President Barack Obama, during his first term, baffled liberals and conservatives when he decided his approach to counterterrorism would be aggressive one.
He invented and allowed himself to become the head of the secret "nominations process to designate terrorists for kill or capture," according to a New York Times article. Obama also decided to have the final say when it came to drone strikes with top terrorists and their families in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. In these situations there is not near certainty that civilian causalities can be avoided.
His rational for placing himself at the helm of counterterrorism is simple he believes "that he's responsible for the position of the United States in the world."
This is a troubling position for Obama. Even though he is the president of the world's hegemony, no one person should be responsible for making decisions regarding the use of drones and other counterterrorism measures. The use of drone, while strategic, is a moral decision. One person cannot be tasked with deciding the morality of killing.
Technically, Obama is not alone when it comes to counterterrorism decisions. John Brennan has become indispensable to Obama as his counterterrorism advisor and soon to be head of the CIA. Brennan is a staunch supporter of drone strikes so it's no surprise that drones have become a staple in U.S. counterterrorism policy.
Although it is clear that the secret kill list should be decreasing in names, it is still unclear "how much killing will be enough." Obama believes in options but there comes a time when killing the enemy is no longer a solution.
According to Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, "[Obama's] policy is to take out high-value targets, versus capturing high-value targets." While this appears to be a valid conclusion, the question remains is this okay? Instead of dealing with the messy trials and rules regarding capture the Obama administration has instead opted to bypass capture and simply kill high-value targets.
By doing this Obama is facing major trade-offs. It is true that al-Qaeda has weakened, but Obama's goal of improving relations with the Middle East and adopting a broader strategy against radicalization has been sacrificed in the process.
"Obama’s liberal reputation and “softer packaging” have protected him" from the type of criticism that plagued the Bush administration. His policies, however, deserve criticism.
The use of drones has become a symbol of American power and have replaced many forms of counterterrorism. Although they have been effective in killing leaders in al-Qaeda, they have done little to improve U.S. relations with the Middle East. Pakistan and Yemen who have endured the most drone strikes are more hostile to the U.S. now than they were during the Bush administration.
In a 2012 study about living under drones an argument was made against the use of targeted killing practices. This study reflects a powerful movement that is against the use of drones. The study stands in stark contrast to the policies of the Obama Administration because the study calls for policy makers rethink the use of drones.
The study makes strong claims against the Obama Administration. It claims that Washington has misrepresented drone strikes when they claim that such strikes make the U.S. safer. What's worse, the study also suggests that the Obama Administration lies when it says that drone strikes produce little or no civilian casualties.
If this study is correct this would imply that the Obama Administration is using Bush-like tactics to legitimize human rights abuses.
Welcome to Obama Speak.
He invented and allowed himself to become the head of the secret "nominations process to designate terrorists for kill or capture," according to a New York Times article. Obama also decided to have the final say when it came to drone strikes with top terrorists and their families in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. In these situations there is not near certainty that civilian causalities can be avoided.
His rational for placing himself at the helm of counterterrorism is simple he believes "that he's responsible for the position of the United States in the world."
 |
| President Obama and John Brennan |
Technically, Obama is not alone when it comes to counterterrorism decisions. John Brennan has become indispensable to Obama as his counterterrorism advisor and soon to be head of the CIA. Brennan is a staunch supporter of drone strikes so it's no surprise that drones have become a staple in U.S. counterterrorism policy.
Although it is clear that the secret kill list should be decreasing in names, it is still unclear "how much killing will be enough." Obama believes in options but there comes a time when killing the enemy is no longer a solution.
According to Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, "[Obama's] policy is to take out high-value targets, versus capturing high-value targets." While this appears to be a valid conclusion, the question remains is this okay? Instead of dealing with the messy trials and rules regarding capture the Obama administration has instead opted to bypass capture and simply kill high-value targets.
By doing this Obama is facing major trade-offs. It is true that al-Qaeda has weakened, but Obama's goal of improving relations with the Middle East and adopting a broader strategy against radicalization has been sacrificed in the process.
"Obama’s liberal reputation and “softer packaging” have protected him" from the type of criticism that plagued the Bush administration. His policies, however, deserve criticism.
The use of drones has become a symbol of American power and have replaced many forms of counterterrorism. Although they have been effective in killing leaders in al-Qaeda, they have done little to improve U.S. relations with the Middle East. Pakistan and Yemen who have endured the most drone strikes are more hostile to the U.S. now than they were during the Bush administration.
In a 2012 study about living under drones an argument was made against the use of targeted killing practices. This study reflects a powerful movement that is against the use of drones. The study stands in stark contrast to the policies of the Obama Administration because the study calls for policy makers rethink the use of drones.
The study makes strong claims against the Obama Administration. It claims that Washington has misrepresented drone strikes when they claim that such strikes make the U.S. safer. What's worse, the study also suggests that the Obama Administration lies when it says that drone strikes produce little or no civilian casualties.
If this study is correct this would imply that the Obama Administration is using Bush-like tactics to legitimize human rights abuses.
Welcome to Obama Speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment