Obama did not start the War On Terror, nor does his administration even use the phrase anymore. But under his watch, the shadowy campaign to decapitate Al Qaeda anywhere, anytime, with unmanned aerial robots has grown exponentially.
A Nobel Peace Prize laureate, on one hand; an overseer of a weekly “kill list,” on the other. Keeping America safe in the short term, risking world opinion for the long haul, as resentment over what was once a stealth weapon rises with each successive strike.
Yet as Obama steps into his second term, a major shift in American drone doctrine is beginning to emerge as the White House puts the finishing touches on a top-secret counterterrorism “playbook” that is expected to govern America’s most controversial foreign policy for years to come.
The new rules, the Washington Post reports, will establish a legal and practical framework to continue the controversial shadow campaign of targeted killings (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, thus far) that have been a hallmark of the Obama era.
Though drone strikes predate this president, the Obama administration’s reliance on covert lethal killings of terror suspects via Predator and Reaper drones has increased dramatically, with the CIA leading attacks in Pakistan and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command overseeing actions in Yemen and Somalia.
Much to the chagrin of drone critics, the playbook is expected to include an exemption for CIA operations in Pakistan for as much as two years — a delay that appears designed to let the agency drone with impunity as the scheduled U.S. troop withdrawal proceeds in neighbouring Afghanistan.
When the drawdown is complete, the CIA is expected to conform to formal policy requiring that the White House, Pentagon and State Department all sign off on proposed additions to the “kill list.” Whether, at that point, the CIA would retain its lethal drone capabilities, or transfer the entire program to military control, remains unclear.
The cumulative drone controversies — from the drafting of White House-approved “kill lists” to “signature strikes” targeting suspected, yet unidentified, militants, to disputes over the extent of civilian casualties, to the very fact of making war without declaring such — have turned global opinion. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center survey, majorities in nearly 20 countries worried about how the U.S. uses its power.
A majority of war-weary Americans, however, continues to support drone strikes, with 62 per cent in favour versus 28 per cent against, according to Pew. They may be outliers on the issue, but the obvious advantages from an American perspective — the targeted removal of would-be threats without risking U.S. soldiers — remains a politically winning formula. For now, at least.
The issue is buzzing louder in Washington now, as the architect of Obama’s aggressive drone war, John Brennan, readies for a rare visit to Congress on Thursday for a long-awaited confirmation hearing to become CIA director.
In a perfect democracy, Thursday’s hearing might be just the place for the opaque drone wars to burst like dirty laundry on the Senate floor.
As a political appointee, Brennan has never before answered to Congress on his current role as counterterrorism adviser to Obama. Or, for that matter, on his previous security roles under George W. Bush, when the CIA was entangled with waterboarding.
But Congress excels at disappointing. And with Republicans (not counting the military minimalists of the libertarian variety) even more enthralled with drones than Democrats, champions of transparency may prove elusive.
“It will be important that after eight years of using the technology in various not-so-covert operations, from Pakistan to Yemen, Congress will finally discuss it in a hearing,” said Brookings Institution security analyst Peter W. Singer, a leading expert on changes in 21st-century warfare.
“But I am doubtful we’ll get any new daylight on the issues. Brennan likely isn’t going to use his confirmation hearings to break any new ground, but instead stick to talking points already expressed in public.”
One member of the Senate intelligence committee, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, has already signalled plans to tangle with Brennan over American Exceptionalism — or, rather, to demand the rationale behind not making an exception for American citizens who end up on the “kill list.” (Two such cases are known, involving separate 2011 strikes in Yemen targeting Anwar al Awlaki, the American-born Al Qaeda propagandist, and, weeks later, his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman.) In an open letter to Brennan, Wyden expresses “surprise and dismay” at the paucity of information his committee receives on drone strikes. The lack of a complete list of countries in which the U.S. has killed people in the war on terrorism, he says, “reflects poorly on the Obama administration’s commitment to co-operation with congressional oversight.”
Brennan’s willingness to answer, together with the nearly finalized drone “playbook,” may be part of a larger White House calculus to pull back the curtain, at least partially, on the drone program as a way of ensuring its endurance.
“There’s a very definite push to show a little more leg on drones,” Michael Cohen, a senior fellow at the American Security Project, told the Star.
“The issue is really transparency. And the very fact they are acknowledging strikes occur is really important.
“But Obama has clearly said he wants to reduce the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East and avoid getting involved in another war. Drones are cheap, effective and better for Americans than the alternative we saw in the last 10 years, with troops on the ground. If you’re Obama, you want to be in the right place to retain that.”
For most of Obama’s first term, criticism has focused on the application of U.S. drone doctrine — the number of civilian casualties, lack of transparency and the way in which White House arguments stretched the traditional definition of international humanitarian law, claiming “imminence of threat” as a justification for strikes.
But more recently, the questions have begun to shift to the doctrine itself, and whether it really is making Americans any safer in the long run.
Retired general Stanley McChrystal, who spearheaded U.S. counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan before stepping down in 2010 after a controversial cover story in Rolling Stone titled The Runaway General, warned that overuse of drones could create more problems than it solves.
“The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes . . . is much greater than the average American appreciates,” McChrystal told Reuters. “They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”
But there is no indication yet how deeply the White House shares those apprehensions, said Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.
“The rising hostility in Pakistan and now Yemen is causing a bit of a pullback in global and U.S. opinion. I sense people becoming more and more doubtful about the efficacy of drone policy as policy,” Asaro told the Star.
“But at the same time you see the military announcing plans for a new drone base in North Africa, the drafting of the ‘playbook,’ the ongoing expansion of (special forces) purchasing a lot of drones, a very active drone lobby pushing it all along — you get a sense that continuing to just take out people is the route they want to take for counterterror operations,” Asaro said.
“I hoped, going into a second term, Obama would loosen up and show the underlying liberal. But there’s still this sense that you must be a hawk to be a Democrat in office.
“The world is looking to us for leadership. And once other countries follow the pattern, assassinating people they feel are threats, the dangers multiply.”
Other critics hold out hope that a newly announced United Nations inquiry into the proliferation of deadly drones will shed brighter light on issue.
The probe, to be carried out over the next five months by a team led by British lawyer Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur for human rights and counterterrorism, intends to break new ground, detailing the facts involving 25 drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Gaza Strip.
But with the UN Security Council almost certain to leave the findings as just that — findings, without follow-up action — the inquiry is unlikely to settle the debate.
“The UN investigation will draw plenty of media attention, especially if it declares current U.S. policy in violation of international humanitarian law. But beyond that, it’s hard to see where the traction is going to be,” Asaro said.
“I’m afraid America’s national conversation isn’t progressing as quickly as it should. It may have to be a global discussion. Eventually, the U.S. will be held to account.”
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Mitch Potter
No comments:
Post a Comment