The Iraq War, the Next War, and the Future of the Fat Man

An anonymous reader writes "The Stanford Law Review Online has just published an Essay by Yale's Stephen L. Carter entitled 'The Iraq War, the Next War, and the Future of the Fat Man.' He provides a retrospective on the War in Iraq and discusses the ethical and legal implications of the War on Terror and 'anticipatory self-defense' in the form of drones and targeted killings going forward. He writes: 'Iraq was war under the beta version of the Bush Doctrine. The newer model is represented by the slaying of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen deemed a terror threat. The Obama Administration has ratcheted the use of remote drone attacks to unprecedented levels — the Bush Doctrine honed to rapier sharpness. The interesting question about the new model is one of ethics more than legality. Let us assume the principal ethical argument pressed in favor of drone warfare — to wit, that the reduction in civilian casualties and destruction of property means that the drone attack comports better than most other methods with the principle of discrimination. If this is so, then we might conclude that a just cause alone is sufficient to justify the attacks. ... But is what we are doing truly self-defense?'"

Comments

Re:Of course it's not self-defense

[DG]

The point about torture is well taken. Torture is NEVER justified. Not only does it not produce useful information (people will say anything under torture) its use does immense harm to your cause. It is very, very difficult for a torturer to lay claim to the moral high ground.

So we agree there.

But having had first-hand experience with UAV strikes, I am a big fan. Partially because UAVs are very good at minimizing collateral damage; they use precision munitions with a very small footprint. You get orders of magnitude less damage (of all kinds) than you do with big stick munitions like air strikes or cruise missiles.

But the true value of a UAV is that it allows you to be patient, take your time, and ensure that the target really is what you think it is and that conditions - all conditions - are ideal for the shot. I can't tell you the number of times when I saw UAVs with legit targets NOT shoot because the identity of the target was in question or because the risk of collateral damage too great. And with no jet jockey hopped up on amphetamines itching to drop his bombs in the air (and the sole determinant of if he drops or not) you instead get careful and reasoned opinion on go/no go from a panel of experts, legal and otherwise.

With nobody from your side at risk, attacks need not be made on snap decisions in the heat of battle by people scared for their lives. Instead, the decisions are made by safe, clear-thinking minds with more on their minds than just killing.

DG