One Foot in the Grave My Friend, a Foolish Step to Take

201 thoughts on “One Foot in the Grave My Friend, a Foolish Step to Take”

1. Take the world off your shoulders, Eric.
   OT, an echo from days gone by:

   Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.
   –John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

2. “While he displays a slight preference for attacking military targets, he avers emphatically that U.S. civilians are legitimate targets by virtue of the fact that they live in a democracy and pay taxes, and can ultimately change their government if they wish to dissent (no word on dissenting voters). This is the same rationale employed by bin Laden and al-Qaeda proper.”
   Which means, basically, that the last people to have real faith in American democracy are al-Qaeda.
   Great.

3. Which means, basically, that the last people to have real faith in American democracy are al-Qaeda.
   Or that if Anwar al-Awlaqi is a sincere supporter of al-Qaeda’s goals, and is willing to die to further those goals, he is providing Obama with the provocation (what Eric calls “rope for the noose”) that may ensure Obama continues to further al-Qaeda’s goals, just as Bush did.
   After all, the long-term result from publicly declaring the US believes it has a right to kill Muslims anywhere in the world on the President of the United States’ say-so, without judicial oversight or legal standing, can only be beneficial to al-Qaeda’s mission. Anwar al-Awlaqi may well be bright enough to see that, and brave enough to hazard his life for that goal.
   The only real question is, will Obama find principles somewhere to build himself a backbone and say no to the idea that he ought to have the power to order a military strike on anyone, anywhere on the world, just by identifying them as a member of al-Qaeda?
   Given what’s happened with his failure to close the illegal prison camps, end torture, or prosecute torturers, I doubt it. Though it would be nice to think he might…

4. There is a distinction between assassination and dropping a bomb on someones house in Yemen.
   In the last forty years (or so) we have alternately authorized and demonized the thought of the assassination, while jusifying the attack on the AQ safe house in Pakistan.
   A successful assassination should have no collateral damage and, in principle, is not attributable to the US or anyone else.
   The act of dropping a bomb on a house in a rural or residential area of another country is extraordinarily crude and ineffective in almost every way.
   I wonder if we just lost the skill to do it right, since we have for so long pilloried those who would support it.

5. Marty: I tend to think it has a lot to do with risk aversion – fear of casualties.
   Political leaders must, at all costs, hide costs and bodies. So, we engage conflicts with the overriding goal of limiting US casualties (heavy reliance on air power), then hiding the coffins that do come back, and keeping the press out of war zones (at least, the kind of press that would show gruesome images ala Vietnam). We opt for sympathetic embeds instead, and rely on a media that now feels that showing dead/mutilated bodies is in bad taste. Not creating the dead/mutilated bodies, just showing them to the people whose government is creating the piles.
   In addition, we don’t talk about the financial costs as if they’re real, we recoil at the notion of a tax to pay for wars, and even go about hiding appropriations of funds in supplementals so that we don’t have to include their numbers in the annual budgets (actually, Bush did that, and Obama has reversed it – with some claiming his budgets are X amount bigger without accounting for that bit of forthrightness).

6. I got no particular love for al-Awlaki. In my opinion both Hasan and Abdulmutallab were messed up, unhappy people who were preyed upon and recruited into stupid, nihilistic acts of violence.
   There’s nothing good, or particularly heroic, in any of it.
   All of that said, IMO it’s walking on some thin ice to take al-Awlaki’s comments here as justification for using military force to kill him.
   The US is, in fact, a tyrant in its actions in many parts of the world. If you’re inclined to think of things in such terms, the US does stand under moral judgement for how we have acted, and continue to act, in our dealings with other nations and people.
   The people of this nation did, in fact, elect George W Bush as President, twice, and Obama once, and Obama has yet to demonstrate a full rejection of the Bush-era policies that are most offensive to the rest of the world.
   And it is, at a minimum, justifiable for people who are oppressed or exploited by foreign powers to resist that with force. That’s how this nation got its start.
   None of this is offered as a justification for the actions of Hasan or Abdulmutallab. The actions of both were acts of cowardly murder and attempted murder.
   But folks need to be guilty of more than talk before you start dropping bombs.
   If al-Awlaki provided some kind of operational help to acts of murder, or if he called for the actions that Hasan or Abdulmutallab took, or actively recruited them to carry them out, there’s a case for going after him.
   Otherwise I’d say not.
   Read King on Vietnam, or Malcolm X on the African revolutions of the 60’s. Actually, read Malcolm X on pretty much anything.
   Would they be candidates for assassination by the federal government?
   What we’re talking about is letting the President go anywhere in the world and kill people through the use of military force, including the use of explosives which will inevitably kill other folks as well.
   This is some serious sh*t.
   IMO in the long run this is going to prove to have been not worth doing, because it’s going to bite us on the @ss in about 100 ways. But if we’re going to go do it anyway, we need to be pretty damned clear about why someone is selected as a target.
   Actually planning or committing real, concrete acts of terror — causing real harm to actual people — would seem to be the bare minimum required to qualify.
   And seriously, we should really put the shoe on the other foot and think about how we would feel if agents of foreign governments started visiting us to assassinate people in this country who they considered a threat.
   It’ll be open season on CIA agents, Blackwater employees, TV pundits, and hot-headed bloggers. Not so fun.

7. Russell:
   I don’t necessarily disagree with everything you wrote. I don’t take this as evidence alone that would be worth a death list inclusion. But it is evidence that goes in the file nonetheless.
   And to be certain, railing against US imperialism is not worthy of inclusion. However, arguing in favor of using terrorism to attack US civilians is enough to raise an eyebrow. When that is combined with other evidence of recruitment efforts directly linked to attacks on US civilians, that might get you over the hump, so to speak.
   I’d need to see more evidence – or better yet, a FISA-type court should be shown such additional evidence.
   The point of this piece was to argue for a standard to be established, not that this interview was sufficient to justify his death (but, again, he’s not doing himself any favors by the substance of his remarks).

8. fear of casualties

   I’d guess it’s more like fear of embarrassment.
   Covert operations will fail from time to time. Military decision-makers have developed a fear of failing epically and publicly, I think, that’s more controlling than the fear of killing a few women and children along with, or even instead of, the desired target.
   That’s one explanation, anyway. I have no idea if it’s the right one. I have hopes otherwise, but nothing to hang them on.

9. Two points, first:

   What we’re talking about is letting the President go anywhere in the world and kill people through the use of military force, including the use of explosives which will inevitably kill other folks as well

   We aren’t letting the President do anything, he always has been able to make this happen. What we are talking about is our expectations of the limits he will impose on himself based on our beliefs.
   Second:

   And seriously, we should really put the shoe on the other foot and think about how we would feel if agents of foreign governments started visiting us to assassinate people in this country who they considered a threat.

   Do you think they don’t? It is very unlikely that, if they were successful, our government would announce it.

10. I think the main motivation for airstrikes is the immediate feedback loop between live intelligence and action. Sending in helicopters or vehicles takes much, much longer, probably days, by which time the intelligence is likely to be out of date; helicopters and vehicles also give much more advance warning (especially with spotters on the roads who phone ahead).
    Doesn’t mean they’re a good idea, but I think that has a lot more to do with it than the potential casualties of an infantry operation. Those kinds of operations are routine in Iraq and Afghanistan in areas where they are practical, casualties & all.
    (No time for more right now, but when I said that the evidence for this guy’s connection to the recent attacks was strong, it was this kind of thing I was talking about, rather than taking anything from the government as beyond question.)

11. While he displays a slight preference for attacking military targets, he avers emphatically that U.S. civilians are legitimate targets by virtue of the fact that they live in a democracy and pay taxes, and can ultimately change their government if they wish to dissent (no word on dissenting voters). This is the same rationale employed by bin Laden and al-Qaeda proper.
    It’s also the same rationale employed by a number of nations I can think of, including some that we consider close allies.

12. Don’t doubt it UK, but it is boll*x regardless.

13. We aren’t letting the President do anything, he always has been able to make this happen.
    We’ll probably get into a separation of powers discussion here, but I’m not sure what you’ve said is exactly right. In particular, in the context of applying specifically military force to go after individuals.
    Do you think they don’t?
    No, I’m aware that they do. SAVAK assassinated people here (and pretty much anywhere they liked) in the 70’s, Pinochet had Letelier and his American aide killed.
    Mir Kasi shot CIA employees in Langley while they waited for a traffic light, killing two. Although that wasn’t with state sponsorship, he was just pissed off at the US and the CIA in particular.
    I’m sure that’s far from the end of it.
    We don’t really like it when it happens. We’d like it less if it was more common. We’d *really really* like it less if ordinance like JDAMs were used.
    As an aside, Kasi was pursued, captured, convicted, and executed through the criminal justice system.

14. In the last forty years (or so) we have alternately authorized and demonized the thought of the assassination, while jusifying the attack on the AQ safe house in Pakistan.
    Our political institutions lack the credibility needed to take responsibility for assassination, so we’ve pushed assassination efforts underground. There, in the dark, various secret agencies have been charged with assassination, but they are incompetent. They must be incompetent because the sort of institutional secrecy they require is incompatible with institutional architectures that promote competence. There’s a reason that the CIA’s Directorate of Operations has a long history of unending failure.
    As long as we insist on running our assassination efforts out of little mini Stalinist states within the government, we should not be surprised when our assassins are only as competent as Soviet bureaucrats.

15. ordinance like JDAMs
    ordnance too!

16. Sorry about the double post.
    Don’t doubt it UK, but it is boll*x regardless.
    No. You think it is bollocks. The US government clearly does not. If the US government agreed with you, then maybe it would change its foreign policies with respect to its allies. But since we’re talking about the ethics of the US government’s actions, rather than Eric Martin’s actions, your opinion matters a lot less than the US government’s.

17. Easy Turbo, I was only offering it as my opinion, nothing more. Nothing in this post, in fact, goes beyond “my opinion” status.
    PS: I’ll clean up the double post.

18. Don’t doubt it UK, but it is boll*x regardless.
    Of course. And I agree with your post overall. But my comment circles back to the whole “We’re better than that” discussion on a previous thread.
    Collective punishment is hardly a distinguishing characteristic of al-Qaeda or bin Laden or “terrorists” more generally. The US and its allies alternately engage in it, turn a blind eye to it, or condemn it, depending on the circumstances. It’s hardly a bright-line thing (like torture was, until recently).

19. “There’s a reason that the CIA’s Directorate of Operations has a long history of unending failure.”
    That is one of two ways to look at it.
    I suspect, tell all books notwithstanding, that the nature of the beast is that we mostly don’t know when they are successful. I also believe that the tasking of the the agencies ensures failure is more common than success. I suppose I believe that when you are the last resort it must be that the job is difficult. I also believe that even those involved consider themselves the last resort.
    Or, as you say, they are just incompetent.

20. Totally agree UK. But you know I’m no prude when it comes to critiquing US foreign policy, nor am I operating under any exceptionalist illusions.
    But I know that you know that. And so boo! to me for forcing a round of clarifications. Damn lawyers.

21. I suspect, tell all books notwithstanding, that the nature of the beast is that we mostly don’t know when they are successful.
    I’m specifically thinking of Tim Weiner’s book Legacy of Ashes. It is not what you would call a tell-all book. And Weiner did have a great deal of access to many success stories.
    I suppose I believe that when you are the last resort it must be that the job is difficult.
    Eh, I’m not so sure. Assassination isn’t necessarily very difficult. The reason we task incompetent agencies with assassination is that it is more important that the killings be done in secret with deniability than that they be done correctly. Consider the CIA officers who were charged by the Italian government for kidnapping a guy from Italy for torture. These CIA officials were easy to track because they used their personal frequent flyer and hotel loyalty cards, WITH THEIR REAL NAMES, everywhere they went. Is that behavior consistent with anything but a very incompetent organization?
    Or, as you say, they are just incompetent.
    I said the institutions are incompetent, not necessarily the people. The amazing thing about incompetent institutions is how easily they can render useless the most competent of individuals.
    If I described an institution whose operations were secret and in most cases un-reviewable, which didn’t have to compete with anyone, and which had substantial discretion in presenting information to the small groups that were supposed to evaluate it, what would you expect? I mean, this is capitalism 101, right? Organizations that have no competition and for which independent review is difficult or impossible and which operate completely in secret tend to be…low quality organizations. Does anyone disagree with that?

22. No worries, Eric. Like I said, my interest was piqued by the discussion of the “We’re better than that” trope on the other thread, and I’m kind of turning it over in my own head.
    “We must not descend to the level of our enemies” may or may not be an effective argument in terms of domestic politics, but it’s hard to sustain that argument when we have repeatedly done exactly that, and continue to do so.

23. Eric, I think your post makes a lot of sense. Obviously, like the FISA law and other constraints on Executive power, it would be nice if there were sanctions would be in place, and enforced, for failing to follow the law.

24. it would be nice if there were sanctions in place, and enforced, for failing to follow the law.
    Absolutely. Without them, the law is more or less meaningless.
    I’m specifically thinking of Tim Weiner’s book Legacy of Ashes. It is not what you would call a tell-all book. And Weiner did have a great deal of access to many success stories.
    I’ll second Turbo on that. Access to everything – good and bad – within the given timeframe via FOIA. Unless there’s been a rash of success stories of late?

25. I think the notion that a FISA-court like institution would be helpful is a bit off-base. What do we know about the FISA court? That until 2003, it never turned down the government. Not even once. In other words, it was a rubber stamp institution. What would you say about a court that processed thousands of cases over decades and never once sided with the defense? Does that sound like a functional judicial institution to anyone?
    The record of non-FISA courts in dealing with executive secrecy is not much better. Our courts consistently defer to the executive in matters of national security in a degrading fashion.
    I think we have to face the fact that we don’t know how to design effective secret courts. The FISA court was designed in a hurry amidst the turmoil of the Nixon era; back then, people had reason to believe that it might be successful. But looking back over the last few decades, its record is pretty pathetic: we now know that the experiment has failed. And that shouldn’t even be surprising since we designed an impartial judiciary that listens to only one side. Of course it will be biased towards letting the government do whatever it wants.

26. I’d say we should take those criticisms into account, and try to adjust the new body accordingly. However, even having the FISA court there likely deters the most egregious abuses from even being attempted. For example, domestic political opponents.

27. ” However, even having the FISA court there likely deters the most egregious abuses from even being attempted. For example, domestic political opponents. ”
    I am pretty certain that any review body would not stop a President who was inclined to assassinate his political opposition.
    They certainly wouldn’t know about it.
    Perhaps we are pretty far down a conspiracy theorists rabbit hole at this point, but I don’t see a rational slippery slope here.
    As for Weiners book, I did agree that, even in the best of worlds, the operations side of the agency was likely to fail more than succeed.

28. However, even having the FISA court there likely deters the most egregious abuses from even being attempted. For example, domestic political opponents.
    I agree in the sense that forcing the government to make a case, any case, eliminates some nutty actions the government would otherwise take.
    I am pretty certain that any review body would not stop a President who was inclined to assassinate his political opposition.
    Um, are there any institutions at all that can prevent a determined executive from assassinating his political rivals? If that is the standard, I think we should throw in the towel right now.
    But I don’t think that’s a reasonable standard. There’s all sorts of people who are not politically powerful that the executive may wish to murder.

29. I am pretty certain that any review body would not stop a President who was inclined to assassinate his political opposition.
    What Turbo said.

30. Eric, would your FISA-style court pre-approve candidates for assassination or would permission to assassinate have to be obtained in advance for each operation? What about ‘hot pursuit, no time to get permission’ exigencies? A big part of the reason our traditions and laws fall short of the task of fighting terrorist organizations is that we’ve never really faced anything like this recently, recently being the operative word.
    In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we had piracy on the highs seas, pirates then being subject to summary execution, no questions asked. Practicalities aside (truly snail-like communications being only one of many), there was an overwhelming consensus that hunting down and killing pirates was just common sense.
    The Progressive Left has great confidence in government’s ability to regulate and administer much social and almost all economic activity, but virtually no confidence that government can identify in advance who specific enemies are and kill them. Put differently, the Progressive Left seems to believe the government is first in promoting domestic tranquility but last in providing for the common defense. Someday, I’d like that explained to me.
    More practically, yes, of course, the kind of power we are talking about is huge and is subject to abuse. More likely mistake, but conscious abuse is certainly in the picture. Not using that power is just as bad, and probably much worse–killing the bad guys, particularly the leadership attenuates and may eventually disable Al Qaeda and its associated groups. Doing nothing, or next to nothing, not only invites the next attack, it makes the attack much easier. Like it or not, pre-emptive action against Al Qaeda is the only practical, near-term way to defend ourselves. Vesting the power in the executive is the only option. For my part, I am glad someone took the time to make out a list. I tend to agree with Eric only insofar as it would be good policy to have a second pair of eyes validate the list. After that, it is a matter of seeing that the list is shortened. Permanently.

31. Is inspiring Muslims a capital crime now?

32. Eric, would your FISA-style court pre-approve candidates for assassination or would permission to assassinate have to be obtained in advance for each operation?
    Pre-approve. ROE on the applicable operation would still be governed by the administration/military command.
    What about ‘hot pursuit, no time to get permission’ exigencies?
    What would that look like in an al-Qaeda setting? If someone is in the process of perpetrating an attack, then normal law enforcement ROE would apply (allowing some use of force, possibly lethal depending on the circumstances). But otherwise, how do you end up in hot pursuit of previously unknown al-Qaeda operatives?
    The Progressive Left has great confidence in government’s ability to regulate and administer much social and almost all economic activity, but virtually no confidence that government can identify in advance who specific enemies are and kill them. Put differently, the Progressive Left seems to believe the government is first in promoting domestic tranquility but last in providing for the common defense. Someday, I’d like that explained to me.
    No, you have us confused with someone else. The Progressive left is in favor of: maximum transparency in governance; stringent adherence to checks and balances; separation of powers; and a strong deference to individual rights – even and especially in domestic matters.
    We don’t want government administering social activity. With respect to economic activity, it’s merely a recognition that certain private forces can and inevitably do distort and abuse markets and individuals (thank GOP hero Teddy Roosevelt for recognizing that and saving capitalism, and his cuz for furthering the effort), and the government is the least bad entity capable of protecting citizens from such abuse.
    As for the govt “identifying” specific enemies and killing them, see, above, re: checks and balances, separation of powers and individual rights. The power to “identify” and imprison or kill enemies is one of the most obvious openings for massive government abuse. See, ie, COINTELPRO and the Nixon administration in general. Though those abuses are certainly not unique.
    Oddly enough, that (unchecked state power of imprisonment/military action) is supposed to be the one area where progressives and conservatives are in complete agreement. Conservatives haven’t been living up to their end of the bargain much lately, however.
    Doing nothing, or next to nothing, not only invites the next attack, it makes the attack much easier. Like it or not, pre-emptive action against Al Qaeda is the only practical, near-term way to defend ourselves.
    McK TX, no one is suggesting doing nothing, or not taking preemptive action. The question is more along the lines of what preemptive action should be taken. Consider, many of our biggest successes against AQ have NOT come via military strike. See, ie, KSM.

33. Is inspiring Muslims a capital crime now?
    Certainly not. I’ve been known to inspire a Muslim or two on occasion.
    However, recruiting Muslims to carry out terrorist attacks against US civilians just might get you killed unless there is a means to arrest you sooner.
    I’d like to provide some checks on that process, personally, and so I have laid out some suggestions.

34. The argument that citizens of a democracy are responsible for its policies and therefore legitimate targets is not at all new. And it seemed a relatively uncontroversial one when Alan Dershowitz used it to justify the IDF’s habit of strafing and bombing refugee columns in Lebanon

35. Is John McCain a legitimate target for the Iranians, since he keeps publicly agitating in favor of bombing and killing them?

36. There’s “inspiring people” and there’s “inspiring people to mass murder”.
    It may seem a nitpicky point to want to differentiate between the two but I don’t know, I guess I’m just like that.

37. Jacob Davies: There’s “inspiring people” and there’s “inspiring people to mass murder”.
    It may seem a nitpicky point to want to differentiate between the two but I don’t know, I guess I’m just like that.
    George W. Bush. Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Barack Obama, as he’s kept talking up the current mass murder in Afghanistan. Fox News. Ann Coulter. Sarah Palin. Hell, just about any right-wing op-edist over the past 10 years.
    Okay about other countries carrying out military strikes on those targets? Regardless of collateral damage?
    Really? ‘

38. Is John McCain a legitimate target for the Iranians, since he keeps publicly agitating in favor of bombing and killing them?
    If he then undertook to recruit individuals to organizations that carried out deadly attacks on Iranian citizens, then yes.

39. John McCain, George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Obama might very well be considered high value targets by AQ. I am sure that is why most or all of them have full time security details. Does anyone doubt that, given the opportunity, AQ would assassinate them?

40. John McCain, George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Obama might very well be considered high value targets by AQ.
    Perhaps there exist other entities in the world besides the US and AQ. The US has brought about orders of magnitude more deaths than AQ. Given the logic we’re seeing here, that suggests that nations which feel threatened by the US are completely entitled to execute Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc whenever they have the opportunity.
    I am quite curious to see how one might avoid that conclusion. Who will be the first to claim that special rules apply to the US?

41. Presumably, since Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc., were acting in their role as part of the government of the United States, a nation that felt threatened by the United States would have to declare war (or the equivalent) on the United States in order to target them, just as we are at “war” against al Qaeda.
    The difference isn’t that it’s the United States; it’s that the United States is a government – so we don’t really have to make up new rules. There is plenty of history and precedent for how nations deal with government actors from hostile adversary nations.

42. we’ve never really faced anything like this recently, recently being the operative word.
    At the turn of the last century, anarchists in this country assassinated a sitting President, bombed Wall St, and twice tried to kill the Attorney General with bombs.
    Among other things.
    That’s probably not the only example.
    This stuff is nothing new.

43. russell: “At the turn of the last century, anarchists in this country assassinated a sitting President, bombed Wall St, and twice tried to kill the Attorney General with bombs.”
    One difference is that the anarchists of the early 20th century were located n this country where they could be apprehended and arrested (treated like the underpants bomber). Eric’s proposal applies to people who are beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement (including the reasonable opportunity to extradite). To the extent that it’s possible, the United States has worked with the Yemeni government – presumably there was some sort of agreement. But whatever, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that it should be the default position that the US runs around and bombs everyone. Trying to circumscribe the rare situations where such action might be considered lawful is what I think Eric’s trying to accomplish.

44. I don’t want to sound like I’m pointing out the obvious, but the wars that have killed and displaced so many people since 2001 were a completely foreseeable consequence of a major terrorist attack on the US. How many fewer people would have died if Clinton had succeeded in killing bin Laden in 1998?
    Is it more important to have a consistent critique of American policy, or is it more important that a whole bunch of people not die in another pointless stupid war?
    The US is not unique in overreacting to terrorism. It’s unique in the damage it can do when it overreacts. The best thing to do is keep it from having anything to overreact to, because its military dominance is not going anywhere.
    Now: whether this program is effective is unclear, but there are some reasons to think that the attempts to target key people who are actually in a position to plan attacks on the US has been successful and might continue to be successful. And as far as the fairness and scale of the US response goes, this part of it is at least pointing in the right direction.

45. We had murder squads in South Africa when I was a little chap. There was the D40 police unit based at Vlakplaas, who murdered Matthew Goniwe on the orders of President Botha’s Cabinet (“Permanently remove from society” was the words on the memorandum” and who had earlier murdered Griffiths Mxenge. The last boss of D40, Eugene de Kock, is now serving 200 years in the C-Max prison in Pretoria. Sorry that his bosses are not sitting in the neighbouring cells. (One of his bosses, ex-Police Minister Adriaan Vlok, theatrically washed the feet of the Reverend Frank Chikane as an apology for trying to murder him with nerve toxin.)
    We also had the Civil Cooperation Bureau which was run by the Army Special Forces, and who murdered Anton Lubowski, the lawyer who supported SWAPO in Namibia, and David Webster, the lawyer who worked for the Detainees’ Parents’ Support Committee. They wanted to murder Archbishop Tutu, too, but didn’t get around to it because they were too corrupt and incompetent.
    South Africa is dotted with little graves of the bodies of political activists and guerrillas murdered by these organisations. Of course there were also the people who were murdered by parcel-bombs and suchlike. And many who were kidnapped, murdered, burned to ashes and the ashes thrown into rivers. (Sometimes the murderers held barbeques, to save time and trouble, next to the funeral pyres.)
    This is the organisation which you are endorsing the establishment of. This is what you are saying America today is. Make absolutely no mistake about that.

46. Even if we are still relying, unwisely, on the good faith of the executive branch in assessing evidence before green-lighting military strikes, al-Awlaqi seems intent on providing the hangman with some rope for the noose.
    As, indeed, is his clear tactical intent. Much as bin Laden seeks to provoke us as much as possible into unending interventions in lands wher we will be seen as occupying infidels, al-Awlaki seeks to have us expand the area in which we are exercising deadly force in Muslim lands, and also welcomes the aggrandizement he receives in his own movement by being a direct target of U.S. assassination (probably his most proximate motivation).
    Of course, it should be remembered that the only complication that has made this (extrajudicial execution by the U.S. in its terror war) a novel question this year is the matter of hte intentional targeting of U.S. citizens. The larger issue of review of the executive decision to carry out such assassinations in cases other than intentional targeting of U.S. citizens is, of course, a nearly-nine-year-old issue, if not closer to fifteen (Clinton dealt with it as well). There should be no claim that this is legitimately an issue we are newly confronting if it is claimed that the same review process is appropriate for U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike.

47. Jacob Davies: “I don’t want to sound like I’m pointing out the obvious, but the wars that have killed and displaced so many people since 2001 were a completely foreseeable consequence”
    Three points:
    1) War is a political and social human phenomenon, not a natural occurrence. They were a reaction, not a consequence.
    2) You mentioned wars, are you also referring to the invasion of Iraq? If so, I’d rethink that categorization.
    3) The manner in which a society conducts war is significant and affects the legitimacy of the actions. The act, in this case, is typically bombing one or more houses (though sometimes they just destroy a car). These attacks very often 1) fail to kill the intended target, 2) target the wrong house(s), and/or 3) even when targeted correctly often kill bystanders.
    In light of the last point, the option is not kill-them-or-let-them-go it’s blow-up-one-or-more-houses-killing-the-occupants-and-some-people-outside-or-pursue-them-by-other-means.

48. Jacob Davies: I don’t want to sound like I’m pointing out the obvious, but the wars that have killed and displaced so many people since 2001 were a completely foreseeable consequence of a major terrorist attack on the US.
    I don’t want to sound like I’m pointing out the obvious, but the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001 – and at other times – were a completely foreseeable consequence of the aggressive wars the US wages that have killed and displaced so many people since 1945.
    How many lives would have been saved in the past sixty-plus years if the US had refrained from waging aggressive war and imposing tyranny in order to promote its own interests in and against countries which cannot harm the US?
    Iraq and Afghanistan just happen to be the two most recent examples of the US going to war for oil or for some other reason that benefits the current rulers of the US.
    . The best thing to do is keep it from having anything to overreact to
    I’m sure. But, until the US achieves absolute hegemony over the whole world and all of us foreigners are either dead or enslaved… actually, even then: thoughtcrime will always exist. “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–for ever.” That’s your ideal future world, Jacob.

49. I was watching 1984 last night, which is why O’Brien’s words came to mind when reading Jacob’s justification of the American mass slaugher in Iraq: but really, it’s also the attitude of an abusive husband – he can beat up his wife as often as he likes, because he’s bigger and stronger than she is (and maybe she’s also economically dependent on him) – and that’s not going to go away. So, he shrugs masterfully, she should avoid doing things that provoke him, ’cause she knows he’s got a temper and it’s her fault if he hits her when she makes him mad.
    You understand, Jacob, I’m not calling you an abusive husband. I’m saying you think the US is like an abusive husband and father, and the rest of the world is his family, and your refusal to see that if the husband gets hurt or killed after battering his wife and family for years – this is a foreseeable consequence. It doesn’t happen to all abusive husbands. But where a person smaller and weaker is being backed into a corner and constantly abused and has no way out and no way to make it better – sometimes she will hit back at the bigger, stronger guy.
    Sometimes that means he’ll kill her. (“A foreseeable consequence” says the patriarchal establishment, giving the man a light sentence as he complains she was always nagging him and she hit him the night he killed her.)
    Sometimes she waits till he’s asleep and uses a gun or a knife and kills him. (“A terrible crime”, says the patriarchal establishment, giving her a life sentence for murdering her husband as he lay sleeping.)
    That’s the US and the rest of the world in the vision expressed in your comment.
    And those of us trying to get the US to quit being a battering, abusive husband and father – we’re the ones trying to save lives, not you, trying to get us to lie down and take it and not ever even think of striking back.

50. “thoughtcrime will always exist”
    Money does not equal speech. Corporations are not persons. “Thoughtcrime” is not conspiracy to murder.

51. “Thoughtcrime” is not conspiracy to murder.
    Tell that to Eric Martin and other folks in this thread who are arguing that what Anwar al-Awlaqi has said justifies his assassination.
    After all, it’s not as if an American Muslim has any rights under the First Amendment to say what he likes, is it?
    Thoughtcrime is a crime invented by fascists to justify killing a person for what they think and say, not because they have actually committed any crime.

52. The idea of thoughtcrime is a wee bit older. In a way Socrates fell victim to it, although it was his student that designed the first proto-fascist system only after his death.

53. I was watching 1984 last night
    Which film version? I hear nothing comes even close to the original BBC production with Peter Cushing as Winston and Andre Morell as O’Brien.

54. Presumably, since Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc., were acting in their role as part of the government of the United States, a nation that felt threatened by the United States would have to declare war (or the equivalent) on the United States in order to target them, just as we are at “war” against al Qaeda.
    The US has not declared war in over 5 decades. Is it your contention that the US has not fought in any wars during that time? “Declaring war” is a meaningless affectation nowadays. That’s why international treaties don’t mention it; obligations of warfare are incurred when you begin fighting, not when Congress issues some stupid “declaration”.
    The difference isn’t that it’s the United States; it’s that the United States is a government – so we don’t really have to make up new rules.
    So, let’s say that an American citizen was on the President’s secret murder list and then we discovered that he had been made a minor government official in Pakistan and that the Pakistani government was unwilling to arrest him. Do you seriously expect us to believe that the US government would then shrug its shoulders and not assassinate him? Are we to believe the merely being part of a government gets one off of the secret murder list?

55. If “ incitement to violence” is a “thoughtcrime”, is Britain a fascist state?

56. The US is not unique in overreacting to terrorism. It’s unique in the damage it can do when it overreacts. The best thing to do is keep it from having anything to overreact to, because its military dominance is not going anywhere.
    Um, yes, the US actually is unique in overreacting to terrorism. Or did the British government kill a million people in Northern Ireland while I wasn’t looking? These claims about military dominance are absurd. Many countries have more than sufficient military capability to exact horrific losses on states hosting terrorists. The UK easily had the capability to drop a few conventional or nuclear bombs over Libya after the Lockerbie bombing. But they didn’t. And military capabilities had nothing to do with it.
    Our “military dominance” is a joke in any event. We can’t even pacify a country as pathetic as Iraq without resorting to paying off our enemies and waiting for ethnic cleansing to thin the population.

57. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that it should be the default position that the US runs around and bombs everyone.
    I’d suggest you spend a day or two watching Fox News and reading The Corner, and then get back to us.
    That may sound glib, but I mean it in all seriousness.

58. Uncle Kvetch, I should revise: I don’t think anyone here, who is considering Eric’s proposal in a positive light, is suggesting that it should be the default position that the US runs around and bombs everyone.

59. This is the organisation which you are endorsing the establishment of. This is what you are saying America today is. Make absolutely no mistake about that.

    Which “you” are you addressing?

60. Is John McCain a legitimate target for the Iranians, since he keeps publicly agitating in favor of bombing and killing them?

    And Steve Dahl, for having written that song?

61. One difference is that the anarchists of the early 20th century were located n this country where they could be apprehended and arrested
    Some were and some weren’t. The ones that were, we mostly deported.
    But we didn’t respond to, frex, the Galleanist bombings by tracking down and assassinating Errico Malatesta at his home in Florence, or by invading Italy.
    Don’t forget that, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, most or all of the attackers had been living in the US for months to years.
    Also, IMO The Creator’s 2:57 is worth a re-read. Turb’s reply on the topic of US over-reaction is, likewise, IMO right on.
    I can’t disagree that, if we are going to embark on a policy of assassinating people around the world, that it’s better if there’s some sort of due process and review involved, as opposed to just giving the President carte blanche to have at it.
    But I also can’t think of any example of a similar undertaking that hasn’t gone awry, and often seriously so.

62. Does anyone doubt that, given the opportunity, AQ would assassinate them?
    No, I’m sure that noone does.
    That’s why they are called “terrorists”.

63. Given the logic we’re seeing here, that suggests that nations which feel threatened by the US are completely entitled to execute Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc whenever they have the opportunity.
    I’m not sure “feel threatened” is the standard established. We’re talking about actual repeated attacks and attempted attacks. To quote the power pop anthem, more than a feeling.
    This is the organisation which you are endorsing the establishment of. This is what you are saying America today is. Make absolutely no mistake about that.
    So, al-Qaeda are like black freedom fighters from South Africa’s apartheid days. And setting up a system to target known al-Qaeda ops on foreign soil, with a high evidentiary standard, is the same as unleashing domestic assassination squads on political opponents. I would say that’s a stretch, but you’d snap the thing before it reached the full dimensions of the yawn.
    There should be no claim that this is legitimately an issue we are newly confronting if it is claimed that the same review process is appropriate for U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike.
    I’ll be the first to admit that I should have confronted this years ago, and it took something like this to wake me from my stupor with respect to some of these issues. However, I’m not alone, and even if the reason is not a satisfying one, that “is” the reason that this topic is being discussed at the moment on so many blogs.
    On the other hand, I have long been a very vocal advocate of:
    1. Reducing the number of airstrikes, and tightening up the ROE to demand a higher threshold for intel and civilian casualties (in particular, we should cease targeting Taliban with such reckless abandon).
    2. Relying more on law enforcement and intel, rather than military strikes wherever possible.
    3. Phasing out of the “war” posture in general.

64. If ” incitement to violence” is a “thoughtcrime”, is Britain a fascist state?
    Our government of the past few years has been endeavoring to take us down the same road at the US, yes.
    The BBC discusses the various “anti-terrorism” laws passed by Parliament: I note that Mohammed Atif Siddique, after eight years in jail, walked free yesterday after the court of appeal quashed his conviction.
    Yes, the Terrorism Acts of the past ten years in the UK have made it possible to convict a young man of thoughtcrime. That he spent eight years in jail for being a pesky loudmouth is a stain against our justice system.
    What did you suppose, Sapient – I’d try to defend what my country does when I know it’s wrong? We need to quit trying to mimic the US – your bloody failures and the massive human cost are obvious reasons why we need to pull away from the fascist road you are going down before we fall into the same pit you’re mired in.

65. We’re talking about actual repeated attacks and attempted attacks.
    Yes, we are. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et all, are all guilty of actual repeated attacks and attempted attacks. This is not just “feel threatened” – this is a real, serious risk that could kill upwards of a million people.
    So, nations which are at risk of attacks or attempted attacks by the US are completely entitled to execute Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc whenever they have the opportunity. That’s your view, Eric?
    And setting up a system to target known al-Qaeda ops on foreign soil, with a high evidentiary standard, is the same as unleashing domestic assassination squads on political opponents. I would say that’s a stretch
    Jesus effin’ Christ. Once upon a time I saw liberal bloggers defending the setting up of Guantanamo Bay on the basis that targetting known al-Qaeda and Taliban ops on foreign soil, where their captors had “high evidentiary standard” that they were guilty of actual or attempted attacks, was not the same thing as just kidnapping people at random and locking them up with no due process at all.
    Now it’s going to happen all over again with the same goddam close-eyed blindness to the plain fact that deciding it’s OKAY to do something illegal because you’re ONLY GOING TO DO IT TO BAD PEOPLE is just a really goddam screwed-up effin’ BAD IDEA?
    Sorry for the caps-lock. I’m just…
    No. No. No.

66. “But we didn’t respond to, frex, the Galleanist bombings by tracking down and assassinating Errico Malatesta at his home in Florence, or by invading Italy.”
    Well, it wouldn’t have done very much good to invade Italy since Malatesta spent most of his time in London. And it seems that the United States freaked out about the Galleanist bombings in other ways (not to mention the fact that we were busy sending troops into the Russian Civil War, freaking out about the Bolsheviks). Actually, the Russian Civil War situation is more apropos, considering that the “law and order” element, which existed in Italy and England at the time, was not available in Russia.
    But these instances aren’t completely parallel to the present one. Sure, we’ve dealt with terrorism before, and when the terrorists are in the country, we’ve used the criminal justice system. Where the terrorists are in a country which has a functional system, we use our cooperative criminal justice systems. But where no criminal justice system is available, we’ve sent troops. Maybe allowing a military reaction, but circumscribing it, is an answer.

67. 3. Phasing out of the “war” posture in general.
    In what other posture could we possibly entertain the idea that we have cause to go around the world zapping people out of existence without due process simply because we determine they are “threats” to our precious “security”?
    I don’t mean to single you out no the sudden realization of the magnitude of the problem of near-zero-process executions outside of our territory. It seems to be a crisis the blogosphere is collectively gearing up to confront at this late date — but better than never.

68. Yes, we are. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et all, are all guilty of actual repeated attacks and attempted attacks. This is not just “feel threatened” – this is a real, serious risk that could kill upwards of a million people.
    “We”? In the UK? I don’t think so.
    Iraqis? Yes. Afghans? Yes. Iraqis and Afghans are definitely would have been entitled during their tenure to target them. Since they were not around, they targeted US troops. Which is definitely legitimate.
    Now Bush, Cheney, et al are not really doing much of much in terms of directing attacks or not.
    So, nations which are at risk of attacks or attempted attacks by the US are completely entitled to execute Bush, Cheney, McCain, etc whenever they have the opportunity. That’s your view, Eric?
    See above. And, again, this is not about “risk.” This is about actual attacks, or imminent attacks. I rejected preventitive war when Bush tried it, and I reject it in the hands of other nations.

69. Well, it wouldn’t have done very much good to invade Italy since Malatesta spent most of his time in London.
    Whatever. The point is we didn’t respond to the Galleanist bombings by assassinating anybody. Including Galleani, either when he was in this country or after he was deported.
    And yes, we did send troops into the Russian Civil War, but I’m not sure that can be construed as a response to the Galleanist bombings here in the US.
    My point here is that, contrary to McKinney’s comment, we *have* had periods of serious domestic terrorism before. And we have *not* responded to them by assassinating individuals wherever they are in the world, either skillfully with a rifle or crudely with bombs.
    Terrorist violence is not unique in our history. The response we’re making now is.

70. In what other posture could we possibly entertain the idea that we have cause to go around the world zapping people out of existence without due process simply because we determine they are “threats” to our precious “security”?
    Are you saying that counterterrorism can never use military components? I don’t. I believe that you can not be in a state of war, but can use military strikes in extremely rare circumstances where you have:
    1. A known al-Qaeda operative, with “known” having been established by exceedingly compelling evidence (self indictment helps, as in taking an oath to al-Qaeda, or claiming credit for attacks or participation therein).
    2. That operative operating beyond the reasonable reach of law enforcement, in a foreign country as a rule.
    3. The intel on their whereabouts is very solid, and the risk of collateral damage very low.
    You don’t have to be in a war posture to carry out such strikes against known transnational terrorists. Not that it proves anything, but the Clinton admin did this without being on a war posture.
    I don’t mean to single you out no the sudden realization of the magnitude of the problem of near-zero-process executions outside of our territory. It seems to be a crisis the blogosphere is collectively gearing up to confront at this late date — but better than never.
    Not necessarily “sudden realization.” As mentioned, I’ve always considered them highly problematic and often counterproductive. I’ve written about them extensively in those regards. Just never thought about actual legal regimen to govern their use.

71. Jesus effin’ Christ. Once upon a time I saw liberal bloggers defending the setting up of Guantanamo Bay on the basis that targetting known al-Qaeda and Taliban ops on foreign soil, where their captors had “high evidentiary standard” that they were guilty of actual or attempted attacks, was not the same thing as just kidnapping people at random and locking them up with no due process at all.
    First of all, not THIS liberal blogger. Never defended. Not once.
    Second, there was never any claim to a “high evidentiary standard.” Quite the opposite. The standard was “bounty hunter X said you were al-Qaeda. That’s kind of crucial to the “at random” charge.
    Third, the Taliban should not be included in this group. Full stop.
    Now it’s going to happen all over again with the same goddam close-eyed blindness to the plain fact that deciding it’s OKAY to do something illegal because you’re ONLY GOING TO DO IT TO BAD PEOPLE is just a really goddam screwed-up effin’ BAD IDEA?
    Is it illegal? Under what legal regime?

72. Second, there was never any claim to a “high evidentiary standard.” Quite the opposite. The standard was “bounty hunter X said you were al-Qaeda. That’s kind of crucial to the “at random” charge.
    Do we have a good faith basis for believing that the US government no longer thinks that “some random guy we paid cash to said you were AQ” is sufficient evidence for detention and homicide? I mean, we know that the military and intelligence agencies of the US government really did believe that in the past. Has anyone been fired or disciplined for those policies? Obviously, being charged is completely unthinkable. But is there any evidence that the institutions that used to think “eh, someone said he’s a bad dude, so let’s detain/kill him” have actually changed their structure?
    Look, the reason our government agencies ended up capturing all those random people wasn’t because some one individual had a bad day and made a minor error. It was because the entire institutional structure encouraged all manner of systemic errors and lacked the kind of really basic error correction policies that would detect and rectify those errors. Why exactly should we believe these institutions have changed? Institutional change on this scale is very hard and we’ve seen no evidence that it has occurred in this case.
    If we don’t have any evidence demonstrating a really profound change in the national security bureaucracy, then you can’t really claim that the killings we’re talking about will be any less random than the gitmo captures.

73. “My point here is that, contrary to McKinney’s comment, we *have* had periods of serious domestic terrorism before. And we have *not* responded to them by assassinating individuals wherever they are in the world, either skillfully with a rifle or crudely with bombs.”
    I would suggest that this is an assumption based on a lack of knowledge that it happened rather than knowledge that it didn’t. The fact that we didn’t assassinate one person doesn’t mean we didn’t assassinate any.
    Assassin is notably the second oldest profession, we didn’t invent it.

74. If by posture you simply mean the rhetoric and relation of the state engaged in war to its populace — i.e. societal mobilization for war — then yes, these acts “can” be done outside of a war posture. But that question is not material to an analysis of the acts in the international legal context (I don’t believe; I am not a lawyer). The only way I can see that acts such as these can be given any coherent legal analysis are as acts of war by our country against a non-state entity (potentially against states as well if we bollix up the diplomacy around them, or, God forbid, again seek against all clear calculation of our interest to expand what rightly can be a nearly invisible conflict into one involving combat between nation-states for the sake of getting pictures on the teevee). I suppose it could be argued that if we receive permission from the government of the territory on which we strike then the strikes are merely part of a joint anti-terrorism campaign. But can we legitimately say that any government has the power to authorize the assassination of residents on its territory with no process other than an opaque assurance from the state striking that a determinative process (at whatever evidentiary standard) was followed? What of the question of coercion in the process of securing said permission?
    I believe that yes, quite clearly a war against this terrorist group and others like it can be fought by our country in a way that allows our own politics to move ahead on a nonmobilized footing. I believe that at all costs the last administration sought to avoid pursuing this war in that way, indeed launched a war for territory intended almost exclusively to sustain and maximize the society’s war posture on which it wished to exercize its politics. I think the current administration is right to seek to relax the society from that posture, to allow politics to return to its domestic moorings. But in fact the wars in which it found itself when it came to power continue — both of the wars for territory (one perhaps wise, the other folly) and the war against the non-state entity which had declared war and carried out an act of war (and which may indeed be getting close to neutralization at this point) against us. And acts of war by us continue pursuant to those various states of war. Because these various wars can be readily managed by the military establishment without significant societal mobilization, that should be done. But this fact does not imply that the actions we take in those wars are subject to.
    In my view “counterterrorism” is a composite governmental policy objective that can be pursued by means of war, law enforcement, diplomacy, economic development, and other methods — in any combination. There may (ought to) come a day (soon) when we have ceased use of the means of war in our counterterrorism effort. When that day comes, the neutralization of the threat posed to us by any specific person in the world will be accomplished by arrest subject to due process by the government of a territory in which they are found, (or else by that government with assistance from the state power wishing detain the person), and then extradition/rendition to the power wishing to try him for crimes. As long as we insist on using methods outside these strictures, particularly deadly force outside the context of a judgement of guilt, but also indefinite detention without trial, it seems to me by our actions we remain at war.

75. I would suggest that this is an assumption based on a lack of knowledge that it happened rather than knowledge that it didn’t.
    It is impossible to prove a negative. So one can always say, about any statement, “this is an assumption based on a lack of knowledge that it happened rather than knowledge that it didn’t.” Your argument here can literally be used to disprove any claim about anything in the world. Since I at least am unwilling to accept the notion that there are no true claims in the world, I think we can safely dispense with this line of argument.
    If you have some evidence, cite it.

76. “…U.S. civilians are legitimate targets by virtue of the fact that they live in a democracy and pay taxes, and can ultimately change their government if they wish to dissent (no word on dissenting voters). This is the same rationale employed by bin Laden and al-Qaeda proper.””
    It is also the same rationale used by the Busheviks to invade Iraq, just in case you weren’t paying attention…

77. …sorry, cut myself off at “subject to.” That is “…imply that the actions we take in th[e]se wars are subject to…” …any sensible international legal analysis other than one treating the limits on the actions of a state at war. And even those, it should be said, are only very dubiously being observed, if at all, by our current methods and rules of engagement, as you point out. The idea that any state of affairs remotely like our current array of activities (ie even with far tighter ROEs and standards, even if those were strictly upheld) could be brought within the far tighter legal strictures of peaceful interactions among nations strikes this (again) non-lawyer as a rather hopeless notion.

78. “Your argument here can literally be used to disprove any claim about anything in the world. Since I at least am unwilling to accept the notion that there are no true claims in the world, I think we can safely dispense with this line of argument.”
    I might agree with this except when drawing conclusions from the assertion, which is not provable, that we didn’t do it. There is no evidence we did something that, at least ideally, would have been kept secret, but we should draw a conclusion from the absence of proof?

79. As a technical point, Eric asked, “But otherwise, how do you end up in hot pursuit of previously unknown al-Qaeda operatives?”
    Answer, by going after a known target and encountering previously unknown targets.

80. russell: “Whatever. The point is we didn’t respond to the Galleanist bombings by assassinating anybody. Including Galleani, either when he was in this country or after he was deported.”
    Nor would we do that now, nor is anyone arguing for it! The countries Galleani where was had law enforcement mechanisms, and they still do. So everyone here would be in favor of using them. You seem to be purposefully missing the distinctions being drawn here in order to make it seem that no one who’s arguing for this cares about due process. You don’t take any time to discuss the relevance of the historical examples you toss out, and you ignore hugely destructive things that happened partially in response to those and similar events.
    I agree that there are some similarities with the early 20th century terrorists, but no historical situation is entirely analogous (for example, even a handful of people these days could get hold of nuclear material and kill massive numbers of people). And we’re NOT talking about people in places with a functional criminal justice system.
    Mike: “As long as we insist on using methods outside these strictures, particularly deadly force outside the context of a judgement of guilt, but also indefinite detention without trial, it seems to me by our actions we remain at war.”
    One of the things that bothers me most about the “war against al Qaeda” concept is that there’s no conclusion to the “war”. I’m thinking that we wouldn’t have to resort to the “war” rhetoric if we had a means for dealing with a situation where, as here, there are specific, named people who, upon evidence, pose a substantial threat to another nation, and who are beyond the reach of law. I just don’t see how this isn’t better than what we’re doing now.

81. Do we have a good faith basis for believing that the US government no longer thinks that “some random guy we paid cash to said you were AQ” is sufficient evidence for detention and homicide?
    My proposal is for a new standard. My proposal is not for the same standard that was applied before. To the extent the govt is still using that standard, I strongly oppose the policy.
    Why exactly should we believe these institutions have changed? Institutional change on this scale is very hard and we’ve seen no evidence that it has occurred in this case.
    If we don’t have any evidence demonstrating a really profound change in the national security bureaucracy, then you can’t really claim that the killings we’re talking about will be any less random than the gitmo captures.
    I’m not saying things have changed. I’m proposing a change. Just to be clear.

82. It is also the same rationale used by the Busheviks to invade Iraq, just in case you weren’t paying attention…
    I was. Actually, I was a rarity amongst liberal bloggers in that I strongly OPPOSED the invasion. I didn’t buy the rationale then, and I dont’ buy it now. Whether it’s Bush, Obama or bin Laden.

83. Answer, by going after a known target and encountering previously unknown targets.
    Not sure how that fits in the current discussion. Going after presumably means airstrikes. How does one determine that previous unknowns are al-Qaeda through the lens of a drone?
    And if it’s a military raid, and not an airstrike, well then, standard military ROE would apply in that case for discerning hostiles from non-hostiles.

84. Your argument here can literally be used to disprove any claim about anything in the world.

    Only claims that we know about.
    8p

85. The “abused wife” view of the citizenry of a hegemonic power is not one I find completely inapt or offensive, actually, but I’ll have to come back to that one.
    The First World War is a pretty good example of prior overreaction to terrorism.
    On the international legality of this kind of thing, one factor is that it is mostly done with the consent (“consent”, I know) of the nation whose territory it happens on. There are some exceptions, for instance Clinton’s cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. But in recent years it’s mostly been done with permission. That permission may not have been given willingly* but as a matter of international legality I’m not sure there’s much to say about a government allowing a second government to conduct military operations on its territory.
    * Armitage’s alleged threat to “bomb Pakistan back into the stone age” if they didn’t cooperate springs to mind.

86. I would suggest that this is an assumption based on a lack of knowledge that it happened rather than knowledge that it didn’t.
    In the case of the folks I’m referring to, their biographies are a matter of the public record. They weren’t assassinated by US agents.
    You seem to be purposefully missing the distinctions being drawn here in order to make it seem that no one who’s arguing for this cares about due process.
    The only point I was trying to make in bringing up the Galleanists was to counter McKinney’s claim that terrorist violence was any kind of novelty in the US.
    You are correct, historical analogies are never exact. You are less correct, I think, to claim that all of the countries where the anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th C lived afforded robust criminal justice regimes, or at least regimes that were willing or able to interoperate with our own, but that’s kind of a nit, and doesn’t detract from your basic point.
    I have no idea, frankly, if attacking known AQ actors in other countries by pursuing them with military force is going to make us safer, or not. I dare say nobody does. It is probably going to be different in each case.
    It’s not my opinion that military action is never justified. It’s not even my opinion that tracking these guys down and slitting their throats while they sleep in their beds is never justified.
    What *is* my opinion is that pursuing individual people by dropping high explosives on them from above is highly likely to kill a lot of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with AQ. That will be very bad for us, and far, far worse for them. The only people it will be good for is AQ.
    And anyone here who thinks authorization to use this kind of force is never going to be abused really needs to review the history of the US intelligence and military forces over, say, the last 70 years. Perhaps more.
    It is problematic in the extreme to try to apply military force against individuals or small groups of individuals who are living in the middle of a population that you otherwise have no particular quarrel with.
    That seems, to me, to be so obvious as to not need saying, but apparently it needs saying.
    We’re taking this path, and a lot of people with whom we have no particular quarrel are going to die hideous violent deaths as a consequence. I know this because it happens now.
    Maybe it will make us safer, maybe it won’t. But it will definitely make a lot of people who wish us no particular harm very very dead.
    On another thread I referred to Mir Aimal Kasi, a Pakistani man who came to live in the US, and who gunned down a handful of CIA employees while they waited for a traffic light in Langley.
    The reason Kani gave for doing this was (a) he thought US policy in Muslim countries sucked, and (b) his father had apparently worked in some way as a CIA asset in Afghanistan, and was then abandoned by them, leading to his killing by the Russians.
    So one day Kasi went and bought an AK-47 at a gun shop in Chantilly, noticed that CIA folks had to wait a long time at a traffic light by CIA headquarters, and a light bulb went off. He realized he could just walk up and kill some of them, and that’s what he did.
    Everything we do affects other people, and they will respond. It’s not like we can simply go kill anyone who we think poses a threat to us, then wash our hands, come home, and be done with it.
    This policy will have consequences. We don’t know what they will be, or when they will come back to affect us. But come they will.
    There’s probably some calculus by which we can figure out if, net/net, the blowback ends up being worse than whatever a guy like al-Awlaki is cooking up, but if so that kind of math is above my pay grade.
    In any case, that’s a question nobody can answer until our current actions bear their full fruit. Good luck to us.

87. Are we willing to categorically limit the potential universe of strikes we sanction here to those authorized by the home government?

88. And anyone here who thinks authorization to use this kind of force is never going to be abused really needs to review the history of the US intelligence and military forces over, say, the last 70 years. Perhaps more.
    It is problematic in the extreme to try to apply military force against individuals or small groups of individuals who are living in the middle of a population that you otherwise have no particular quarrel with.
    Part of the problem with this discussion is that I’m proposing a sort of preferred outcome according to specific rules and criteria that are not currently being applied, but am kind of held to answer for current practices – which are far, far from ideal in any sense.
    We should recognize that the status quo is worse than an attempt to provide some form of judicial oversight, with codified rules and restrictions.
    Whether or not we should abandon military strikes altogether is an interesting question, and I’m open to the suggestion.
    However, I think of situations like an al-Qaeda training camp and wonder why military force shouldn’t be used. Or, a car full of al-Qaeda ops driving along a deserted road in Yemen.
    Populated areas and sketchy intel are one thing. Secluded targets with solid intel are another.
    And what’s the law enforcement alternative? Say we dropped in a SWAT team on an al-Qaeda training camp or compound, and had them flash their badges and say, in Arabic, “You’re under arrest”! Is there any doubt that a firefight would ensue? And that many “suspects” would be killed – and that those deaths would be without due process.
    And if that is wrong in the same manner, then where does that leave us when such a congregation manifests?

89. Are we willing to categorically limit the potential universe of strikes we sanction here to those authorized by the home government?
    That is an interesting question. I’m not prepared to offer an answer yet as it requires me to ponder the permutations.

90. I will try to find some solid examples, but my impression is that a lot of the time, in the kinds of places where everyone has an AK-47 under the bed, when American forces go in on the ground or by helicopter, a lot of people who would never have otherwise gotten involved in fighting US forces will get pulled into things and many of them will wind up dead. I’m thinking of the Black Hawk Down incident as a particularly famous example, although I think similar things have been common in Iraq and Afghanistan too.
    That was an – ill-advised – attempt to snatch a handful of leaders from Mogadishu. It ended up with somewhere between 500 and 1,500 Somalis dead. Virtually all of those Somalis would still have been alive if the US had dropped a bomb instead of attempting an helicopter-borne raid, because there would have been no battle to be drawn into. The bomb might not have hit the right people. It might have killed dozens of innocent people. But “dozens” is less than 500-1,500.

91. By the way, russell, they didn’t assassinate Galleani, but they did shoot him in the face. I found this possibly unreliable, but interesting random source :
    “… [Galleani] fled to London. He was 40 years old at this time, and arrived at the United States in 1901, barely a month after the assassination of President McKinley at the hand of a self-proclaimed anarchist.
    “… In 1902, the Paterson silk workers engaged in a strike, and Galleani threw his oratorical talents in with the strikers, urging workers to declare a general strike and overcome capitalism, spellbinding his audiences with his rhetorical flourish and clarity of thought.
    “When police opened fire on the strikers, Galleani was wounded in the face and was later indicted for inciting a riot.”
    “The Galleanists engaged in numerous high-profile acts of terrorism, including a systematic bomb plot with thirty targets, …
    “Another Galleanist, Mario Buda, to protest the indictment of Sacco and Vanzetti, bombed Wall Street (September 16, 1920…), leaving 30 dead, over 200 seriously injured, and creating a conflagration causing $2 million in property damage (including demolishing J.P. Morgan’s office).
    These bombings caused a panic among the authorities that served as the main impetus for the Red Scare, and led to the unparalleled expansion of the FBI’s powers…
    “The authorities invoked the idea of a giant anarchist “conspiracy” to overthrow the government, which was actually false. The infamous “Palmer Raids” whereby the government raided and jailed radicals across the country, were a direct response to the Galleanists’ terrorism (Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer being one of their bombing targets). The American Civil Liberties Union was created in reaction to the unconstitutional Palmer Raids.
    “Between 1919 and 1920, hundreds of radicals, including many anarchists, were deported (including Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman), as part of a nationwide reaction against radical insurgency, largely instigated by the bombings of the Galleanists. … Interestingly, these deportations were not carried out juridically, but instead were done by the Department of Labor, mostly because the courts proved unable to convict anarchists and radicals, either from lack of evidence or from hung juries. The government relied on the executive power of the Labor Department to treat it as an immigration issue, allowing them to bypass the court system entirely.
    …
    “With Sacco and Vanzetti’s executions in 1927, the anarchist movement in the United States was pronounced dead, as most radicals joined the Communist Party or the Democratic Socialists, were deported, or renounced anarchism altogether.”
    Anyway, sorry for the long excerpt, but it is pretty interesting. And we were far from committed to providing due process.
    As far as blow-back is concerned, sure – maybe we should send people with knives so there wouldn’t be any collateral damage – I’d be in favor of that. Except for the various people who’d be sent to try to accomplish it. Or maybe we should do nothing and take our lumps (that is, innocent people here taking the lumps). There are consequences to WHATEVER we do or don’t do which is why some of us try to elect people who are likely to weigh the consequences in an informed and intelligent manner instead of, say, paying visits to the CIA to find “intelligence” to justify belligerent policy after the fact. That is something, Turbulence, that I believe has changed.

92. Part of the problem with this discussion is that I’m proposing a sort of preferred outcome according to specific rules and criteria that are not currently being applied, but am kind of held to answer for current practices – which are far, far from ideal in any sense.
    Fair enough.
    Whether or not we should abandon military strikes altogether is an interesting question, and I’m open to the suggestion.
    I wouldn’t argue that military strikes should be abandoned. There are situations where they are appropriate. A situation like the military training camps that AQ used to operate in Afghanistan, frex, seem like a completely appropriate target for a military strike.
    To me, anyway.
    The Dec 24 attack Dana Priest refers to in the Post article that prompted this discussion was directed at “a compound”. What does that mean?
    The air strikes we’ve been conducting in the northwest Pakistani territories apparently kill some folks who we believe are AQ, and also kill dozens or low hundreds of people who happen to live nearby.
    I don’t really know how likely it is for people who clearly and unambiguously mean us harm to present themselves in a context where we can kill them through military action without killing people who have nothing to do with them, or us.
    We can go ahead and do it anyway, but it’s very, very far from clear to me that what we get out of it is worth what we lose.

93. And we were far from committed to providing due process.
    No argument there.
    But to beat this tired dead old horse one more time, what we *did not do* was send US military around the world to blow up anarchists, whether active bomb-throwers, or the intellectuals who provided them with their justification.

94. “Are we willing to categorically limit the potential universe of strikes we sanction here to those authorized by the home government?”
    I am sorry and curious. I don’t understand this question.
    But perhaps I would instinctively answer that I only worry about whether we are killing the right people (or none depending on the conclusion). I assume any action by a foreign government on our soil is an act of war.
    Any action by a gang (AQ is as much an international gang as some ethnic mafias) is a crime and should be punished within the framework of our legal systems (military or civilian). That should be in concert with the country they are hiding in or, ultimately, in spite of them. That ultimately is based on the level of cooperation from the country and local law enforcement across multiple issues.
    However, we should reserve the right, as should all sovereign nations, to defend ourselves and our people anywhere we have to do that. On foreign soil that is a cooperative venture or our own act of war.

95. “But to beat this tired dead old horse one more time”
    Actually, I enjoyed the digression. it’s one of my favorite periods in history, although I know more about the Russians. (Should put that in the past tense since it’s been awhile that I studied it and my memory sucks.)

96. I’m thinking that we wouldn’t have to resort to the “war” rhetoric if we had a means for dealing with a situation where, as here, there are specific, named people who, upon evidence, pose a substantial threat to another nation,
    Not to be overly glib, but “substantial threat” my rear end. To reduce it to numbers, assuming a population growth rate in the US of 0%, and a 9/11-level event every single day (i.e. 3,000 deaths), it would take nearly 275 years to completely eliminate the population of the country.
    If, instead of 9/11-level events, we limit it to a successful underpants bombing every day, resulting in the deaths of about 300 passengers and crew, we’re looking at nearly 2,800 years.
    So let’s not go getting too worked up about “substantial threats to the nation.” We aren’t getting invaded by the vast al Qaeda army anytime soon.

97. That is something, Turbulence, that I believe has changed.
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So, has this change produced any prosecutions for intelligence or military officers who imprisoned random people for a decade based on nothing? Of course not. As long as we refuse to sanction, in any way, people who committed horrible injustices, we are going to continue seeing horrible injustices. I really don’t understand this: our military and intelligence institutions imprisoned people for nothing. So, given their manifest failure to handle a small amount of power, now we’re going to give them even more power by letting them kill random citizens on a whim. This seems…not smart.
    We had lots of institutional safeguards to prevent the horrific miscarriages of justice that have already happened. And they all failed. We know that because horrific injustices happened. I see no reason to think that some new safeguard designed by Eric Martin will be successful.
    To put it another way: the quality of presidential administrations varies over time. But looking at the history of CIA operations, crazy stupid stuff happens during both bad and good administrations. A bad administration can make things somewhat worse, but a good administration can’t compensate for the fact that the entire institutional structure promotes bad decisions at all levels. The problem isn’t just bad presidents, it is bad institutions, and those institutional structures persist across administrations.

98. So, given their manifest failure to handle a small amount of power, now we’re going to give them even more power by letting them kill random citizens on a whim. This seems…not smart.
    No. They have that power now, or at least have been exercising said power for well over 8 years now without blinking. I’m not proposing a new grant of power. I’m proposing putting restrictions on the current exercise of that power. Big difference.
    Also, my proposed framework specifically outlaws killing random citizens on a whim. Both in the “random” analysis, and “whim” analysis.
    We had lots of institutional safeguards to prevent the horrific miscarriages of justice that have already happened. And they all failed. We know that because horrific injustices happened. I see no reason to think that some new safeguard designed by Eric Martin will be successful.
    Did we have such safeguards on airstrike ROE? Which ones?
    Regardless, the worst that could happen if my approach is attempted, and the safeguards fail, is a return to the status quo ante.
    What alternative were you proposing? Because from where I’m sitting the status quo looks pretty bad – and my proposals would be a vast improvement if adhered to. And if rejected, well, then back to the status quo.

99. “So, has this change produced any prosecutions for intelligence or military officers who imprisoned random people for a decade based on nothing? Of course not. As long as we refuse to sanction, in any way, people who committed horrible injustices, we are going to continue seeing horrible injustices.”
    I agree with this. But I haven’t given up hope that it’s going to happen. I think if Obama had pursued this the moment he got into office, he wouldn’t have had a prayer of getting anything else done, and there’s a lot that needs to be done. Obviously, he’s having a hard enough time as it is. But I still have hope that this will be coming later in his administration. I’ll give up hope in Obama when I find a better alternative.

100. I have hope that Holder is going to get going on it this year despite the wishes of some at the White House (at least Rahm Emanuel, maybe Obama too).
     It’s been clear that they have been gathering evidence for some time. It’s not clear what they’re going to do with it. I suspect pardons will eventually be involved, which is a very very second-best approach to prosecutions, but in the long run is a lot better than nothing at all, because it does at least definitively mark the action as illegal. As I said, very much second-best, but far better than simply stating that it wasn’t illegal in the first place.
     I don’t think there’s any question that many of us here have more confidence in this kind of power in the hands of Obama than we did in the hands of Bush/Cheney. The argument that granting this power legally means it will be misused in future runs into a powerful obstacle, which is that it was misused in the past despite having even less legal framework around it. As Eric has said a couple of times here, that power is in the hands of the President whether we like it or not. That was demonstrated during the Bush years. This is not an argument that any action is acceptable if it has a legal figleaf – torture certainly comes to mind – but that certain types of actions that have legitimate and illegitimate uses are better off being brought into a legal framework constraining their use, rather than simply accepted as extra-legal exigent measures.
     (Certainly if you think there is no legitimate use of this kind of tactic it is a principled stand to oppose it under all circumstances, but I’m not convinced of that.)

101. “I have hope that Holder is going to get going on it this year despite the wishes of some at the White House (at least Rahm Emanuel, maybe Obama too).”
     There is a reality to this that I think every President quickly understands. This is a Pandora’s box that would expose hundreds of people to prosecution, decades of trials that would, most likely, not ever touch the people you would like to punish.
     It would also set precedent for subsequent administrations punishing their predecessors and, perhaps most important to this administration, significantly reduce the power of the Executive branch in general and the President in particular.
     Disregarding my opinion of Bush or Cheney (very different views), Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and many others, this would be a bad step to take if we would like to move forward as a country.
     There are certainly those in and outside the US who would like to see us commit this level of public relations folly to “prove” our committment to the rule of law. But it would be folly, it would diminish the US even more for the excesses, real and perceived, we have already corrected.
     I prefer the punishment by the voters that has already occurred. It is how our system replaces the guys who went too far. The problem, for some, is the new administration policies are still too far.
     The facts bear out that our system actually worked. Men of conscience in the DOJ and other places did their jobs, or more, and exposed the excesses and stopped them. I am unconvinced when people talk about the changes we need to make to prevent the things that have been exposed and stopped.
     We can’t possibly put enough controls in place to prevent people from pushing the envelope and vying for more power. But comparisons to South Africa or others ignores the point that, in less than six years, we identified an excessive regime and replaced it without a violent overthrow. We actually reined in the worst of its excesses in a much shorter time than that.
     That is not a failure, it is a system that worked. As governments go, you can do worse.

102. As governments go, you can do worse.
     I have no problem offering a hearty amen to this. Even given my feelings about the Bush admin.
     I’d be happy to see all of the principals involved banned from holding public office, ever again. And I do mean all.

103. I understand Marty’s point. I think that if a thorough inquiry were done, it would take years, and would be more far-reaching and exhaustive than the country could stand. There would possibly be a reaction to it that would overwhelm any good that was done. Honestly, I think that the realization of this is what has held Obama and Holder from doing this work on day one.
     But I agree with russell that something has to be done to keep these people out of public office at the very least. It sickens me to see Liz Cheney on the airwaves. That has to be stopped. Their point of view is not legitimate. In a society where there is free speech, they shouldn’t be muffled, but to give them cultural legitimacy is simply wrong. People who orchestrated the Bush crimes came straight from the unpunished Iran-Contra regime. Something has to happen so that this stops.
     That said, it has to be done artfully and carefully. That’s my hope – that it will be done.

104. It’s nice to know that, in a thread in which so many Americans have expressed so much bloodthirstiness for punishing their enemies, they’re perfectly willing to forgive and let go without investigation or punishment people who merely had foreigners kidnapped, locked up for years, tortured, and murdered.
     After all, what does a little torture matter when it’s not Americans – or not many, and only Muslim Americans – who were being abused like that?

105. Speaking just for myself, I’m just trying to adjust my expectations to be congruent with what is achievable.

106. It’s nice to know that, in a thread in which so many Americans have expressed so much bloodthirstiness for punishing their enemies, they’re perfectly willing to forgive and let go without investigation or punishment people who merely had foreigners kidnapped, locked up for years, tortured, and murdered.
     After all, what does a little torture matter when it’s not Americans – or not many, and only Muslim Americans – who were being abused like that?
     I have no problem offering a hearty amen to this.
     I understand Marty’s point. I think that if a thorough WAR were done, it would take years, and would be more far-reaching and exhaustive than the country could stand. There would possibly be a reaction to it that would overwhelm any good that was done.
     I wish this attitude could have been taken after 9-11

107. russell: I’m just trying to adjust my expectations to be congruent with what is achievable.
     I can understand and appreciate that.
     But it’s no virtue to have low expectations of your government.
     Carter let Nixon go uninvestigated and unpunished; Clinton let Bush I go uninvestigated and unpunished; Obama is letting Bush II go uninvestigated and unpunished: so the precedent is set, and set pretty firmly. No matter what crimes or atrocities a Republican administration commits, the next Democratic administration will ignore them.
     I prefer the punishment by the voters that has already occurred. It is how our system replaces the guys who went too far
     Last time, Bush II started a war that’s already killed over million people, set up illegal concentration camps which are not yet closed down, and instigated the open practice of torture by the US military of prisoners, many of whom were innocent kidnap victims.
     What will the next Republican President do? Nixon got away with corruption; Bush I got away with selling arms to Iran to fund terrorists in South America; Bush II got away with kidnapping, torture and murder – albeit committed by the US military in his prison camps, not directly: he also got away with lying the US into war.
     So, given the pattern and the precedent, what will President Palin do in 2013 or 2017? (Or whoever is deemed to be the appropriate person to run your country, next time.)
     I do appreciate that there’s really nothing one ordinary person can do in the US to change it. Even the right to vote, insofar as you have it, won’t achieve much so long as the system is set up to make sure that only conservatives can get in, and no one in power will ever call their copains to account.
     But it’s no virtue to be so content with such a system of government, or, as Marty says, argue that this is the best way – that to have criminals in office who are allowed to get away with their crimes is how the it is “actually worked” – justice would be a mere “public relations folly”, exposing to all Americans the crimes committed by their rulers in their name.
     (The rest of the world already knows about them.)

108. No matter what crimes or atrocities a Republican administration commits, the next Democratic administration will ignore them.
     OK, you may have changed my mind for me.
     The issue Holder would face would be the sheer volume of crap to wade through. That, and the sheer length of the history of potentially criminal malfeasance of some of the principals.
     As a practical matter, it’s kind of overwhelming.
     So, we would need to focus on the high points.
     For my money those would be:
     1. The decision to invade Iraq
     2. The establishment of the torture regime
     IMO there would be enormous benefit in just those two. Neither should be viewed as being particular partisan, either, as compared to any number of other, more explicitly partisan acts of criminality or malfeasance.
     Those two, and the rest could slide. IMVHO.

109. What I would add to my comment above is that those two issues — invading Iraq, and torture — are to my mind the most crucial because they involve not just domestic law-breaking, but potential war crimes and crimes against humanity.
     They are what took us from a messy and perhaps somewhat corrupt republic, to a true rogue nation.
     You shouldn’t be able to do that and walk away from it.

110. “You shouldn’t be able to do that and walk away from it.”
     I agree. I think the Obama administration (Holder) is trying to figure out the most effective way to do something constructive about this. Obviously, it would help if he could get some people appointed to his Justice Department, etc.
     I am in favor of prosecution. My only hesitation (and what I think gives pause to the administration) is over these problems:
     1. The Supreme Court. Need I say more about that? The one thing worse than failing to prosecute would be to prosecute and lose with a precedent establishing John Yoo’s version of Executive power.
     2. The media circus. Probably don’t need to say more about that.
     3. The possibility of a renegade intelligence community doing something clandestine and horrible.
     4. A Clinton-like witch hunt for scandal, any scandal, that will derail the current administration.
     The first worry is the most serious and substantive, and is the only one that would discourage me from proceeding if I were Eric Holder. The rest would have to be managed though, except for Number Three, which may be a false concern.

111. One point:
     Carter let Nixon go uninvestigated and unpunished
     Not exactly true. Ford pardoned Nixon AND all the co-conspirators. There was little legal recourse for Carter even he had wanted to go after Nixon. (It’s a safe bet that Ford was chosen for VP because he would pardon Nixon if the fat hit the fire.)

112. I think that if a thorough inquiry were done, it would take years, and would be more far-reaching and exhaustive than the country could stand.
     Please. Not so very long ago, this country endured several years of virtually nonstop, far-reaching and exhaustive obsession with what the President id with his naughty bits and when he did it. All because, we were told, nothing less than the future of our democracy was at stake. And somehow we all lived to tell the tale.

113. heh

114. “Not so very long ago, this country endured several years of virtually nonstop, far-reaching and exhaustive obsession with what the President id with his naughty bits and when he did it.”
     I know. I’m talking about a THOROUGH review, including not only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., but also everybody who approved it, everybody who did it, etc. I don’t disagree that some kind of prosecution or at least truth commission should happen. See my subsequent comment.

115. “1. The Supreme Court. Need I say more about that? The one thing worse than failing to prosecute would be to prosecute and lose with a precedent establishing John Yoo’s version of Executive power.”
     While this is a specific challenge the real challenge would be to determine what was actually illegal across the multitude of activities, which could be proven, who did them, who authorized them, who took Nuremberg type orders, who is protected by legal opinion, who isn’t. We aren’t talking about a dog and pony show over someones infidelity.
     It is fine for non-lawyers to sit around and quote statutes and international agreements that sound like someone should get in trouble.
     As I understand (non-lawyer)the US has done two things, despite being signator to many agreements. It has consistently maintained its jurisdiction over all things US citizens do (if that’s too general I am happy to have someone draw the parameters, but my non-lawyer understanding is that it is our laws and implementation of the international treaties we actually agree to follow).
     The second, of course, is to empower people in government to make decisions based on legal assessments of the DOJ.
     It becomes problematic, certainly not as straightforward as is presented by some here, to determine what we think was wrong and what was actually illegal.
     I am satisfied if the President decides that we have identified what was wrong and corrected it, but that it is impractical, or even against the countries best interest, to engage in a protracted determination of what was illegal.
     And just for the record, Reagan didn’t prosecute his predecessor and Bush II didn’t prosecute Clinton, just to note that Republican Presidents have had that opportunity also.
     Lastly, by the logic put forward by some here, we should be investigating why it took so long for the international community to invade Iraq and remove the war criminal in charge. Almost every oft repeated accusation of alleged illegal activity by the US was actually done and on a much broader scale by Saddam and sons (with no congressional or judicial oversight) from torture to unprovoked invasion of another country.

116. the real challenge would be to determine what was actually illegal across the multitude of activities, which could be proven, who did them, who authorized them, who took Nuremberg type orders, who is protected by legal opinion, who isn’t.
     By “activities”, you mean torture? No worries. All torture is illegal.
     What could be proven? – By the usual method of investigation. Soldiers who took illegal orders from their superiors may be able to plea-bargain their way out of a jail sentence by testifying who gave them the orders and exactly what they did and to whom.
     If you mean that you think the President and his crew could claim the protection of John Yoo’s “legal opinion”, investigation would need to include: the classic question: What did the President know, and when did he know it? Who asked for that “legal opinion” that it was OK for US soldiers to torture prisoners, and in what form did they ask it? Was it a genuine question to advise on the legality of torture?

117. The reason we lived to tell the tale was precisely because the general public didn’t much buy the faux outrage of the Republicans and their argument that Clinton lied to a grand jury. Investigating war crimes will bring out the real outrage and it won’t be pretty at all. I don’t have any confidence whatsoever that this country is strong enough to endure that.
     Probably the best that will happen is in 10-15 years we will set up some kind of investigation to get to at least get the facts out and that will be that. But I’m not holding my breath that long.

118. we should be investigating why it took so long for the international community to invade Iraq and remove the war criminal in charge
     For much the same reason it’s taken the international community 43 years so far to decide against invading Israel and removing the war criminals in charge.
     For all UN members, the only legal war is a war of self-defense, or a war authorised by the Security Council.
     Bush’s quasi-legal justification for the war on Iraq was that Iraq possessed WMD which were a sufficient threat to the US that the US was justified in making war on Iraq and calling it self-defense. But as the whole world knows – except for some Americans who get their news from Fox – Bush lied.

119. “Bush lied”
     But was that illegal?

120. rdldot: I don’t have any confidence whatsoever that this country is strong enough to endure that.
     What the hell does this mean, anyway?
     Seriously.
     That Americans, finding out what their rulers did in their name, might get really outraged, despite everything Fox News could do to play this up as a partisan attack – yeah, maybe. Stipulate that, and I have no idea what you mean when you argue that if the citizens of the country feel real abiding popular outrage against the people who lied their country into war and ordered US soldiers to torture prisoners… how is that going to “destroy the country”?
     What exactly do you mean?

121. Marty: But was that illegal?
     The attack on Iraq was illegal. Bush lied to justify the attack.
     You can argue that Bush lying the US into war wasn’t a criminal offense, but that’s OK: the war was.

122. But was that illegal?
     Lying per se is not in and of itself illegal.
     Lying about some things, in some circumstances, is.
     I don’t know if the decision to invade Iraq will be found to be illegal in a court of law, or not.
     I would like the principals to be required to make their defense, publicly, and under oath.
     Seriously Marty, this stuff is not just a “he said / she said” difference in interpretation of obscure points of law.
     War crimes and crimes against humanity may have been committed. People have, literally, hung for that.
     They should be required to answer for their actions.
     They were brave and bold enough to take the nation to war, and brave and bold enough to authorize their reports to kick the living shite out of people.
     They should be brave and bold enough to stand in the dock and explain themselves.

123. “War crimes and crimes against humanity may have been committed. People have, literally, hung for that.”
     War crimes may have been committed, but you are wrong, it is the very epitome of he said/she said legal differences.
     They have explained themselves many times. They believed, at the time, that it was a necessary war to ensure the security of the US. You just don’t like the explanation and I am ok with that.
     Just imagine though that they had found 1 wmd, then all of this would be moot, no one would be screaming for their heads, no war crime for invading. Yet, the ongoing actions by Saddam ensured that every country in the world believed he had WMD.
     The lack of them was as big a surprise to all of our allies as it was to us, not because of any lies by Bush, just because their intelligence said Saddam had them.
     If the lie wasn’t illegal, the war certainly wasn’t. We, like all nations, reserve the right to defend ourselves and our allies. Saddam’s Iraq was a short term threat. We made it clear over a very long period that we felt that threat was imminent and Saddam overplayed his hand in trying to remain a center of power in the Middle East.
     Again, as I have stated often, the policies that allowed anyone to be tortured are stopped, were legally flawed, and our government worked to stop that. The assumption that the war in Iraq itself is a crime is a much longer stretch.

124. Marty: We, like all nations, reserve the right to defend ourselves and our allies. Saddam’s Iraq was a short term threat.
     Oh, I see. You believed their lies, and despite all, you still do.

125. russell: They were brave and bold enough to take the nation to war, and brave and bold enough to authorize their reports to kick the living shite out of people.
     They should be brave and bold enough to stand in the dock and explain themselves.
     But if they did that – and assuming that Marty paid attention to any news service accurately reporting what they were saying – Marty might come to realise that they duped him. That he was lied to, and that he believed and repeated those lies for truth, and as a result he supported an illegal war.
     At that point, there are two choices for any Marty: to accept that he was fooled by people he wanted to trust, rooked up and down and made an ass of: that out of their own mouths they have to admit they lied to him about Iraq being a threat because they wanted war.
     Or to get very, very angry with the people who exposed his leaders: with the lawyers and the justice system and the news media, but not with the people who lied to him, because he doesn’t want to believe he was duped for so many years.
     Multiply Marty2 up a million times, and I do believe I see the problem rdldot was talking about….

126. Jes: What exactly do you mean?
     I’m not sure exactly what I ‘mean’ but you are misinterpreting my point. Obviously, I wasn’t clear…my apologies. I believe the outrage would not be towards those that started an illegal war and their subsequent war crimes. The outrage will likely be towards those exposing and/or prosecuting the perpetrators.

127. rdldot: I believe Jes agrees with you.
     I believe Jes’s final paragraph means:
     ‘Take a million people who [get very, very angry with the people who exposed his leaders… but not with thoe people who lied to him] and problems will arise’
     At the moment, I lack the time or clarity of mind to adequately express my opinions on this.

128. Jes: Multiply Marty2 up a million times, and I do believe I see the problem rdldot was talking about…
     Yes, but I think you’ll have to bump up that million to, what, 30 million?

129. Yes, I’m slow in posting my replies but Jes does see the point I was originally making (poorly at first).

130. I believe the outrage would not be towards those that started an illegal war and their subsequent war crimes. The outrage will likely be towards those exposing and/or prosecuting the perpetrators.
     Yes, I agree – I didn’t understand what you meant, but I follow it now. Marty clarified it for me.
     Anyone who wants to know, by now, does know that Bush & Co told lies to the US public, to Congress, and to the world, to justify their making war on Iraq.
     That Marty still honestly believes he wasn’t lied to suggests strongly that if anything happens which he cannot ignore in which Bush & Co are publicly shown to have lied to him – he is much more likely to be angry with the people exposing Bush & Co as liars, and himself as their dupe, than he is with Bush & Co themselves.
     Which is why I now follow what you meant when you said you weren’t sure the country could endure it: how many Martys are there still in the US, who will never acknowledge that Bush & Co lied and who will be very angry with anyone who can prove to them that they were fooled?

131. They believed, at the time, that it was a necessary war to ensure the security of the US.
     Yes, that’s the claim.
     Diane Sawyer once famously asked George Bush to distinguish between Hussein having WMD, and Hussein possibly acting to acquire WMD at some point in the future.
     Bush’s reply was “What’s the difference?”
     There is a difference.

132. Ascribing Marty’s views to everyone else in the conversation would be a mistake. I would far rather see those who ordered torture and indefinite detention without trial tried in criminal court. I think investigations & pardons are a more likely but much less preferable outcome. I think “nothing at all” is a big mistake, but that doesn’t make it impossible.
     None of which has much bearing on the policy that was originally under discussion, but I guess it did provide a good opportunity for some broad-brush portraits of bloodthirsty Americans incapable of – and uninterested in – critically examining at their own failures, as if – to the extent it is true – this is a unique characteristic rather than a universal one.

133. I think this response is appropriate:

     “This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception,” he declared. “It’s a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over 1 million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programs or is that a risk it would be irresponsible to take?”

     That, of course, is Tony Blair, not George Bush, the article went on to say:

     Blair also defended his alliance with the United States, denying that there had been a covert deal between himself and then-President George W. Bush, saying instead that he “didn’t want America to feel that it had no option but to do it on its own.”
     In three hours at the witness table this morning, Blair insisted that intelligence assessments supported the view that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program.
     “It was at least reasonable for me at the time [to conclude that] this was a threat I should take very seriously,” he said. “All the intelligence we received was to the same effect. There were people perfectly justifiably and sensibly also saying that you cannot sit around and wait … you have got to take action clearly and definitively.”

     I think President Bush agreed with this assessment and I’m sure others are sure they lied together.
     My best guess is the number you are talking about is three or four times the 30 million, depending on if they pulled in Pelosi and other Democrats from the intelligence committees and then it would be even more than that.

134. sorry link didn’t work:
     this is where it is.

135. “None of which has much bearing on the policy that was originally under discussion”
     JD,
     I think it does have a lot to do with the original point. While seemingly far afield it represents the real risk of not having a FISA or whatever review, because we need to have everyones butt covered in case someone decides to prosecute everyone that had anything to do with it once we get a new administration.
     While I am fine with investigating a limited list of potential criminal acts that occurred around torture policy, the broad brush of constantly illegal activities by the previous administration is absurd. That absurdity creates the need for a CYA panel for a list that I’m pretty sure we have had for decades.

136. could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programs or is that a risk it would be irresponsible to take?
     IIRC, UNMOVIC inspectors were in Iraq from November 2002 until March of 2003. No WMD were found. With the exception of some missiles whose range exceeded the required limits, no weapons prohibited by 1441 were found.
     That’s my understanding. It’s in the public record.
     If Blair, Bush, Cheney, et al want to defend their position, they are free to do so.
     IMO they should be required to do so, not just on TV, but to an authority that has the power to punish them if they are found to have acted illegally.
     This isn’t just a matter of differences of opinion.

137. Marty, there was a joke going the rounds in the UK after Tony Blair converted to Catholicism when he resigned as Prime Minister. It concerned how long it would take for the priest to hear Blair’s First Confession, in which he should have confessed all of the sins he had committed to that date, repent, do penance, and be absolved, so that he could take his First Communion with a clear conscience.
     The punchline was “No time at all: Blair doesn’t think he’s ever done anything wrong.”

138. Blair is a lying, self-deluding tool whose ignorance of history and personal hubris led him to a course of action that was illegal and immoral.
     If he understood the history of the UK-USA relationship, he would have seen that it is the responsibility of both partners to refrain from assisting the other when the cause is unjust. Suez and Vietnam proved that the relationship can survive such periods. His statement that he “didn’t want America to feel that it had no option but to do it on its own” is 180 degrees from what should have been his concern: that the UK-USA relationship would be seen – accurately in this case – as being an alliance of dominance rather than defense.
     (I don’t like Blair very much. Can you tell? The only vote I’ve ever cast was for an MP of his party in the election that brought him to power in 1997, so I feel a certain personal sense of responsibility & betrayal with him that doesn’t apply with Bush.)

139. Jacob: Ascribing Marty’s views to everyone else in the conversation would be a mistake.
     I was not ascribing Marty’s views to anyone else in this conversation. I was agreeing with the point rdldot was making, which I had come to see the point of after reading Marty’s stout conviction that, despite everything now in public domain proving that he was lied to, he still believes Bush (and Blair) were telling the truth. Multiply that up by a million or two, add on the teabagger/birther morons, and I agree with rdldot that the US is in trouble.
     The issue of the crime against humanity committed by Bush and abetted by Blair, in lying to justify making war on Iraq, is a crime that properly ought to see them on trial at the Hague.
     The crimes Bush and others committed with regard to the illegal detention, kidnapping and torture of prisoners by the US military is more properly dealt with by the US: only if the US refused to deal with these crimes would they properly become the concern of the international community.
     I agree that they can and should be separated.

140. If nothing else, this thread does point to an interesting gap in one standard bit of American right-wing boilerplate: that much-ballyhooed “mistrust” of government. All a [Republican] president has to do is start getting his war on and his word becomes gold. And if it turns out he was either (1) lying through his teeth or (2) criminally gullible (take your pick, Marty, it’s up to you)…well, at least he meant well. He’s from the government, after all, and he’s here to help.

141. “If nothing else, this thread does point to an interesting gap in one standard bit of American right-wing boilerplate: that much-ballyhooed “mistrust” of government. All a [Republican] president has to do is start getting his war on and his word becomes gold.”
     Let me fix that for you Uncle, I believe that the right wing, in general, jumped right in on Obamas side when he decided that more war was the answer. It is a trained response for Americans to intrinsically trust the President as Commander-in-Chief, no matter what party he is from. It is why that role is discussed so much in Presidential elections and should not be dismissed so much by the progressives in evaluating candidates.

142. It is a trained response for Americans to intrinsically trust the President as Commander-in-Chief, no matter what party he is from.
     Which is why the Republicans lined up foursquare behind Bill Clinton over Kosovo.
     Except that they didn’t.
     Nice try, Marty.

143. “Which is why the Republicans lined up foursquare behind Bill Clinton over Kosovo.”
     Hmmm, long time ago but I seem to recall their issue was the US taking sides with Osama Bin Laden. That might have been an acceptable exception.

144. I seem to recall their issue was the US taking sides with Osama Bin Laden.
     Well, that changes everything.
     You are utterly priceless, Marty.

145. “I seem to recall their issue was the US taking sides with Osama Bin Laden.”
     What? Care to explain? I hadn’t heard that one.

146. Let me fix that for you Uncle, I believe that the right wing, in general, jumped right in on Obamas side when he decided that more war was the answer.
     I’d advise you to Google up what happened all over FOX News and other right-wing mouthpieces after Obama announced sending more troops to Afghanistan, but somehow I suspect the point would go right past you.

147. Blair also defended his alliance with the United States, denying that there had been a covert deal between himself and then-President George W. Bush
     Didn’t the Downing Street memos prove that was a lie, as well? I seem to recall that Blair and Bush had agreed to the invasion well ahead of the fact. (A review of the memos seems to bear this out.)

148. “I seem to recall their issue was the US taking sides with Osama Bin Laden.
     Well, that changes everything.
     You are utterly priceless, Marty.”
     Uncle Kvetch,
     Thanks on the priceless piece, uh maybe, uh probably not, oh well.
     I will clarify that we probably didn’t broadly have much idea that Osama Bin Laden was supporting the KLA. They were a group the US carried as a terrorist organization until Clinton removed them from that list and tried to partner with/support them in Kosovo.
     I don’t remember that it was the Republicans that objected to partnering with a terrorist organization that was, which we did know, supported by the drug trade and radical Islamists. I do remember it was an issue so I don’t doubt it was Republicans.
     I would suggest it wasn’t quite the same as the troop surge in Afghanistan.

149. Phil, BTW, very little goes right past me.
     Most of the Republican eaction in Congress was in full support. I recall George will and I didn’t necessarily agree, so I guess it is not a universal truth after all.

150. Marty,
     You can remember history any way you like, but if you’re interested in arguing with people who remember history as it actually happened you might be more persuasive with specifics.
     Your proposition is that Republicans (who had opposed Clinton on Bosnia some years earlier) were opposing Clinton on Kosovo because Osama bin Laden was on the side of the Kosovars. You have not backed that up. That’s okay; you’re entitled to make unsupported statements. (And others are entitled to think less of you for doing it.) But I wonder how consistent your personal view of history is.
     In particular, if the Republicans were the guys who were so prescient about bin Laden as to oppose Clinton over Kosovo, where were they during the first eight months of the Bush administration? I don’t remember a single man jack of them clamoring for Dubya to avenge the USS Cole, for instance. It was established to everyone except maybe Cheney’s satisfaction that it was bin Laden (rather than, say, Saddam Hussein) that did it. Namby-pamby Clinton had been replaced as Commander in Chief by steel-eyed, resolute, manly Dubya. One would think that Republicans, in their prescience, might have urged Bush to strike at al-Qaida in the summer of 2001. In your version of history, would that not have been the consistent thing for them to do?
     –TP

151. “In your version of history, would that not have been the consistent thing for them to do?”
     They didn’t?

152. Marty, was my specification about “the first eight months of the Bush administration” one of those very little things that got right past you?
     –TP

153. Tony, it’s clear that this, for Marty, is a matter of faith, not knowledge. You cannot defeat faith with facts. Marty has access to the same facts everyone else does: but he chooses to believe. He has faith.
     I don’t think there’s any point arguing – though, this is a blog, what else it for? – but what interests me is what the millions of people with the same faith as Marty would do if the people in whom they have put their faith were put on trial for torture, or were sent to the Hague to be tried for the war on Iraq.
     To be honest, I don’t see Bush or Cheney doing jailtime. But plainly someone who has faith that they didn’t do anything really wrong or criminal, would resent bitterly that they were put on trial and convicted – and might argue that if this had been “allowed” for a Democratic administration to do it to the Republican administration for things they had done in the service of their country (never admit these “things” were actual crimes, or ask how ordering US soldiers to torture prisoners can be a “service to the country”), then the next Republican administration ought bygod to be “allowed” to do the same to their predecessors when their turn came.
     I mean, it puzzles me – in particular Marty’s earlier assertion that putting Bush, Cheney, et al on trial for their crimes would somehow disagrace/expose the US in the eyes of the world: their crimes have been reported round the world already. The only people who can be unaware of them are the people who get their information solely and exclusively from US news media which do not report openly on the crimes committed by the US administration and military.
     But someone who does not believe these crimes exist – whose faith is firmly held to believing it is a mere partisan attack – might well believe this must be just a domestic dispute which most people outside the US would not be aware of.
     I am ashamed of my own country’s part in this, and angry that MI5 and the government have been trying to conceal how involved the UK has been in the crimes of kidnapping and torture committed by the US. I want to see the people who did it in court more than I want to prevent the next Conservative government, because the Conservatives will certainly damage the country’s economy and infrastructure, but these things are to a certain extent fixable the next time a Labour government gets in: but the Iraq war and the kidnapping/torture crimes were not forgiveable. (Mind you, a Conservative government would have done everything the Labour government did, only faster and with more bootlicking.)

154. Most of the Republican eaction in Congress was in full support.
     Not really, no.

155. Tony P.
     Despite the fact that you are just being insulting for insults sake, I will respond one time. That is more than I will respond to a few others here.
     I do understand history, wikipedia is a fine source for this argument that documents both the US history with the KLA under Kosovo Wars and the urging of many in the first eight months of the Bush Presidency to retaliate against AQ USS Cole.
     There is no reason for a constant and incessant drumbeat from the left to punish the previous administration for the Iraq war. There is actually little international appetite for it except from most extreme US hating corners who view the “facts” through their petty, hateful and certainly one sided lens.
     But what I really don’t understand is how I make a rather simple statement about Americans intrinsically supporting the Commander-in-Chief and the reply talking about what the politicians did or didn’t do. Those are completely unrelated discussions.
     Finally, I have stated many times that if there was a crime committed, which is different than something wrong being done, I am fine with investigating the use of torture. However, once again, I think the US, the current administration and the justice system will deal with that.
     I only have an opinion that the outcome of a protracted legal battle would punish few and cause damage to the country. For all those things that “everyone in the world knows”, the back and forth of a court battle would leave the US in the awkward position of refusing to divulge classified information that may or may not be pertinent on national security grounds forcing more charges and counter charges of a cover up and a witch hunt.
     The people some want punished would be unlikely to be, just as it is unlikely Tony Blair will be, so the exercise would do damage with little good.

156. Wow UK, I have now been put in my place, by a “Daily Kos” list of quotes. Really? That disputes the 75%-25% votes in both houses on funding the war? Rick Santorums quote asking for clear objectives is the equivalent of a few that were just not supportive? Anyone who didn’t completely agree with Bill Clinton and John McCain count? I am sure “most” was the operative word.

157. There is no reason for a constant and incessant drumbeat from the left to punish the previous administration for the Iraq war.
     For the record, and as is probably obvious, I disagree with this. And it has nothing to do with being “on the left”.
     I understand that you are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the folks who pushed for invading Iraq, and give credit to their claims that they acted for the security of the US.
     Even if you wish to extend that benefit of the doubt, their actions in advocating and promoting their position were IMO inexcusable.
     In a nutshell, they lied. Not exaggerated, not “put a spin on”, not only told one side of the story.
     They not only lied, they had people tortured to manufacture support for their lies.
     You know what? You’re not allowed to do that.
     I don’t care if they go to jail or not. What I would like is to have the facts put in the public record, and have them answer for them.
     They won’t give a flying f**k. As we saw from Bush’s eloquent “What’s the difference” defense when interviewed by Diane Sawyer. We will never receive, nor should we expect, a single statement of regret from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, or any of the other swinging d**ks who think engineering the rest of the world to our liking is a good idea.
     But I would like a public recognition that this was an act of war against a nation that did not, in fact, pose a credible and truly imminent threat to the US. And I would like a clear, public, and official rejection of the policy that we are entitled to make war against nations that do not pose a credible and truly imminent threat to this nation.
     Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives. Tens of thousands of Americans were killed or severely harmed.
     You don’t get to do things like that because you want to. No matter who you are.
     It shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
     My two cents.

158. It’s the moral relativism of US nationalists, like Marty and Fox viewers, that scare me. They view mass murder and torture as “honest mistakes,” when executed by patriots of the homeland/fatherland, while Hussein’s mass murder and torture were the acts of evil.

159. Finally, I have stated many times that if there was a crime committed, which is different than something wrong being done
     Starting a war and invading a sovereign country under false pretenses are, in fact, a crime, according to treaties to which we are a signatory. Which makes them, Constitutionally speaking, US law.

160. Wow UK, I have now been put in my place, by a “Daily Kos” list of quotes.
     If you think the quotes were made up, than say so. Otherwise, the fact that they’re on Daily Kos is completely irrelevant.
     But this is pretty much in character for you, Marty. You made a blanket assertion about Americans of both parties lining up unquestioningly behind the CoC in matters of war. I pointed out that this was emphatically not the case with Clinton in Kosovo, and your response was classic Marty: That doesn’t count, and besides, DRUG DEALING TERRORISTS OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!* I direct you to a lengthy list of quotes showing Republicans quite openly questioning the CoC, which you dismiss because it comes from a left-leaning website.
     There seems to be a general consensus around here that while you disagree with the majority of the commenters, you’re basically a stand-up guy who argues his side in good faith. I’m not buying it anymore. You consistently shift the goalposts and muddy the waters whenever you get caught making an argument that you can’t support. And all in defense of political figures that you repeatedly claim you don’t really support.
     And the sad part is that, as others have pointed out in this thread, you’re in no way atypical of American political opinion — hell, compared to me, you’re positively mainstream. And we’ve seen what that leads to. One Marty is an alternately amusing and exasperating Guy on the Internet. A hundred million Marty’s is a moral catastrophe. There are hundreds of thousands of formerly alive Iraqis who could attest to that, but they had the misfortune of getting caught in the crossfire between The Saviors of the Free World and History’s Greatest Monster.
     So, in a nutshell, I’d best take a little break from commenting here, because anything else I can say would be likely to get me banned from ObWi for good.
     *Just an aside, on the subject of drug-dealing terrorists: You might want to delve into the history of St. Ronald’s beloved “freedom fighters,” the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan. Reagan made Clinton look like a piker.

161. “It’s the moral relativism of US nationalists, like Marty and Fox viewers, that scare me. They view mass murder and torture as “honest mistakes,” when executed by patriots of the homeland/fatherland, while Hussein’s mass murder and torture were the acts of evil.”
     I appreciate being a separate category from Fox viewers, even if lumped together here.
     There is a reasonable pacifist position that all war is mass murder and, as such, is a crime. There is a long list of reasons that people decide that a war is necessary, excepting that pacifist position.
     If you accept the premise that there is a valid reason to go to war, then all after that is relative to the risk perceived by the people making the decision. Relative danger and expected benefit from engagement is exactly that, relative. The evil of a dictator continuing to kill millions of his subjects and threatening those in other countries versus the cost in human life to stop him is a relative judgement.
     If you hold the view that all war is a crime and every conflict is illegal then I respect your right to judge the US and everyone else equally on that basis.
     If you accept any good reason for a war then the accusation of relativism, while true, is meaningless.
     And, BTW, war is different than torture. It is exceedingly frustrating to continue to have people lump those two things together, which would you like to discuss? They aren’t the same, the answer isn’t the same.

162. UK,
     I am sorry you are so frustrated, I have not spent a lot of time on that particular part of this thread because, quite frankly, I have stated several times, and initially, that my statement referred to the American public and you keep referring to politicians.
     I think all of the quotes at Daily Kos are true and probably reflect the political winds at the time. However, John Mccain and others supported the action in Kosovo and the Congress voted to fund and support the effort by votes that were clearly not party line votes.
     I stand by my point that the American public, in general, supports the President in times of war.
     I will quit poorly debating your point about what the politicians did.

163. Marty,
     Most mass deaths and torture are commited in the name of self-preservation…Hussein and the political culture he represented thought their actions were protecting “their way of life” just as eloquently as you did…, I bet Hussein presented all types of great evidence to commit those acts…and yet, many of us here in the US, as I’m sure many Iraqis, saw those nobel lies for what they were…excuses to kill.

164. “*Just an aside, on the subject of drug-dealing terrorists: You might want to delve into the history of St. Ronald’s beloved “freedom fighters,” the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan. Reagan made Clinton look like a piker.”
     Never doubted this for a minute. In both good and bad ways, Reagan made Clinton look like a piker. Heck, I voted for Clinton the first time.

165. Marty: If you accept the premise that there is a valid reason to go to war, then all after that is relative to the risk perceived by the people making the decision.
     I perceive that. Which is why I concede (unlike Uncle Kvetch) that you’re arguing in faith. (I can’t in all conscience call your faith – the ability to believe contrary to all fact and all reason – a good faith) – but I accept that for you, this is faith: and it doesn’t matter what the facts are, you are still going to defend your faith like any true believer.
     I do wonder – if you’re conscious enough to be able to explain yourself – what you*million will do if Bush and Cheney are convicted of their crimes. Lose faith in the process of justice in the US, because evidence which your faith cannot comprehend to be true has been used to convict people you have faith cannot be guilty?

166. “and yet, many of us here in the US, as I’m sure many Iraqis, saw those nobel lies for what they were…excuses to kill.”
     Yes, so at what point is there a moral imperative to act to stop that, or, as a pacifist would hold, does that moral imperative never exist?
     Iraq did not start killing people and threatening the world with WMD’s that, in fact, he didn’t have, after we invaded. He did those things first.
     He created an aura of threat that he worked hard to maintain. I certainly couldn’t count how many times he stopped WMD inspectors at the door to a building and suddenly quit cooperating. Then would negotiate a little and have them start over.
     George Bush never had to convince me, and many others, that Hussein was a threat. He was a dangerous man who had used chemical weapons on his own countrymen. A dictator who leads the world to believe that he has wmd’s, and has proved he will use them by doing it to his own people, is at risk as far as I am concerned. (Note to NK and Iran: don’t convince us you are crazy enough to use them).
     So for those of you who don’t get it: I am not upset at being “fooled” by George Bush. He had no need to lie to convince me to support taking action. I expected him to do that and would hve been disappointed if he had not.
     The execution of the war was abominable, but that is a different topic.

167. Jes,
     “because evidence which your faith cannot comprehend to be true has been used to convict people you have faith cannot be guilty?”
     Then, based on this from my previous comment:

     George Bush never had to convince me, and many others, that Hussein was a threat. He was a dangerous man who had used chemical weapons on his own countrymen. A dictator who leads the world to believe that he has wmd’s, and has proved he will use them by doing it to his own people, is at risk as far as I am concerned. (Note to NK and Iran: don’t convince us you are crazy enough to use them).
     So for those of you who don’t get it: I am not upset at being “fooled” by George Bush. He had no need to lie to convince me to support taking action. I expected him to do that and would hve been disappointed if he had not.

     I would be disappointed as millions of Americans will have been convicted also. Should we wait for someone to show up and arrest all of us?

168. Marty, you’re correct that we were arguing past each other to an extent: you were talking about public opinion in general, and I was talking about politicians. My bad.
     And I was probably intemperate upthread, which is all the more reason for me to go into lurking mode — or at least stop looking for arguments — for a cooling-off period of undetermined length.
     The fact of the matter is that I don’t know how to “respectfully agree to disagree” on the invasion of Iraq. So any attempt at discussing it, however peripherally, is bound to generate more heat than light. It’s not worth my time or yours.
     Oh well. It’s only three more years before Lady Starburst takes office, at which point this discussion will seem hopelessly quaint. (NB: I’m not kidding. This is starting to get well and truly scary.)

169. Uncle, no problem, I understand the challenges of discussing Iraq, imagine how it is to be the one voice on this side here? I am sure we would find more agreement on Lady Starburst.

170. He had no need to lie to convince me to support taking action.
     Then you would have been in favor of invading Iraq. Lots of folks were. Lots of folks weren’t.
     There were, on the actual merits of the situation, compelling arguments for both points of view.
     The advocates for invading Iraq within Bush’s administration should have made those arguments. And only those arguments.
     They did not do that. They made sh*t up. They lied. They wanted to invade Iraq, they knew they could build support for that by exploiting people’s fears following 9/11, and so they lied.
     Think I’m making this up? Think I’m reading my prejudices into the situation after the fact?
     The evidence is all on my side. It’s in the public record, it’s not a mystery.
     They freaking lied.
     And the last American who will die in Iraq hasn’t done so yet. Wait and see.
     Realistically, none of these guys are going to go to jail. They are not going to face any sort of trial. They are not going to be called to account in any way that costs them anything more than, perhaps, some embarrassment. Even that’s doubtful.
     Life’s like that.
     But the record really needs to be set straight, because otherwise crap like this is allowed to stand. It sets a precedent.
     I don’t have a problem with your instinct to extend the benefit of the doubt to these guys. It’s laudable to be inclined to do so.
     But at some point, people in positions of public responsibility and trust *have* to be accountable for what they actually do and say.
     IMVHO, a plain and simple review of the facts in the public record make the good faith of Bush, Cheney, et al highly suspect. By which I mean, not credible.
     So I say the burden of proof belongs to them to explain themselves.
     Not on a Sunday morning chat show, or in an op-ed piece, but before an audience that has the responsibility and inclination to call them to account and make them respond to the factual evidence.
     I hope it happens. I’m not holding my breath, but it would be a damned good thing, for all of us, if it did.
     And yeah, torture’s a different topic. And I hold the same opinion on that topic as well.

171. He was a dangerous man who had used chemical weapons on his own countrymen. A dictator who leads the world to believe that he has wmd’s, and has proved he will use them by doing it to his own people
     Chemical weapons are not categorized as Weapons of Mass Destruction. So long as we’re all clear on that.
     George Bush never had to convince me, and many others, that Hussein was a threat.
     But, see, turns out he WASN’T a threat, so this says more about you than it does about anyone else here or about the Iraq war.

172. “turns out he WASN’T a threat”
     See, this is just wrong. He was a threat, less imminent than feared, but no less of a threat.

173. For the record, I’m not a pacifist…however, I believe most wars are unnecessary.
     And I’m just a small govt. kinda guy, and think it’s ignorant and naive to think that The State can responsibly use the power of life and death.
     Which is weird, because right-wingers seem to think regulating certain aspects of domestic life is beyond The State’s ability…but imposing death on thousands of families in other lands?

174. He was a threat, less imminent than feared, but no less of a threat.
     A threat to whom? In what timeframe?
     Look, I’m not trying to pile on, but this topic gets under my skin.
     Here are Powell and Rice from February and July of 2001.
     There’s no freaking way that Hussein presented any threat to the United States of America during the period in question.
     We didn’t like him. He wasn’t a likeable guy. If anyone deserves to hang, he was probably on the list.
     He presented no realistic threat to the US when we invaded.

175. A threat? I’m with Russell in wanting to know in what way?

176. Marty: I would be disappointed as millions of Americans will have been convicted also. Should we wait for someone to show up and arrest all of us?
     It’s not a crime to be duped by a set of crooks, Marty: you were duped. Admittedly the sad thing is even after the crooks have been exposed you’re still standing there going “no no there really IS a million dollars in that Nigerian bank account JUST FOR ME” but, hey: it’s not a crime to be that gullible.

177. Marty: I know this won’t make you reconsider your belief that if only Bush and Cheney can avoid being tried for their crimes, the rest of the world won’t know about America’s disgrace… but there’s a good Cookie Monster essay on the same website! REJECTED SPOTS FOR THE ARMY’S CURRENT AD CAMPAIGN, “STRENGTH FOR NOW, STRENGTH FOR LATER.”

178. Yet another thread completely derailed by Marty. Let’s see, dishonest arguments, logical fallacies, constant shifting of goalposts, a tendency to make every thread about himself, and always, always, always, threadjacking.
     Let’s see, the post was about how the US has declared a policy to assassinate Americans it deems a threat due to their speech and associations, and now ya’ll are arguing about the legality of the invasion of Iraq, at Marty’s insistence. I guess because it’s a somewhat easier position for him to defend. Not that the arguments are any better, just more familiar.

179. See, it’s all pretty simple:
     – thou shalt not kill
     – war/military action should be avoided at all costs
     – all human life is equally precious
     – no matter what great reasons one brings up for killing people, the dead are dead and death is final
     oh, and I’m a stubborn atheist, btw

180. “I would be disappointed as millions of Americans will have been convicted also. Should we wait for someone to show up and arrest all of us?”
     If nothing else, I hope we can lay to rest the myth that democracies, unlike dictatorships, can be trusted to investigate and prosecute their own war crimes. Marty inadvertently explains one reason why that won’t work–too many ordinary people identify with the war criminals that they put into office. Jes charitably allows that people like Marty were duped and in many cases that’s true (presumably in Marty’s case), but it’s also true that some were not duped, but just wanted to kill some Arabs (preferably from the safety of their couches). Or on the other subject, they wanted to torture Arabs. Many Americans are every bit as eager to support atrocities as any Muslim extremist and they have the right to vote.
     Back in the late 90’s when there was discussion about whether America should support the ICC the conservative opponents worried that American officials or soldiers would be dragged into court by demagogues and mainstream liberals said that was ridiculous, because the process allows for countries with functioning justice systems to police themselves and the ICC would only step in if that system failed and so we’d never have to worry about the obvious travesty of American officials being subjected to war crimes trials, because democracies police themselves. Both sides in that argument were living in a fantasyland.

181. now ya’ll are arguing about the legality of the invasion of Iraq, at Marty’s insistence.
     To be fair, I think some of the responsibility for that belongs to me.
     Wasn’t my intent to derail the original conversation, my apologies.

182. Both sides in that argument were living in a fantasyland.
     In a few specific cases, we may yet get to see whether conservative fears were unfounded. Not with the ICC so much, but there are cases before courts in other jurisdictions where the folks involved are waiting to see what, if anything, we do. If we do nothing, they may in fact act, and at a minimum some Americans may find their foreign travel plans restricted.
     But you are correct, so far we have not seen the US’s internal criminal justice system leap into action to investigate and pursue potential international crimes.

183. So, since there isn’t a post yet to talk about it, or any blog I can find, I will say it here. I’m hoping with all my heart that what the troops are doing in Marja brings stability to the region. Reading the reports of the mission restores my belief that the American and British troops doing that work are heroic. I am proud of them.

184. Oh, stop the BS about heroism already.
     In Afghanistan, nothing has happened in the country’s religious, ethnic or economic structure to ensure that the temporary gains of military action can be turned into permanent advance. (The Independent)
     So what’s the bloody point? Make the audience at home feel better about themselves by killing a few more “bad guys”?

185. So what’s the bloody point? Make the audience at home feel better about themselves by killing a few more “bad guys”?
     Judging by Sapient’s comment, it works very well, too.
     Sort of a “456” style fix (see “Children of Earth”, if you haven’t already) except killing off Afghans for the high.

186. So what’s the bloody point? Make the audience at home feel better about themselves by killing a few more “bad guys”?
     War is a force that gives us meaning.

187. The Constitution defines levying war against the United States as a crime. There’s no reason on earth not to treat it as such. Meet a traitor on a battlefield, and the laws of war apply wrt whether you can shoot or not. Meet him off a battlefield — ie after having gotten an indictment and made an extradition request — and there’s no justification at all for using force. Beyond what any arresting officer would be justified in doing.
     People want to talk about the unprecedented danger that AQ presents to the US. If you want to talk about existential dangers, look at the actual conspiracy engaged in by Gen. Wilkinson, or the alleged conspiracy of Aaron Burr. And then look at the way Chief Justice Marshall stood up to Jefferson in the Burr trial. That was a moment when our Experiment could have gone the way so many other revolutions have gone before and since, into excessive faith in benign authoritarianism. But the Enlightenment won out.
     Can it win out again? Sadly, I’m pretty pessimistic.

188. CharleyCarp: “The Constitution defines levying war against the United States as a crime.”
     But what the Constitution defines as treason, if the act occurs outside of the United States, is there jurisdiction to indict? I don’t think the Burr/Wilkinson matter is on point since both actors were in the United States when the alleged conspiracy took place.

189. They wiped out a whole family of 10, including 5 children. Oh and 27 “Taliban” were killed as well, but of course they don’t count, because their evil.

190. Dropping bombs and killing people who have no particular quarrel with the US in the hope that we blow up somebody who actually wishes us ill is going to bite us in the @ss. And not someday, more like tomorrow. Actually, more like now, if not yesterday.
     And no, you didn’t read it here first, because it’s been perfectly obvious, like, forever.
     A definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result.
     When your best tool is a hammer, all problems look like a nail. The problem arises when everything isn’t a nail.
     Time to get a new best tool.

191. “Actually, more like now, if not yesterday.”
     Yes, that horse is out of the barn, so to speak. But you’re right, Russell, we should just leave and see what happens. Whatever we do, including leaving, will affect Pakistan and India, and probably a lot of other places, and it’s unlikely our departure will bring peace to Afghanistan. But maybe if we leave, at least people will quit blaming us. Oh, wait – no they won’t.

192. For thirty years now, US involvement in Afghanistan and the region has brought only war, violence and chaos. And I am almost reluctant to blame the US, as I would be reluctant to blame a drunken fool who stumbles through the streets with his fly open for whatever he might get up to. Read Ghost Wars if you are interested in details.

193. Sapient: But maybe if we leave, at least people will quit blaming us. Oh, wait – no they won’t.
     People don’t stop blaming a drunk driver for committing vehicular homicide, just because he’s no longer driving that car down the street on which he killed a dozen people. Especially when no one will take his license away and he’s claiming loudly and boozily that most of the people he killed were a threat.
     (He is no drunkard now of wine
     As he was drunkard then
     He fills him up on a richer cup
     The blood of murdererd men)
     People still (justly) note the responsibility of the British for the messes we caused when we had an Empire. Why do you expect the American Empire to be treated differently?

194. I don’t doubt that America’s policy in Afghanistan for the past 30 years does deserve blame (although playing “what if” is a difficult historical game). The fact that Obama is trying to bring a stable situation to Afghanistan before he gets us out of there, and that he’s set a timeline, is something I support. As to the timeline being a myth, I hope it’s not.

195. Sapient: The fact that Obama is trying to bring a stable situation to Afghanistan before he gets us out of there
     See Russell’s comment on February 14, 2010 at 10:39 PM.
     It may be that Obama wants to bring a stable situation to Afghanistan.
     It is a fact that what is actually happening, that you wanted us to celebrate and praise because it makes you feel good – is that American soldiers are killing Afghans.
     It is also a fact that there is no military solution which will ever bring stability to Afghanistan. If Obama wants stability for Afghanistan, and is genuinely going to try to bring it, he will need to do so after the US military has stopped hammering them. And I am prepared to bet that almost all the Americans gleeful about the “heroism” of their soldiers killing Afghans, would be a damn sight less gleeful about a tenth the money Operation Moshtarak cost being spent on infrastructure, stability, and non-violent support.

196. “And I am prepared to bet that almost all the Americans gleeful about the “heroism” of their soldiers killing Afghans, would be a damn sight less gleeful about a tenth the money Operation Moshtarak cost being spent on infrastructure, stability, and non-violent support.”
     I’m not gleeful. I know some of the people who have been there, and they’re not gleeful. They truly want to bring stability to the country in order to have a coherent system to which the money you suggest be spent should support.
     To whom would you currently give the money that you would spend on infrastructure, stability and nonviolent support? Please don’t say “trustworthy NGO’s” without pointing to some evidence that there are such organizations who are willing and able to offer such aid as a civil war rages.

197. Sapient: I’m not gleeful.
     Fine, you’re proud of the “heroic” work they’re doing killing Afghans.
     They truly want to bring stability to the country
     Hopefully, they’ll get to go home soon so that this process of bringing stability to the country can start. Because so long as Afghanistan is overrun with foreign troops killing Afghans, the country will not become stable.
     To whom would you currently give the money that you would spend on infrastructure, stability and nonviolent support? Please don’t say “trustworthy NGO’s” without pointing to some evidence that there are such organizations who are willing and able to offer such aid as a civil war rages.
     There’s an article in Humanitarian Exchange Magazine for March 2009, which makes clear that a big part of the problem for NGOs operating in Afghanistan as Western forces promote and take part in the civil war, is that

     The military presence is high, and in some areas NGOs are compelled to share operational space with the military, affecting how NGOs are perceived locally and raising difficult issues of independence, neutrality and impartiality.

     The problem the foreign military forces in Afghanistan have been causing for NGO workers is not a new one – there’s another report on it from 2002 at the CARE website.
     Jürgen Lieser, deputy chairman at VENRO (the Association of German Non-Governmental Development Organisations)and deputy head of Caritas International, wrote with Peter Runge (VENRO Development Policy and Humanitarian Aid Officer):

     This situation seems paradoxical: the more soldiers were sent to Afghanistan, the worse the situation got. In mid-2008, 65,000 foreign soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan – four times as many as in 2004. Nonetheless, the number of assassinations and suicide attacks is skyrocketing (Hippler 2008). ACBAR, the umbrella organisation of aid agencies active in Afghanistan, estimates that a thousand civilians were killed in skirmishes in the first seven months of 2008 alone.
     In the fight against rebels, NATO is increasingly tolerating civilian deaths. This attitude does not contribute to their popularity in the country. Moreover, it violates international human rights. The Afghani population increasingly rejects the “war on terror”.
     The distinction between the fight against terror under the mandate of Opera-tion Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is being blurred. The result is that all foreign soldiers are now considered as occupiers. Reckless OEF attacks now often promote terror as much as they combat it, because high rates of civilian casualties make the people resent all foreign troops. Accordingly, they are more willing to resort to violence themselves.

     The NGOs who are accustomed to working in Afghanistan – and to whom the funding should be given, if Americans genuinely want the country to become stable – do not want the aggressive war that America is promoting in the name of “stability”. It isn’t helping them operate in Afghanistan, and it never has.

198. But you’re right, Russell, we should just leave and see what happens.
     I would respectfully submit that either (a) going after individuals by dropping bombs on them from unmanned drones, even when that involves killing uninvolved civilians, or (b) walking away and letting the whole situation go to hell, is a false choice.
     Obama is trying to bring a stable situation to Afghanistan before he gets us out of there
     Two words – skillful means.
     What strikes me, personally, is that our desire to establish a good, stable government in Afghanistan, and our desire to find and kill members of Al Qaeda and/or Taliban organizations that are unfriendly to us, are working at cross purposes.
     My opinion is that the interests of this country, including our interest in not having our citizens butchered at random, will be better served by focusing on the health of Afghanistan as a nation, rather than by continuing to pursue ham-handed assassinations by means of “death from above”.
     Scroll way upthread and check out the links to pictures of JDAMs and Hellfires. And imagine that landing somewhere in a neighborhood near you.
     That’s a concrete reality to some of the folks we claim we’re trying to help.
     I don’t think we can have it both ways. And whether we can, or can’t, isn’t really up to us. It depends on the patience of the Afghan and Pakistani people, and on their ability to assume good faith on our part.
     “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”. What was that, 40 or 45 years ago now?
     When the hell are we going to get smart about this stuff?

199. (I am not endorsing Sapient’s view, but wanted to make a specific comment on a reply to him.)
     russell: either (a) going after individuals by dropping bombs on them from unmanned drones, even when that involves killing uninvolved civilians, or (b) walking away and letting the whole situation go to hell, is a false choice
     Well, is it a false choice?
     You’re choosing between war and not-war (i.e. going home – which still means war in Afghanistan, just not one we’re involved in).
     There are different ways of waging war, but there are no ways of doing it that don’t involve killing people – the people you want to kill, but also innocent people. That’s what war is.
     Now I know you know that. I know what you’re trying to say is that there are more or less bloody tactics in war and we should use the less bloody ones where possible, and that it is a false choice to say that we can only have “go home” or “be as brutal as we feel like”. And that’s true. What we disagree about is whether a particular tactic – attempting to kill a certain person by firing missiles at them – is obviously so much more bloody than the alternatives that it ought not to be used.
     And I think that is just not true. Here are the questions that need to be asked to assess this tactic:
     First question: Is attempting to kill a particular person illegal or immoral?
     Answer: Illegal – no, provided that the person is a combatant and not a diplomat or a purely political leader. Immoral – killing a leader seems more moral than killing those who would not be fighting if not for the leader.
     Second question: Is this tactic more or less effective than other tactics?
     Answer: Seems mixed. Sometimes it seems to work well and other times not well at all. Unfortunately other methods have pitiful success rates too. This tactic is probably not very effective in absolute terms, but neither are ground assaults or helicopter raids or anything else you can do.
     Third question: Is there something special about this tactic that makes it particularly unjust or counterproductive compared to the alternatives?
     Answer: Not that I can see. Nobody likes having a bomb dropped on their family. But ground assaults also involve dropping bombs on families. That’s war. War sucks, I think we should go home and get out of the business of dropping bombs on people in Afghanistan, but unless we take that course, we’re going to be killing innocent people. Troops target the wrong structure, or weapons go awry, as reports from Marja about the HIMARS rocket that hit the wrong house demonstrates. That assault involved airstrikes and artillery; it also dragged everyone on the ground with an AK-47 and any will to fight into a battle in which at least dozens of them have already died.
     Now, I do think that in the border regions the airstrikes seem to have devolved into an exercise in vendetta between the CIA and local Taliban. That’s very dangerous because revenge has a self-sustaining logic divorced from any broader goal. When the main answers on both sides to “Why are you fighting?” are “Because they killed my friends” you are in deep trouble.
     But that’s not the entire spectrum of use of this tactic. No doubt in advance of this assault in Marja there were targeted airstrikes against Taliban leaders in the area. If doing so shortened the battle there, led to more confusion among Taliban troops, led to less resistance, to a bunch of people who would have fought given the right kind of leadership instead stashing the AK under the bed and letting the central government take control of the city – is that a justifiable use of the tactic?
     I don’t think there is a reconcilable view that says that we can both not “walk away” and not do the kinds of things we’re doing in Marja. We can’t be there and let the civil war continue to rage – what would be the point? That means it has to be won. That means tactics of warfare (and political persuasion – but the latter alone are not sufficient to end a war, because as long as one side feels they have a chance to prevail militarily, they will not sit down to talk).
     Personally I think we should go home. But that option isn’t on the table. You rule it out yourself. And if we’re going to stay, we have to end the civil war by a combination of military and political tactics. That means a bunch of innocent people are going to die horribly and we are going to do a fair amount of the killing. That sucks. That’s why I want us to go home. But there isn’t a Third Way where we don’t walk away from an in-progress civil war and yet don’t kill anybody either.

200. Jes: do not want the aggressive war that America is promoting in the name of “stability”
     You say “aggressive war” like there’s another kind.
     War is aggressive, offensive. As long as there is someone to fight, war consists of attempting to subdue them through violence. In Afghanistan, there is a hostile military force (well, several, actually) whose goal is recapturing control of the entire country, who use tactics that include suicide bombings with mass civilian casualties. The US ceasing “aggressive” operations and restricting itself to controlling already-held territory would not stop them from fighting. They’ve been fighting for about 30 years now, they’re not going to stop on account of anyone else. They’d still be blowing people up and fighting to take control of the country, and unless there was a formal demarcation of territory and a cessation of claims on both sides to the territory of the other, there will be war.
     I don’t see that happening in Afghanistan. So, we can either go home and let the various parties fight it out interminably (as noted before, my favored option), or we can attempt to end the civil war through military action and political reconciliation. We can’t stay there and do neither – well, we could, but that is a terrible idea, leaving us an occupying army that refuses to assist our puppet government in obtaining a monopoly on violence and by its presence ensures that no other party can obtain that monopoly. The most important thing in Afghanistan is that somebody wins and the war ends. So if we’re going to be there, which it seems we are, I want us to fight “offensively” when doing so will reduce the capability of our opponent to continue the fight. I don’t want us squatting in Kabul generating resentment, preventing our opponents from prevailing, but doing nothing to change the situation, meaning that when we eventually do leave the war will continue just as it did before we went there. All that would do is prolong the period of conflict.

201. Jacob: You say “aggressive war” like there’s another kind.
     Of course there is.
     The US is fighting an aggressive war in Afghanistan and in Iraq: they started it and are continuing it for reasons other than self-defense.
     Iraqis and Afghans fighting the US in their own countries are not fighting an aggressive war: they’re fighting a war of self-defense against a foreign invader who presents an immediate threat to their homes and families.
     As long as there is someone to fight, war consists of attempting to subdue them through violence.
     And since the US will always have someone to fight, someone to subdue, the US is heading into a state of perpetual war. Whether with Eurasia or with Eastasia: always having an enemy to subdue is the easiest method of keeping the population at home under control.

Comments are closed.