Slashdot Mirror
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?'"
Why not spin off SlashPol now?
Dark Reflection
assassination by any name is just as illegal
so is torture and a war of aggression
Were these ever about self-defense?
The Iraqis were NEVER going to attack us. The doctrine is a lie.
The Taliban / Pashtuns were NEVER going to attack us. The doctrine is a lie.
Al Qaeda was an is a huge threat and needs an asymmetric warfare response to its tactics.
Never forget that we adopted the Blitzkrieg and our modern army's systems from the Nazis all we needed to become the monster wee defeated was a president to fucking stupid to know that he was a fascist ( in the classical Mussolini definition ) and a people to complacent and stupid to know that we had been cooped from within.
There is no way this can be considered self-defense. Defense by definition is stopping an aggressor. This is executing people suspected of terrorism without trial.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
After all, they could grow up to be resentful teen agers that could vandalize my property. So I really had no choice but to slit their throats, chop them up into kibble and feed them to the hogs.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
War gains power, profit, and political coin for those in charge and for their lackeys. The USA will have war without end, what voters want is irrelevant.
It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.
If it was one bullet, I would agree with you.
The problem is that we use rockets launched from drones. And those rockets take out an entire building when we are "targeting" one person.
So I better kill you, because you said you'd kill me if I was going to kill you.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The question posed was whether it was really "self-defense." This is an important question because the UN Charter allows nation-states to take action in self-defense." Thus every tinpot dictator, power-mad army, or simply state that otherwise wants to use violence without the sanction of the security council--i.e. what would otherwise be an illegal war--claims that their attacks are motivated by self-defense.
So if the U.S. wants to be able to target people in drone strikes (or otherwise, e.g. Osama Bin Laden) in what would otherwise be illegal acts of war committed within the territory of a foreign nation with which we are not at war, we have to be able to justify it as self-defense. Otherwise, it's illegal. If it's illegal, nobody can stop it, but it still undermines the power of the United Nations to declare certain wars illegal--which makes it harder to respond to illegal wars in the future, easier for warmongers to justify aggressive wars, etc...
Of course, the flipside of that is that every time someone takes a warlike act, calls it self-defense, and gets away with it, that expands the boundaries of what "self-defense" means on the international stage.
At any rate, this whole debate is why the Security Council passed the resolution they did for the second Iraq war--it was deliberately ambiguous, so that the United States could claim the war was approved by the security council (and thus not illegal) and the other countries could claim that they had not approved the war; it was effectively a nominal nod to the power of the security council to decide which wars are legal.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
If they were not dispensable why would we be sending them into lethal danger by the truck-load?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
For an example, read through some of the posts here.
There are people in the USofA who seem to WANT endless war.
As long as it is against someone far away and weak enough to never pose any real threat to them.
But send our military in? Hell yeah!
Kill people with drones? Fuck yeah!
Borrow money to do the above? Hell fucking yeah!
I spent seven months in Kandahar City as part of ISAF. I say this so you know that I have seen the ground truth, not just whatever story comes out of whatever news outlet you care to believe.
The Taliban were providing direct aid and sanctuary to the people who carries out the 9/11 attacks, and then refused to hand them over for prosecution - or indeed, to enforce any limits on their activities in any way. This makes that regime an active accessory to international terrorism and indeed a legitimate threat.
On top of that, I cannot imagine any group of people less suited to govern a nation than the Taliban. During my tour, a couple of Taliban chose to douse a group of Afghan schoolgirls with concentrated acid, killing some, and horribly disfiguring the others - for the crime of attending school. Not a Western-funded school; an Afghan-started, Afghan-operated school teaching girls to read. This sort of despicable and flatly inhuman act was Taliban policy. There is NOTHING good about the Taliban. They are bigoted narco-thugs who actively seek to erase any sign of civilization, law, and order in the attempt to eliminate opposition to their drug farming slavery campaigns. The Afghan campaign was, is, and remains a just war.
The crying shame of the Bush administration was that, instead of applying a full-court-press to Afghanistan following the initial defeat of the Taliban and seeing the country Marshall Planned back to some form of stability, they took their eyes off the ball to go adventuring in Iraq. This allowed the Taliban to re-invent themselves as an insurgency, rebuild, and become a destabilizing force that has slowed reconstruction to a crawl.
Although the world does not morn the passing of Saddam, Iraq was completely unjustified and the diversion of resources away from Afghanistan is, as far as I'm concerned, criminal. Afghanistan is NOT Iraq.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The big question is what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot? When another country decides that one of our citizens is a threat, do they have the right to level their home with a drone or cruise missile? If the neighbours get wiped out in the process, are they just collateral damage?
A doctrine of pre-emptive strike allows anyone to do anything to anyone at any time. All you need is to instill some fear and get away (quite literally) with murder.
I will go with a different interpretation. Although very similar to the "lying" option.
I'll say that they were "blustering" and "posturing" against a subject that the vast majority of voters would say was "not good".
My pessimistic point of view is that those people were doing so in an attempt to distract the public from other events (said events being less favourable to the person blustering) or to make themselves look as tough as their political opponents at the time.
More blustering and posturing. This time on Saddam's part.
I disagree with that. I still think it was the posturing and blustering that so many politicians involve themselves in.
The REAL question is whether the people making those statements were willing to take the political risk of committing the USofA's military.
Talk is cheap.
Soldiers coming home in boxes is very expensive.
I will disagree with that as well.
There were worldwide protests AGAINST our invasion.
The protests were so bad that almost none of our allies going into Afghanistan joined us in our Iraq invasion.
We sent 150,000 troops.
England sent 46,000 troops.
Australia sent 2,000 troops.
Everyone else sent a total of under 2,000 troops.
Talk is cheap.
Dead troops are expensive.
No one else believed the talk enough to risk the political expense of dead troops.
No. It was pretty clear at the time. As evidenced by all those countries that did NOT participate. Even though Iraq is a LOT closer to them (and would have an easier time striking them) than the USofA.
But is what we are doing truly self-defense?
To answer that question just ask yourself how people in this country would react if some other country started defending themselves in the U.S. the same way.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
For those who are historically unaware, the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense was NOT originated by the U.S. In fact, the U.S. was on the receiving end of the attack by the British known as "The Caroline incident" that established anticipatory self defense as a part of international law. U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster eventually agreed that nations must have a right to take pre-emptive strikes in the event that "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".
This is "the Caroline test" used to establish the validity of such strikes under international law, and it's not a trivial standard, as you suppose - simply claiming a need for self-defense is a far cry from satisfying the Caroline test. While this arguably supports actions such as an Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, it clearly would not support actions such as those Obama took in his recent attacks on Libya. Without a credible threat, it's pretty hard to reach the bar set by the Caroline test...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I was there, right?
The Taliban constantly pressured the local populace to grow poppy and pot. It was how they financed all their operations. Being Taliban has WAY more to do with drugs than ideology (although you cannot separate the Pashtun from Pashtunwali)
That "the Taliban eliminated poppy farming" trope is a myth. The Taliban eliminated COMPETITION in poppy farming.
ISAF left the poppy farmers alone as a matter of policy, because it meant depriving a farmer of what little livelihood he had left. We pushed alternative crops (wheat, grapes, pomegranates) very hard, and where the security situation was good the farmers would happily take up the alternate crops (poppy farming is backbreaking manual labour) the Taliban were always keen t apply pressure to get the farmers growing poppy again.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book