition, Guantanamo etc.). Despite the actions being in the name of the the free world and right government, they were opposed to the very essence of those concepts. My view was that if America lost the moral high ground, it would lose the strategic ground as well. Terror would not defeat terror, only invigorate it. Hence how refreshing to hear Obama promise to close Guantanamo, and for all the right reasons.
 
But,4 years later, Guantanamo is still open, and while at least the macro elements of US power (the military, diplomacy, interstate negotiations etc.) seem reasonably restrained, the micro operations, seem to have grown darker and more intense.
Obama has "made it "legal" to execute Americans without trial and expanded their secret surveillance, preserved the CIA's renditions programme, violated his promise to close down Guantánamo Bay, and ruthlessly arraigned whistleblowers" And above all, he has escalated the drone attacks on suspected terrorists. in a previous article on drone warfare I worried about the dehumanizing affect it would have, by making the killer more removed from the killed, and assination almost an automatic process, although ironically in the current wave it seems Obama himself is personally involved in approving kill lists. While this sounds abhorrent, it is at least an assumption of responsibility on his part, and is commendable in that it shows he is prepared to have blood on his own hands and not dilute ownership via some shadowy national security apparatus. It also possibly suggests why the practise of having one leader represent an entire nation is not such a nonsensical idea as I sometimes think it. While one human seems like an incredibly fallible option compared with for example a council of experts, it at least retains a final emotional and moral link in the chain of command, and this is exemplified by Obama in this case. Whatever the rights and wrongs (more later) on bringing the might of the American military machine to bear on inviduals in such an extra-judicial fashion, at least they are in someway still handled as individuals, and by individuals, not a system.

But is the drone policy right? Legally, Morally or Practically?

Legally I would be very surprised if they did not violate both international 'laws' to which America has signed up, and also (with respect to American citizens) US domestic ones as well. Military action within the borders of another sovereign state is I assume not allowed, and in some cases has involved attacking the armed forces of those states themselves (recent killing of Pakistani soldiers). Though while I do not agree with violating even the letter of such laws, since international conventions and agreements need to be respected to be preserved, I would be very disposed to them being modified to preserve their spirit. It doesn't make sense that elements not under the control of a state should be protected by the borders of that state,  and some mechanisms need to exist to handle terrorist enclaves. But while the current system may not be perfect, the danger of having no working system more than outweighs the reasons for taking action outside it, and so in my view these attacks are not acceptable from the perspective of interional law and relations.

However, even at the international level, I would in extreme cases, allow moral reasons to trump legal ones. And while attacking individuals not part of any 'army' with which war has been declared is basically illegal extra-judicial killing, morally I don't see why in the first place why if someone is a soldier, it can then be ok to kill them. While the idea of having 'rules of war' might seem reasonable, I actually think that while it might (sometimes) limit the worst actions, it has the corrolary of facilitating and legitimizing quite bad ones as well. Soldiers seem fair game because they are part of the fighting, but are they really much more culpable than their citizens who don't fight, and yet support them? So why should bombing them be more morally acceptable than bombing the civilians behind? Children may be an acception, but even here it is very hard to find hard rational reasons why (why is 18 an ok age to be killed, but 14 not?). While it may seem practically necessary for wars, which we can't avoid, that someone has to be allowed be killed, and killing an enemy's soldiers leads to ending them, it could be argued that killing civilians might have more direct effect on the will of the nation, which is why both sides soon turned to it in WW2. Or to take the most famous example, was it better to kill 200,000 civilians via atomic bombs, or try to kill the 6 million man Japanese army?


So ultimately I don't see major moral differences between killing soldiers, and killing civilians, but of course only if there is a morally and pracically justified case for killing in the first place. Thus bombing cities could be seen as a direct means to an end, since, if the population had influence on its government, this might end hostilities. So if the people targetted in the drone strikes are involved in the forces the US is fighting (and this includes people sheltering them etc.), than if it is deemed acceptable to fight them on the battlefield I have no problem with fighting them off it.

The real problem , which ultimately influences the morality of it, is the practicality. While I consider it ok to kill someone directly involved in the conflict, it is not ok to inflict collateral damage, or hit the wrong person due to incorrect information, and the problem wit drone strikes is they are very conducive to such errors. Killing children who were not targetted, even as part of a general campaign against civilians, is murder, as is killing someone who was put on a hit list by a tip off from an informant with a grudge. And even if the correct person is hit, and only hit, there is the nebulous definition of how they are in conflict with the US in the first place. In the case of a war, then it is clear, but in the case of indirect terrorist planning, then it is much more vague. Who is a valid target? the would be suicide bomber - yes, his trainer - yes, but his ideoligical mentor who is not directly involved? or someone in the group whose concerns are with local foes (like the Pakistani government). While in principle there might be a valid line of practical reasoning that would be morally acceptable, in practise it is unlikely, and hence as a strategy I would consider morally wrong.

Finally, even if not morally ok, is it effective? I think the history of insurgency and counter insurgency has repeatedly shown that killing people amongst their supporters, and with significant collateral damage, never works. No matter how vicious, how extensive, the attacks, they can only kill some people, not the movements, and through fear and harm, generally only help to foster them.

So it is saddening to read about Obama pursuing this strategy, since it is not only wrong, but stupid, and I thought he was smarter than that.

Should Ireland say yes or no in its EU treaty referendum? | Conor Slowey and Vincent Browne | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The Irish referendum explained (The Guardian)

Should Ireland say yes or no in its EU treaty referendum? | Conor Slowey and Vincent Browne | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I must admit I have mixed feelings about the Irish referendum. While I think there is a valid argument about loss of sovereignty (which I support as part of further political convergence which I think is a sensible goal in the modern age, even if it takes longer than that!) was always going to involve some sacrifices on that front (more worrying is the lack of democratic process across the EU as a whole with respect to such measures). A more appealing 'No' point to me would be the argument that a fixed 3% cap might be the wrong thing in when stimulus needed, and risk entrenching neoliberal policies. For me problem is not the deficit countries run up in bad times, but how they wasted their surpluses in good times! Of course when country is booming very hard for politicians to push the long view that that is exactly the time when need to control finances, but neither it is  imp[ossible, since that is largely what the germans managed to do with their wage suppression and efforts to boost competiveness, without it must be pointed, sacrificing the principles of their social system. It is illustrative that the countries which are most affected by the crisis (Portugal, Greece, Ireland) are often those in which salaries rose most dramatically in the last decade.

However, rejecting the treaty might lead to real problems. The bottom line is really the bottom line, and Ireland is bust and needs financial support, and like it or not it has to extricate itself from the mess it finds itself in by whatever means possible, however unpalatable. I am very wary of the austerity agenda, because I believe they disporportionately affect the most vulnerable, while sparing the most culpable, but there is a general hope rising that the worst of this may be tempered even within the EU rescue mechanism, a mechanism which is really Ireland's only hope (exit of the Euro and devaluation is probably less of an option given Ireland's reliance on multinationals, and their reliance on Ireland as a way to launder profits).  And it is a very valid point that loss of power by Irish governments is not necessarily a bad thing, given how incompetent that have been with that power.

So overall I would favour No in principle, but unfortunately Yes in practice. Yes seems to be the only way out, given the game as it is. But I am also convinced that a lot of the problems come from governments and the EU being blinded by the rules of the (market's) game, without realising they have some power to change it, and some creative and innovative move is needed. But as long as the game stays the same, then the likes of Ireland probably need to abide by its rules and strategies, since they could lose, even if they don't play.