Dronestrike-led foreign policy - bad timing?

[Rawedge Rim]

Wayfriend,

But does an individual, who happens to work for government, have the power to surrender US sovreignty on their own impitus? In other words, if an under-under-under secretary for the interior tells Mexico it's cool to drone strike US gun shops near the Mexican border, or gives permission to the UK to drone strike pubs raising money for the IRA would such permission be enough to say the US as a sovreign entity has agreed to allow drone strikes?

Are we, the United States of America, a country, that in this time in history, not 20 or 30, or 40 years ago, but today, able and willing to go after people designated as terrorists residing in our own borders?

OTOH, how's Pakinstan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. on that same question?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The Stasi, the Tonton Macoute, and the KGB were willing and able to do all sorts of nasty shit. Pretty sure the US doesn't have the market cornered on that.

certainly, but i cannot abide the notion that a group of people can declare war, carry out attacks against the US and it's allies, and as long as they hide in a country that is either unable (Yemen\Somalia) or unwilling (Pakistan\Afghanistan) to go after these people, that we are limited to only two options;

1. Total war with boots on the ground, billion and billions spent and thousands of lives on both sides

2. Just sit back and take it.

[Cail]

I'm pretty cool with those options, though I think you grossly distort both of them.

If we're going to go to war, we end it in a week and leave a smoking hole behind us.

If we're going to use law enforcement, that's not exactly sitting back and taking it.

[Rawedge Rim]

I'm pretty cool with those options, though I think you grossly distort both of them.

If we're going to go to war, we end it in a week and leave a smoking hole behind us.

If we're going to use law enforcement, that's not exactly sitting back and taking it.

so how do you send the FBI into Somalia? Or Yemen, or Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

[Cail]

I'm pretty cool with those options, though I think you grossly distort both of them.

If we're going to go to war, we end it in a week and leave a smoking hole behind us.

If we're going to use law enforcement, that's not exactly sitting back and taking it.

so how do you send the FBI into Somalia? Or Yemen, or Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

The same way you send them into any country. If they're denied access, you levy extreme sanctions against that nation.

[SerScot]

RR,

A year with IRA bombs going off in the UK and Ireland. During thise years were US authories cracking down on jars in Irish pubs "for the boys back home"?

[TheFallen]

RR,

A year with IRA bombs going off in the UK and Ireland. During thise years were US authories cracking down on jars in Irish pubs "for the boys back home"?

I'm glad that others are also drawing attention to this as yet unresolved and utterly condign comparison, since it so neatly highlights the double standard of those advocating unilateral drone strikes. If you're perfectly happy that drone strikes carried out against unidentified individuals merely suspected of aiding terrorist activities are fully justified, then you'd have to have been equally fine with the UK bombing Boston or NY Irish bars, or alternatively sending in covert SAS teams to take out US citizens contributing in any way to "the cause". Sadly though, it's a clear case of "do as I say, don't do as I do".

As to year, looking at IRA/Provisional IRA/Real IRA bombings, please feel entirely free to pick pretty much any of the 32 years between 1969 and 2001. There are plenty of separate bombing incidents to choose from. The overall death toll was in excess of 3,600, with thousands more being injured.

Can someone in favour of drone strikes and thus also of the US having awarded itself the unilateral right to go after terrorists or any nation/individual harbouring or giving aid to terrorists tell me if they'd have been perfectly fine with the UK acting as described above on US soil? And if not, why not?

[Cail]

I'm sure there will be a perfectly reasonable excuse given as to why it's different.

And anyone who was in certain pubs in certain parts of Manhattan, Boston, or DC in the '80s remembers those jars...and the raffles they used to hold.

By our current standards, Maggie Thatcher would have been 100% justified in leveling every one of those places as "suspected terrorist funding sources".

[wayfriend]

Nice setup. Two wildly different scenarios, and you preload the discussion by implying that anyone who sees the [clear] difference is [at minimum] prevaricating to justify their hypocracy. I can't imagine why anyone would not be eager to pick up that gauntlet.

[Cail]

Nice setup. Two wildly different scenarios, and you preload the discussion by implying that anyone who sees the [clear] difference is [at minimum] prevaricating to justify their hypocracy. I can't imagine why anyone would not be eager to pick up that gauntlet.

Please explain the difference.

[wayfriend]

I am not picking up that gauntlet. It seems that you didn't recognize sarcasm when you read it.

[Cail]

I am not picking up that gauntlet. It seems that you didn't recognize sarcasm when you read it.

Refusing to answer a direct question isn't sarcasm.

Boston was full of people financially supporting terrorism in England during The Troubles. Would Maggie Thatcher have been justified in bombing those bars, firehouses, and police stations?

It's a simple question.

[Zarathustra]

Jesus, Wayfriend, you're the one who started this current line of discussion by insisting that Hashi explain the difference between drone-caused collateral damage, and the kind that happens in "every war," ... otherwise the failure to do so implies he's a "partisan hack." If that's not "preloading the discussion," I don't know what is. You sit back and insist that others explain differences, and then refuse when the burden to explain a difference is on you. Did you notice that both Hashi and I attempted to answer *your* preloaded question, and didn't sit back like a coward when faced with a rebuttal? Fuck sarcasm, and answer the question. It's your position, so defend it.

[TheFallen]

Nice setup. Two wildly different scenarios, and you preload the discussion by implying that anyone who sees the [clear] difference is [at minimum] prevaricating to justify their hypocracy. I can't imagine why anyone would not be eager to pick up that gauntlet.

Please explain the difference.

I am not picking up that gauntlet. It seems that you didn't recognize sarcasm when you read it.

Refusing to answer a direct question isn't sarcasm.

Boston was full of people financially supporting terrorism in England during The Troubles. Would Maggie Thatcher have been justified in bombing those bars, firehouses, and police stations?

It's a simple question.

As someone who's drawn this very same comparison more than once before, I can categorically state that it's an honestly asked question. I see no false equivalency between the two situations - okay, playing massive Devil's advocate, I suppose that it might be possible to allege that the UK should have been able to rely upon the might of the U.S. authorities to prevent terrorist funding - except that clearly didn't happen (and probably would have been unconstitutional in some way - the State wasn't so blithely prepared to stomp all over the Constitution and the BoR until 2001). And even on that basis, today if the actions of a nation state against supporters of terrorism within its borders are seen by the U.S. to be ineffective, in come the drones.

WF, I'd genuinely like to know what you see as a valid difference between the two quoted exemplars. Alternatively, you can continue to cry foul and run away, if you're having difficulty squaring the circle. Your choice. I won't be holding my breath, given your track record.

Fuck sarcasm, and answer the question. It's your position, so defend it.

To be fair, Z, It's only been WF's position since Obama got elected and so gleefully accelerated Bush's drone strike policy to today's levels. As you previously demonstrated beyond doubt by quoting from WF's posts prior to Obama's inauguration, while the Dear Leader was publically opposing Bush's droning of the Middle East, like a good little party sock puppet, WF was busily parroting the exact same stance.

Honestly, I don't know why people even get irked any more at such apparently arrant hypocrisy. I mean, who needs to go to the bother of applying any dispassionate intellectual rigour when it's so much easier to pull the warm and fuzzy blinkers of party partisan politics over one's eyes? The only important thing is to BELIEVE - it's far more comforting than ever finding the courage to question anything. Indubitably. I mean, whatever could be the downside?



Baaaa...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Did you notice that both Hashi and I attempted to answer *your* preloaded question

I can't speak for you, of course, but I don't mind preloaded questions because the opinions I hold and conclusions I reach are typically backed by sound logical reasoning and make sense. The truth points to itself, as Ambassador Kosh advises us.

Anyone have any thoughts on the recommendations to the United States government proposed by the ICG?

Clearly, if Thatcher's Administration had the same policies in place that our current Administration does then there should have been military attacks on any location inside the United States where fundraisers for IRA activities were being held. "Direct financial aid for terrorist activities" would be the reason given to justify leveling a bar in Boston or New York City. Also, every person who put a dollar in the jar could be labeled as a terrorist. This doesn't count all the little get-togethers people held in their homes, not to mention any support meetings which might have taken place in a church.

[Zarathustra]

Did you notice that both Hashi and I attempted to answer *your* preloaded question

I can't speak for you, of course, but I don't mind preloaded questions because the opinions I hold and conclusions I reach are typically backed by sound logical reasoning and make sense. The truth points to itself, as Ambassador Kosh advises us.

Oh, I agree. I don't use "preloaded" as an excuse not to answer, but instead to make clear that I object to the presuppositions behind such a question. It's an opportunity not only to strengthen my case, but to point out how even the questions from the other side begin from a place of error. [In this instance, that error would be the assumption that there must be a difference between drone collateral damage and other forms of collateral damage for anyone to legitimately criticize our responsibility for those deaths.]

I can't imagine how Cail's question would impose upon anyone a presupposition that would make answering the question impossible. Just correct the presupposition, and then move on from there. I don't understand what's so hard about it.

Look, I'll do it myself: I don't give a damn if the rest of the world thinks we're hypocritical. I have no problem whatsoever saying, "Do as we say, not as we do." Thus, I wouldn't want England's drones over here, but I wouldn't use that self-serving desire to limit our own military choices. The question assumes that it makes sense for standards we'd insist upon for ourselves to be applied to countries that aren't as stable or free as we are. For instance, just because we have nukes doesn't mean it's a good idea for North Korea or Iran to have nukes. Double standard? You bet! Do I care? Not one whit!

[TheFallen]

Look, I'll do it myself: I don't give a damn if the rest of the world thinks we're hypocritical. I have no problem whatsoever saying, "Do as we say, not as we do." Thus, I wouldn't want England's drones over here, but I wouldn't use that self-serving desire to limit our own military choices. The question assumes that it makes sense for standards we'd insist upon for ourselves to be applied to countries that aren't as stable or free as we are. For instance, just because we have nukes doesn't mean it's a good idea for North Korea or Iran to have nukes. Double standard? You bet! Do I care? Not one whit!

Heh. Your über-pragmatic honesty does you credit, Z and as such, yours is an entirely tenable viewpoint.

I am however duty-bound to point out that, when it comes to not applying those "standards" that you'd "insist upon" for yourselves when it comes to "countries that aren't as stable or free" as you are, the UK is every bit as stable and arguably more "free" these days as the USA. Okay, we don't have such a big gun and that's probably the sole key point. Not that this will trouble you either...

It does strike me though that having the biggest gun and thus operating to a mindset that states "whoever has the biggest gun gets to call all the shots" is quite possibly counter-productive in this day and age, when we're not talking about conflict with other nation states. Yes, you guys are the last remaining old-fashioned superpower, but maybe, just maybe, acting as such doesn't help you with treading a little more softly in a world where it's something as amorphous and as untargetable as ideologies that is the primary source of conflict, rather than national borders. Having the biggest gun really doesn't help when there's no clearly definable target. And waving it around so vigorously - plus using it so inevitably ineffectually - is likely only to serve to make you yourselves a more fervently sought target.

[Zarathustra]

Drones are one of the smallest "guns" in our arsenal. We're using them to limit collateral damage, as WF correctly points out.

I don't think we should violate another country's sovereignty unless under the most extreme circumstances. But it appears that Pakistani leaders have given their approval, unoffically.

Besides, declaring war on a country and reducing them to ash (as the more ideologically types here are suggesting for the sake of pure ideological consistency) is still violating a country's sovereignty, just in a more extreme way and with a piece of paper that "makes it okay." While I think we should get Congressional approval for the sake of protecting ourselves from an authoritarian executive, I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever to the country we're attacking. In fact, I bet they'd prefer we just use a few drones rather than reduce them to ash, and wouldn't be all that comforted that our conscience has been cleared by an official declaration of war.

We could ask the same question in terms of doing this by the Constitution:

Isolationists: Would you like it if Afghanistan declared war on us?

Pragmatist: Well, hell no, I wouldn't like it.

Isolationists: Well then, how could you justify doing to another country that which you wouldn't like done to your own country?

Pragmatist: But you've just eliminated the possibility of us ever declaring war on anyone, based on the Golden Rule. Our Constitution--much less our national defense--doesn't work according to the Golden Rule.

It's a disingenuous argument.

[TheFallen]

Z, I get your point, even though it's not in direct response to mine ("Biggest Gun Syndrome" is very liable to cause a mode of behaviour that'll backfire on those who own it).

But again, you're talking about attacking countries, when it's only certain elements within multiples countries that you've declared to be the enemy in the WoT. That's why this paradigm doesn't stack up - since turning an entire country to ash isn't even to the most hawkish an appropriate option.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Besides, declaring war on a country and reducing them to ash (as the more ideologically types here are suggesting for the sake of pure ideological consistency) is still violating a country's sovereignty, just in a more extreme way and with a piece of paper that "makes it okay."

This brings me back to a question I have asked before: do we follow our own set of self-imposed rules, which state that in order to attack another country there must be an official Declaration of War issued by Congress, or do we abandon those rules for a different set and become some nation other than the United States?

We may not truthfully claim to uphold principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" when we are killing people for things which they might someday do but haven't actually done yet.

National leaders may not "unofficially" give their approval to allow violations of sovereignty. Either an official statement, written out and duly signed by both sides, needs to be made--"yes, we allow you to do x"--or violations of sovereignty need to stop immediately. An unofficial nudge and a wink translates nations out of the context of dealing with each other as equals and reduces everything to back-room deals which have no oversight and no input from anyone outside the smoke-filled room.

I like pragmatism, too, because it isn't used nearly enough these days. However, be aware that pragmatism also has inherent flaws. Pragmatists would have to conclude, based on the ideals of pragmatism, that we should euthanize people who are too sick, too elderly, or too mentally-challenged to be inside the norm of viable human productivity. I don't think anyone wants to walk down that path.

[Zarathustra]

Z, I get your point, even though it's not in direct response to mine ("Biggest Gun Syndrome" is very liable to cause a mode of behaviour that'll backfire on those who own it).

Maybe it will backfire, but that's a pragmatic point, not one driven by ideological purity or consistency. If we're worried about backfires instead of the "rights" of the countries we're attacking, then all I have to do for a rebuttal is point out that Sudan and Pakistan haven't launched a reprisal yet. I doubt they will.

But again, you're talking about attacking countries, when it's only certain elements within multiples countries that you've declared to be the enemy in the WoT. That's why this paradigm doesn't stack up - since turning an entire country to ash isn't even to the most hawkish an appropriate option.

I was referring to posts like this [my emphasis]:

Now...let's consider the opposing view to my own. If you are going to take the war to Al Queda and you are going to fight them whenever and wherever they appear, then you have to take the fight to them on their level and you have to go all in. Don't just launch some drones at good targets and try to take out the leaders. No, go after the States which support them, up to and including Saudi Arabia. They want to cloak their actions with the trappings of Islam? Fine--carry the war to the religion they claim to represent. Drone the mosques. Drone the madrases. Launch a drone at the Kaaba itself. Raise the stakes so high that they cannot afford to continue playing. At some point even the most militant amongst them will realize that being a terrorist isn't worth it because the things they are fighting to preserve will not exist any more.

Truthfully I can live with either position: either pull out completely and quit killing people without actual reason to kill them or go all in and make them regret deciding to become a terrorist in the first place. It is the current "well, we want to fight AQ but we don't really want to do what it takes to win" that is driving me crazy. We are trying to implement the half-assed, half-hearted, and ball-less solution that will never work.

If it's fine for some to go "all in," then WF's point becomes relevant, namely, why are we worrying over collateral damage of innocents? It also raises the question of why we're worried about violating national sovereignty.

This brings me back to a question I have asked before: do we follow our own set of self-imposed rules, which state that in order to attack another country there must be an official Declaration of War issued by Congress, or do we abandon those rules for a different set and become some nation other than the United States?

As I've said, that's an internal question, related to our own balance of power within our government, and doesn't really make any difference to the countries we're attacking. I do think we should do it by the Constitution, so that the President doesn't have unchecked power to wage war for indefinite periods against unlimited targets. But that's not because I'm concerned about violating other countries' sovereignty. The decision to go to war is itself a decision to violate their sovereignty.

I like pragmatism, too, because it isn't used nearly enough these days. However, be aware that pragmatism also has inherent flaws. Pragmatists would have to conclude, based on the ideals of pragmatism, that we should euthanize people who are too sick, too elderly, or too mentally-challenged to be inside the norm of viable human productivity. I don't think anyone wants to walk down that path.

Well, the good thing about pragmatism is that you don't worry too much about contradicting yourself, in order to get the most desirable effect. Just because it might be more efficient to euthanize people who are sick doesn't mean that I'll do so merely to be consistent with an efficiency principle. That would turn pragmatism into merely another blind ideology that doesn't take into account mitigating circumstances or real world consequences. The whole point is to leave room for compromise, so that you don't feel forced into either/or extremism like: a) isolationism or b) utterly destroy any country that has a terror cell which they don't feel compelled to root out themselves. Sometimes compromise looks like hypocrisy. But it's also true that sometimes hypocrisy is less dangerous than ideological purity.