The war in Afghanistan is winding down, but the drone wars are set to last forever.
The Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported last week that President Barack Obama’s administration is codifying the use of its kill or capture lists for future administrations – a decision that will “institutionalize” targeted killing, creating a “counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”
Unfortunately, when it comes to “kill or capture,” the Obama administration has shown a tendency to go with “kill.” Permanently institutionalizing this policy may cause more harm than good.
The administration is consolidating its lists from the Pentagon and CIA into one large database, dubbed the “disposition matrix.”
Similarly, the CIA is moving to become a paramilitary force rather than a predominantly intelligence-gathering one, and the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command is establishing a targeting center across the Potomac River to streamline the targeted killing process for future administrations.
It’s no secret the Obama administration has embraced the use of drones and targeted killings as part of its counterterrorism strategy, shaping its offense from a page straight out of the Bush administration’s playbook .
And that’s no hyperbole.
Drone strikes and the kill or capture lists are a neo-conservative’s wet dream, which is why Republican nominee Mitt Romney had no complaint against them when debating against the president.
Yet many “liberals” have turned a blind eye to this policy and its devastating effects.
Drone strike casualties are expected to exceed 3,000 soon, a milestone in remembering the deaths of Sept. 11. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reports that as many as 1,105 of those killed were innocent civilians, including up to 213 children.
The government has claimed that its civilian casualty rate is near zero, which is unsurprising if you are aware of how the government counts drone casualties.
Official Obama administration policy revealed by the New York Times is to count all adult males killed in these strikes as “militants” whether they are or not.
Think about that the next time you read a headline detailing the deaths of “militants.”
A study released by NYU and Stanford last month came to a similar conclusion as the TBIJ and also revealed that drones are terrorizing the local population where they are mostly used, noting strikes against rescuers and funeral mourners.
The study even reiterated a point many of the policy’s critics have stated against drones – that they “facilitated recruitment” for terrorist groups and have “motivated further violent attacks.”
If the long-term strategy is to make us safe and stop terrorism, then drones seem ineffective.
This information would have outraged liberals and Democrats five years ago, but there hasn’t been much fuss since Obama took office.
But what’s most worrying about this “disposition matrix” is that it is set to become a staple for United States’ counterterrorism in the years to come.
This makes me wonder: How would liberals feel with Romney at the helm of these powers?
And with a kill list that can include an American citizen, such as Anwar al-Awlaki? With a policy that records all adult males killed as “militants?”
Jingoist apologia for kill or capture has been frequent among liberal pundits.
Just last week, Time columnist Joe Klein said the “bottom line” is “whose 4-year-old gets killed.” Maybe it’s just me, but that argument sounds exactly like what we’ve heard from the very people we’re supposed to be combating.
And I’ve heard similar statements from University professors.
This might be blasphemy to some, but an American life is not worth any more than an innocent Yemeni’s. Or an innocent Pakistani’s. Or an innocent life anywhere.
By institutionalizing this “disposition matrix” and the use of drones, we will only cause more harm to these innocents around the world and perhaps eventually to ourselves.
As a country, we should forgo what is easy when dealing with a terrorist threat, and pursue something better — something that doesn’t result in unnecessary civilian deaths (and attempts to cover them up), something that doesn’t breed future terrorists and keep us in harm’s way.
Otherwise, what are we fighting for?