POLITICS MAY 2, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In a speech Monday at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, John Brennan, President Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor, made a forthright defense of the drone war currently being conducted against Islamic militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. “As a result of our efforts,” he declared, “the United States is more secure and the American people are safer.” Brennan’s argument deserves credit for its boldness. Unfortunately, however, there’s good reason to doubt its veracity.
The first point in need of recognition is that while the Obama administration has long since dropped the phrase “Global War on Terror” from its lexicon, it has, through its amplified use of drones, escalated and expanded that war in all but name. On Monday, Brennan cited his administration’s achievements—the “death of bin Laden was our most strategic blow yet against al Qaeda” and “al Qaeda’s leadership ranks have continued to suffer heavy losses” from drone strikes inside Pakistan—but he also acknowledged that al Qaeda's base of operations simply shifted elsewhere as a result. Yemen’s al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has become “al Qaeda’s most active affiliate and it continues to seek the opportunity to strike our homeland.” Additionally, he pointed out, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has a growing presence in North and West Africa, while the al Qaeda affiliate Boko Haram is gaining steam in Nigeria.
The wider the drone war spreads, however, the more scrutiny it deserves. After all, strikes aimed at truly high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and other major terrorist leaders make obvious tactical and strategic sense. But willy-nilly targeting of low-level militants is quite likely doing more harm than good. In a now-famous October 2003 memo, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reasonably figured that the key question in determining whether “we are winning or losing the global war on terror” was “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”
Brennan was at pains to insist that the Obama administration’s targeting policy is judicious enough to pass Rumsfeld’s test. Each and every targeted strike against a militant, he assured the audience, undergoes “a careful review and, as appropriate, will be evaluated by the very most senior officials in our government for decision.” As part of that process, “we ask ourselves whether that individual’s activities rise to a certain threshold for action, and whether taking action will, in fact, enhance our security.” He insisted that there is a “high bar” for action, that strikes are not carried out based on “some hypothetical threat—the mere possibility that a member of al Qaeda might try to attack us at some point in the future. A significant threat might be posed by an individual who is an operational leader of al Qaeda or one of its associated forces.”
But these assertions are contrary to recent news reports that Obama has quietly loosened rules for targeting suspected terrorists with drone strikes. The Washington Post reports that the new policy “allows the CIA and the military to fire even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known” and “marks a significant expansion of the clandestine drone war against an al Qaeda affiliate that has seized large pieces of territory in Yemen and is linked to a series of terrorist plots against the United States.”
How loose are the new rules? The Post article explains that “the expanded authority will allow the CIA and JSOC to fire on targets based solely on their intelligence ‘signatures’—patterns of behavior that are detected through signals intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance, and that indicate the presence of an important operative or a plot against U.S. interests.” Compared to the previous standard—drone strikes had once been permitted only against known terrorist leaders who had been vetted and added to a classified list—this is a strikingly ad hoc policy. It's true that relying on mere “signatures” as a basis for kill orders will likely result in the death of some militants who would have escaped under stricter rules. But it also radically ups the risk of killing innocents, which, in turn, produces legitimate anti-American anger that terrorist recruiters can exploit.
What’s even more shocking is that the Obama administration seems to have considered further loosening the standards for drone strikes in Yemen: In a recent report, the Wall Street Journal relayed information from “senior U.S. officials” to the effect that “the White House stopped short of authorizing attacks on groups of lower-level foot soldiers who are battling the Yemeni government,” without registering outrage that such attacks were being considered at all. In any case, even that standard would be quite restrained in comparison with the existing policy in Pakistan, where, the Post reports, “CIA drones flying over Pakistan’s tribal belt are allowed to strike groups of armed militants traveling by truck toward the war in Afghanistan, for example, even when there is no indication of the presence of al Qaeda operatives or a high-value terrorist.”
Such a steady escalation of the drone war—and the inevitable increase in civilian casualties that will accompany it—could easily tip the delicate balance that assures we kill more terrorists than we produce. To be sure, Yemen deserves the scrutiny of U.S. national security officials: It is Osama bin Laden’s ancestral homeland and many of the major pre-9/11 attacks were either planned there or carried out by Yemeni nationals. But there are already signs that the drone campaign there is producing a backlash: Toronto Star national security reporter Michelle Shepard recently highlighted the effects of an infamous December 2009 strike in Abyan province that killed 55, including 14 women and 21 children. Shepard quotes a Yemeni analyst, Abdul Ghani al-Iryani, who attributes the rise of Ansar al Sharia, a key AQAP ally, directly to the outrage over that incident. “Of the thousands of Ansar al Sharia now fighting in Abyan, the majority were not al Qaeda; they were angered by what they saw as American aggression,” Iryani said, calling it “one event that radicalized an entire [province].”
There’s every reason to think the same is true in Pakistan, where the shaky alliance between Washington and Islamabad has been pushed to the point of breaking. CNN terrorism expert Peter Bergen noted last summer that, “On average, only one out of every seven U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan kills a militant leader. The majority of those killed in such strikes are not important insurgent commanders but rather low-level fighters, together with a small number of civilians. In total, according to our analysis, less than two percent of those killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have been described in reliable press accounts as leaders of al Qaeda or allied groups.” This has clearly taken a toll on public opinion. A major survey conducted in Pakistan by the New America Foundation found that “nearly nine out every ten people in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] oppose the U.S. military pursuing al-Qaeda and the Taliban in their region” and that “the intensity of opposition to the American military is high. While only one in ten of FATA residents think suicide attacks are often or sometimes justified against the Pakistani military and police, almost six in ten believe these attacks are justified against the U.S. military.”
These are numbers that should concern all Americans, especially the President’s national security advisors. In that way, Brennan’s presentation on Monday would have been more reassuring if it included some acknowledgement that the administration’s bombing campaign against terrorists could at some point—if it hasn’t already—cross the Rumsfeld threshold of producing negative returns. Indeed, when it comes to the rapidly expanding drone war, the possibility of blowback has always been a decidedly known unknown.
James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council and publisher of OutsideTheBeltway.com.
11 comments
*****"In total, according to our analysis, less than two percent of those killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have been described in reliable press accounts as leaders of al Qaeda or allied groups."**** I'm okay with this. Say we deliver 100 drone strikes, and say that results in approximately 2 dead AQ leaders. . . this is acceptable to me. I only wish it were more cost-efficient -- that is, that HELLFIREs and the cost of gathering HUMINT/SIGINT & of lasing these targets were less expensive. (If I am a monster to your eyes now, then so be it. Let me know.) In my experience, the rate of enemy KIA is higher than 2% on these operations. In my experience, extraordinary measures (highly statistical CDE, pre-blast/frag effects BDA mitigation, and other methods of bending over backward to account for a respectable assessment of local customs & architecture, etc.) are taken to avoid collateral damage and to avoid the sin of pissing off the local Muslim populace. I recall more than one occasion when I was forbidden from performing my duties because it might involve American footprints near a Muslim cemetery. Anyway. . . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13653324 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16806006 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-10/pakistan/31045884_1_drone-attack-al-qaida-north-waziristan And of course the best evidence for Obama being a more proficient, more ruthless killer than his predecessor ever dreamed: http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones I've stated my opinions vis-à-vis Peter Bergen's opinions here before. My opinion about VSO and BOG #s in OEF hasn't changed. http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87846/afghanistan-war-osama-bin-laden-death-united-states-obama-taliban My hope is that Bergen's & TNR's apparent squeamishness about drone strikes does change. I certainly understand one's protest concerning the untimely deaths of innocent civilians, but, on balance, the current drone strike policy is muscular & magnificent, and it does more good than bad.
- Konstantin
May 2, 2012 at 2:28am
What Mr. Joyner needs to understand is that we're in a war. And in this war there are no diplomatic means to truly resolve the conflict. Which leaves us with simply killing as many of them as we can until they stop (yeah, it REALLY isn't pleasant). Drone's have the same chance of killing innocent civilians as a shootout in a street, but have the added benefit of not having to put American soldiers in the line of fire. I'm also skeptical about the whole "only two percent" thing. And even if only 2 percent were LEADERS in terrorists groups, are we all of a sudden not counting regular foot soldiers as enemies worth targeting? The fact of the matter is that we are in a war we can't win conventionally, and ground operations simply put arn't going to work. But we can't just let these guys run wild, and our Drone capabilities offer one of the better ways of keeping the pressure on them (especially at this present time) without having American soldiers involved in a decade long pointless occupation of a country.
- ARealHero
May 2, 2012 at 1:43pm
Konstantin: "If I am a monster to your eyes now, then so be it. Let me know." No, you're not a monster... you're just an asshole. Monsters are less ordinary. You're probably also a poseur... strings of gobbledegook like "pre-blast/frag effects BDA [bomb damage assessment] mitigation" (how do you mitigate bomb damage assessment, anyway) are a pretty good indication. As for the larger issue.... what Joyner is saying in the Pakistan case is that these strikes are doing more harm than good. So you and yours can masturbate about 'highly statistical collateral damage estimation' right up to the point where you lose the war.
- SMacEachern2
May 2, 2012 at 3:46pm
SMac, Whether you agree or disagree with the overall conclusions that Konstantin comes to, I think we might keep some sort of Hague Convention in first posts in a chain. No need to jump straight to the "you're just an asshole" nuclear weapon...Having been involved in targeting myself, I don't think he is a poseur. I don't agree with the direction of our current "kill first" foreign policy, nor his disregard of the moral calculus involved, but I think Konstantin has valid opinions that need to be considered, as they are also held by a large portion of the public.
- Yossarian
May 2, 2012 at 4:54pm
"Asshole" or whatever the equivalent was that came my way when I had the temerity to disagree with Saint Mac over an issue. In fact, I don't even think it was a substantive issue -- it was simply that I held that someone's remark could be taken as a fairly grotesque joke rather than anything more serious.
- ironyroad
May 2, 2012 at 6:07pm
Yossarian/ironyroad: There's a good deal of tolerance for casual references ('grotesque jokes' or otherwise) about the deaths of others on the TNR boards, especially when those others are Muslims or Arabs. I'm not as comfortable of that as ironyroad evidently is. Konstantin combined that with this adolescent invitation to be compared to a monster, hoping I'm sure for just that comparison. It's fundamentally that... the indifference combined with the longing to be accused of brutality... that both need to be cut down to size and is profoundly ordinary. Konstantin isn't a monster, he's just an asshole wannabe tough guy. It's a common breed. Here's the real consequence: take a look: "29 more of these and we're talking major paperwork" http://dowackado.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/another-phrase-from-hell-collateral-damage-estimate/
- SMacEachern2
May 2, 2012 at 7:36pm
"There's a good deal of tolerance for casual references ('grotesque jokes' or otherwise) about the deaths of others on the TNR boards, especially when those others are Muslims or Arabs. I'm not as comfortable of that as ironyroad evidently is." Can anyone think of a polite way of saying "that is totally untrue and you know it" without saying "fucking liar"? There have been hundreds, probably thousands of posts on TNR discussions during the past few years over exactly that problem -- whether it's U.S. government policy, the nature of the wars, the attitudes of the military, the implications of statements, the consequences of actions, the legitimacy of positions, the causes of hatred, the possibilities of change -- most of which have been critical with different nuances, some of which have been supportive of intervention. The very individual I supported against your misreading was someone that I had been in hostile exchange with 80% of the time -- and you accused me of being some kind of intellectual toady. The opposite was true. Almost nobody has treated the deaths of innocent civilians with equanimity.
- ironyroad
May 2, 2012 at 11:27pm
The Haw! Haw! Haw! statement that ironyroad is referring to was "Come on Mother Nature! Enough target practice - Teheran is overdue for the BIG one :)" which I objected to and you referred to as a 'dark and mordant satire'. You can put a bow-tie on a pig, but it still smells like shit: you can excuse a wish for megadeaths in Englishprofessorese, but it is what it is. If you want to call me a fucking liar, go ahead... the entire exchange is at http://tinyurl.com/7vwzmbd, so anyone interested can form their own opinions. But again, don't use that pseudo-academic passivity to insinuate that I'm a liar, so that your delicate lips don't have to form that nasty, nasty word.
- SMacEachern2
May 2, 2012 at 11:39pm
BDA means *Battle* Damage Assessment in my unit. It's a measurement of effects, of a mortar/artillery round/bomb/small arms spray/missile/rocket/aerial delivered munition/attack helo delivered munition. Just as when differentiating between "monster" and "asshole," nuance is important, as is operational definition.
- Konstantin
May 5, 2012 at 2:21am
I assume that some truly innocent civilians are killed in drone strikes, although their numbers must be phenomonally low compared to nearly all of our past aerial campaigns. While this is regretable, it must be said that the majority of these "innocents" are most likely to be close associates and family members of actual enemy combatants who have chosen to expose these people to danger by their actions. War is Hell, but we are making enormous efforts to reduce the amount of unnecessary carnage. Comparisons to Iraq, never mind Viet Nam or WWII are instructive. At the end of the day, it's not an altogether bad thing for people in places like Yemen and Waziristan to know that associating with people fighting against us is a major risk to their health and that of their families.
- Robert Powell
May 6, 2012 at 6:32am
Killing AQ leaders is one thing; killing women and children just to take out a nmall number of foot soldiers is another thing - hard to defend in my opinion. But killing women and children when we don't even have a name for the target that we are shooting at is simply impossible to defend. Whether these tactics drive recuitment in greater numbers for AQ is a secondary question - only war criminals launch missiles on such a basis.
- purcellneil@aol.com
May 7, 2012 at 11:44am