"while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."
Jefferson created USA to protect life and liberty, not to trash it. Just because someone is not a US resident, doesn't mean his or her life is MEANINGLESS.
I have been working on a theory of war but both health and time issues mean I'm not able to finish that work yet. In my view drone warfare can be justified only in EXTREMELY EXCEPTIONAL cases. There is no case at the moment for drone warfare.
I'm working on a few blow posts on the theory of war (which I'll incorporate into DOF, in due course).
Greg Sheridan, a foreign affairs writer with whose views I often (not always) agree, had a sensible article today. Since it is related to the issue I'm considering, I'll post extracts here for future reference (and to make a point to Supratim and others who are enamoured with US presence in Afghanistan today).
EXTRACTS
The Afghanistan campaign no longer meets the criteria for a just war. In Christian moral philosophy, a just war exists when the cause is just, there is no peaceful alternative, there is a chance of success and the evil caused by war is not greater than the evil it seeks to eliminate.
There is no longer a reasonable chance of success, we now have alternatives to war, and the consequences of our actions are causing greater evil in Pakistan than we seek to suppress in Afghanistan.
Let's go through them one by one. There is no chance of success. Oruzgan, where our soldiers are based, like Helmand next door, which borders Pakistan, is heavily Pashtun. There is zero chance of the central Kabul government being able to maintain authority in Oruzgan through the ANA against Pashtun insurgents in the long term. This is especially so because the insurgents receive Pakistani government help.
Recently the government has used an older justification, that we are stopping Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for terrorists. US Vice-President Joe Biden has long argued that this can be achieved much more cheaply, and with much less loss of life, by following a counter-terrorist strategy that targets terrorists with drones [Sanjeev: I agree that drones can be used IF there are attacks – or even capability of attacks – on USA] or special forces, rather than by a wholesale counter-insurgency effort to build a nation in Afghanistan. The al-Qa'ida centre of gravity had moved from Afghanistan. "Somalia and Yemen have now become as attractive as Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Our decade-long presence in Afghanistan has made things infinitely worse in Pakistan. We have had great success in smashing al-Qa'ida central, and that is hugely important. The initial military intervention into Afghanistan, to destroy al-Qa'ida and the Taliban government that hosted it, was well justified. [Sanjeev: I agree to this position, as well.]
Pakistan will have a better chance of combating its extremists when the West is not in the middle of its politics and security. Pakistani elites believe: "Pakistan's grudging support of that (US) policy (towards Afghanistan) has fomented anti-government militancy within Pakistan."
Public law 107–40 enacted by the 107th US Congress on September 18, 2001 authorised the US President to use "necessary and appropriate against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons".
There was NO LIMITATION prescribed in this law on the use of force. The President was to determine the appropriate level. There was no requirement that the President would have to justify this "appropriateness" to the people of America through a detailed monthly report. No requirement that a magistrate would need to accompany all armed forces and provide detailed reports justifying the killings. And no checks or balances were imposed, not even a requirement that this law will be reviewed within, say, 1 year or 2 years. An open blank cheque.
Under the terms of this blank cheque NEVER can the US President come back and say that ALL future acts of terrorism against USA have been prevented.
This doesn't sound like a defensive authorisation AT ALL. It effectively amounts to a unilateral determination by ONE MAN (President of USA) of the value of life of ANYONE ELSE in the world. For ever. That's not very defensive!
This is effectively an authorisation for PERPETUAL WAR.
I'm deeply disappointed to learn that a nation that issued the Declaration of Independence – a document that guides the whole o fmankind in the defence of liberty – allowed a MONSTER to be created in the name of self-defence.
Most problematically, it doesn't define terrorism. In my definition of things, terrorism is largely a POLICE matter, a matter for INTERPOL. Close coordination between international police forces should be able to deal with most forms of terrorism which is organised like a crime, not like a warring army. [I have personal and extensive experience of dealing with violent terrorism in Assam, which was dealt with – at least on my watch – as a POLICE not defence matter. I understand that it is difficult to engage police across borders, but there is no reason why the mechanisms of police action can't be applied even when it temporarily involves occupying a foreign nation.]
There is a BIG difference between war and police action. Terrorism should fall into the police action category after immediate defensive punishment has been imparted (e.g. the bombing of Tora Bora). Police action would automatically have in-built checks and balances of judicial oversight.
My family recently returned from a holiday in the USA. One of the gifts they got for me was a replica of the Declaration of Independence, and a mug bearing the likeness of Thomas Jefferson. I consider these to be precious gifts.
I'm afraid I might have to review my generally positive opinion of USA if this is the end result of its defence of liberty: a perpetual war with the rest of the world.
This law, 107–40, seems to have NO RELATIONSHIP with the Declaration of Independence.
NO USE OF FORCE by the state is valid EXCEPT clearly and precisely for the defence of our life and liberty. That, by the way, is a general principle, and the life and liberty of other humans is almost equally to be valued as the life and liberty of citizens of our own nation.
If that is settled, then the SAME concept of freedom with accountability that applies to each of us, applies also to state action.
Just like we are not free to murder someone without facing the penalty, so also the state can be empowered to kill but NOT without VERY GOOD (!) reason. Else, its actions to kill human beings being in violation of principles of liberty, it must be held to account.
The following sorts of LETHAL violence is undertaken by the state:
a) capital punishment of individuals who have committed heinous crimes;
b) defensive war against those who have attacked the nation;
c) aggressive war against those who MAY attack the nation; and
d) aggressive war for the sake of acquiring lands or slaves.
Of the above four, the first two are FULLY justified. Having said that, there must be a due process of justification.
i) In the first case (capital punishment), the state must ensure that a court has clearly determined the death penalty before it takes a citizen's life.
ii) In the second (defensive war) it can initiate retaliatory action within seconds, if need be (e.g. if Pakistan attacks India with a nuclear missile), BUT must, as soon as practicable, take authorisation from the nation's people, generally through a parliament.
A key feature of a justified war is its clear limitation on violent action. There can be no war that goes on for ever. A war must have a specific goal, defined in advance, that must relate (generally) to the decapitation of the head (boss) of an attacking nation, and to the degradation (not elimination!) of the armed force capability of the attacking force. These two goals must be specified in detail, else the executive could well take it to mean a blanket cheque for ENDLESS war. Also, the mere fact of authorisation by a parliament DOES NOT define war. War is defined by its purpose and urgency, not by any piece of paper.
It is particularly important to note that attacks are ALWAYS launched by individuals, not by nations. When Hitler attacked Poland, it was not Germany that had attacked Poland (although German soldiers were used) but Hitler. War must therefore always be directed against a SPECIFIC individual: generally the head of a nation, but in the case of Al Qaeda, against the head of the organisation.
War must have all the sense of war. It must be urgent, focused on decapitating the head of the enemy nation/organisation, strategic, sharply (and even widely) destructive, and shoot from the hip – and RAPIDLY – in order to achieve its goal.
There is no sense in war of years of time to "plan".
It is, above all, characterised by urgency to defend.
There is no lingering sense in war that this is just another job – like taking cows out to pasture and bringing them back home each night.
It has to FINISH. And quickly! it is not a life long occupation.
To the extent that any action is needed AFTER the war (e.g. "reconstruction"), it must be clearly distinguished from war, and treated entirely as police action. At that stage the state can have no authorisation to shoot from the hip. All due processes must henceforth be followed. NO LIFE MUST THEREAFTER BE TAKEN WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION.
(iii) The third type of killing (aggressive war against those who may attack the nation) can be justified, too, in some very exceptional cases. E.g. Hitler should have been attacked by European nations well before he became such a huge monster. That would have been fully justified. But only the removal of Hitler. NOT the occupation or acquisition of Germany. In this case the parliament must authorise. The executive cannot commence action without such authorisation! There is plenty of time to seek authorisation in such cases.
(iv) The last one (d) is NEVER justified. Period. An aggressor is the enemy of mankind – in a way – and all nations must unite in attacking the aggressor nation. Hitler should have been attacked at least the moment he launched his attack into Poland. That was IT. It was more than enough cause for ALL nations to come together to decapitate him. They did not. That was a huge blunder.
NOW, THE PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION
With the theory in mind, let us examine the case of US and Afghanistan.
When Osama bin Laden launched the 9/11 (or rather, 11/9/2001 in English/Indian notation) attacks, he was NOT a nation, but a generally disaffected party with capacity to organise against US. To that extent he was an aggressor. While no nation had attacked or intended to attack USA, its enemy was now clear: not the entire Al Qaeda but Osama bin Laden. Taliban were supporting Osama bin Laden, so they needed to be removed, as well.
So far so good.
Now, it turned out that removing Taliban was very easy, but getting Osama was particularly hard. That created a problem. We had "reconstruction" going on ALONG with the war – against Osama. To the extent there was any reconstruction underway, that needed to comply with all standard limitations on taking human life. It was police action, and there was no basis to kill people without judicial authorisation.
To the extent that Osama bin Laden had not yet been killed, it was valid to say that war was still underway. So we had a situation where both police action and war were underway. That's possible. So long as we know what is what.
Now, when Osama was killed, the LAST PRETEXT OF WAR came to an end. That day, regardless of any US parliamentary authorisation, war was OVER.
All further action was police action.
Any action to take HUMAN LIFE after Osama was killed (as with – as should already have been the case – any action against non-Al Qaeda combatants during the reconstruction period) needed judicial authorisation.
It was almost certainly wrong for America to press a button somewhere in USA and kill people on the ground in Afghanistan/Pakistan (the exceptions are discussed below), but now, after Osama has been killed, it is ENTIRELY wrong to kill people in Afghanistan/Pakistan without due judicial authorisation.
Therefore, it is sufficiently clear that today, US action in Afghanistan has morphed from justified DEFENSIVE war into AGGRESSION.
WHY THIS BLOG POST
I've already explained these concepts at length earlier, but I think these need to be repeated again and again (I'm going to take some of this material into DOF, for future ready reference).
No analysis of drone attacks can be made without reference to a VALID theory of state violence.
Accordingly, in some cases a drone attack is EMINENTLY JUSTIFIED. Consider a drone attack that ends the life of Hitler BEFORE he attacks any nation. That would have been a swell idea. I would have applauded. The world would have been saved mindless destruction of tens of millions of lives. (Of course, the Keynesians would have been unhappy, for to them it is war that makes the world go round).
Even in defensive war, a drone attack against Osama bin Laden is perfectly justified. It can even be justified against key Al Qaeda leaders.
But once these top few commanders are killed, then further justification becomes very weak indeed. The war must END.
After Osama bin Laden has LONG been killed, and top Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed, then any use of force against every tom dick harry soldier is an ABUSE OF POWER. These poor Taliban fools think they are fighting an enemy who has encroached their land. They see themselves as freedom fighters. And who is to say that they are wrong. Americans would do the same if Chinese soldiers, armed to the teeth, were hanging around in their backyards.
In general, hanging around with arms in someone else's house is not very friendly.
Taking the life of someone is not something anyone should do unnecessarily. USA is taking many lives UNNECESSARILY now. That's something it should not do. It must leave Afghanistan at once!
Don't give me nonsense about "strategic geopolitical interests". The world is not taken in by nonsense. There is no case for war. Just leave. This idea of hanging around in someone else's land LONG AFTER ALL REASONS for war are over, is a very bad precedent.
It doesn't matter whether Taliban are bad to Afghan women or not. That is a civil matter that people can deal with through other means. Just go!!
