Archive for Saturday, June 2, 2012

Drone warfare raises moral dilemmas

June 2, 2012


— A very strange story, a 6,000-word front-page New York Times piece on how, every Tuesday, Barack Obama shuffles “baseball cards” with the pictures and bios of suspected terrorists from around the world and chooses who shall die by drone strike. He even reserves for himself the decision of whether to proceed when the probability of killing family members or bystanders is significant.

The article could have been titled “Barack Obama: Drone Warrior.” Great detail on how Obama personally runs the assassination campaign. On-the-record quotes from the highest officials. This was no leak. This was a White House press release.

Why? To portray Obama as tough guy. And why now? Because in crisis after recent crisis, Obama has looked particularly weak: standing helplessly by as thousands are massacred in Syria; being played by Iran in nuclear negotiations, now reeling with the collapse of the latest round in Baghdad; being treated with contempt by Vladimir Putin, who blocks any action on Syria or Iran and adds personal insult by standing up Obama at the latter’s G-8 and NATO summits.

The Obama camp thought that any political problem with foreign policy would be cured by the Osama bin Laden operation. But the administration’s attempt to politically exploit the raid’s one-year anniversary backfired, earning ridicule and condemnation for its crude appropriation of the heroic acts of others.

A campaign ad had Bill Clinton praising Obama for the courage of ordering the raid because, had it failed and Americans been killed, “the downside would have been horrible for him.” Outraged veterans released a response ad pointing out that it would have been considerably more horrible for the dead SEALs. Obama only compounded the self-aggrandizement problem when he spoke a week later about the military “fighting on my behalf.”

The Osama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed, what to do? A new card: Obama, drone warrior, steely and solitary, delivering death with cool dispatch to the rest of the al-Qaida depth chart.

So the peacemaker, Nobel laureate, nuclear disarmer, apologizer to the world for America having lost its moral way when it harshly interrogated the very people Obama now kills, has become — just in time for the 2012 campaign — Zeus the Avenger, smiting by lightning strike.

A rather strange ethics. You go around the world preening about how America has turned a new moral page by electing a president profoundly offended by George W. Bush’s belligerence and prisoner maltreatment, and now you’re ostentatiously telling the world that you personally play judge, jury and executioner to unseen combatants of your choosing, and whatever innocents happen to be in their company.

This is not to argue against drone attacks. In principle, they are fully justified. No quarter need be given to terrorists who wear civilian clothes, hide among civilians and target civilians indiscriminately. But it is to question the moral amnesia of those whose delicate sensibilities were offended by the Bush methods that kept America safe for a decade — and who now embrace Obama’s campaign of assassination by remote control.

Moreover, there is an acute military problem. Dead terrorists can’t talk.

Drone attacks are cheap — which is good. But the path of least resistance has a cost. It yields no intelligence about terror networks or terror plans.

One capture could potentially make us safer than 10 killings. But because of the moral incoherence of Obama’s war on terror, there are practically no captures anymore. What would be the point? There’s nowhere for the CIA to interrogate. And what would they learn even if they did, Obama having decreed a new regime of kid-gloves, name-rank-and-serial-number interrogation?

This administration came out opposing military tribunals, wanting to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and trying mightily (and unsuccessfully, there being — surprise! — no plausible alternative) to close Guantanamo. Yet alongside this exquisite delicacy about the rights of terrorists is the campaign to kill them in their beds.

You festoon your prisoners with rights — but you take no prisoners. The morality is perverse. Which is why the results are so mixed. We do kill terror operatives, an important part of the war on terror, but we gratuitously forfeit potentially life-saving intelligence.

But that will cost us later. For now, we are to bask in the moral seriousness and cool purpose of our drone warrior president.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group. His email address is


Abdu Omar 5 years, 11 months ago

If we want The USA to be the world leader in human rights and eschew the concept of killing willy nilly, we must stop the drone attacks. I support most of the policies of this president, but I cannot accept the killing of "suspects" without gathering the obvious intelligence we need to prosecute a war on terror. When they are combatants in the field and drone killings are not unacceptable, but we lose the possibility of learning more from their interogations. But the killing of innocents is totally without merit.

Of course, some of the problems we have are due to the fact we strongly support the State of Israel. We should step back from them, let them go forward without our assistance and see how our "friend" moves forward. They are keen on taking our money for their defense, but loathe to follow our lead to a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. We should not tolerate this because their enemies are ours and without a settlement, we continue the war on terror where we lose some and the terrorists lose some.We would not need to spend so much money on self defense.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

A few days ago, wounded, we were having a conversation about the respective leaders of Israel and the PLO, Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat. I mentioned during that conversation that Sharon was born in British Palestine and Arafat was born in Egypt. You said that Arafat was born in Egypt because his family had been forced into exile by Israel. Of course, I then pointed out that Arafat was born about 20 years prior to Israel's birth. Why do I mention this? Because one of two things are happening. Either you are outright lying, hoping that you won't be caught in the lie. Maybe that's the case, but I'm guessing that that is not the most likely answer. That leaves possibility number 2 which is my guess at being true. And possibility number 2 is that you are so blinded by hatred of Israel that all problems in that region are the fault of Israel. All problems that have befallen any person, any group, any country, is the fault of Israel. Drones, Israel's fault. Peace process not happening, Israel's fault. Arafat's birth in Egypt, Israel's fault. Do you recall your reaction when I pointed out that Arafat was born many years prior to Israel's existence? Do you recall? I do. Nothing. Not a word. Nothing. Not a whoops, I made a mistake. Not an apology to the readers who may be prone to read your comment and believe it. No recognition that you misled, either intentionally or inadvertently. Nothing. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to clarify, were you lying or is it simply an irrational hatred of Israel?

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

Fifteen hours and no reply. Oh well, maybe I should have expected as much considering you (wounded) disappeared yourself the last time and now you've done it again. But just in case you're looking back, let me give you an old Golda Meir quote that comes to mind when I run across statements like yours. "The Arabs will have peace when they love their children as much as they hate us". Wounded - You're not there yet. Hopefully, you will be there soon.

Abdu Omar 5 years, 11 months ago

Unlike many here, I am employed and have had a very long day. So eat your words. You certainly toe the Zionist's line don't you. Open minded you? I doubt it.

In order to respond to my posts, you must first read them. I said nothing about hating Israel. I said nothing about Israel at all. I said the terrorists are creating terror in the USA because the USA supports Israel. Israel has our utmost support and this angers and creates chaos for the terrorists. Can't you see that? If the USA pulled away from Israel, maybe our problems here could be solved without the countless wars and killings that are happening because of our support for Israel.

Second, I am sorry to tell you but the world has hated Jews throughout history. Why? I don't know, answer that yourself. I don't hate Jews, never have, but I do not like a group of people (Zionists) who take land away from other people (Palestinians) through terror and propaganda. I don't like children being shot to death so that some usurper has a place to plant potatoes. I don't like bulldozing down buildings and olive trees because some Russian immigrant wants land. So that is my point of view.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

Your line of reasoning goes something like this: I don't hate Israel, but ... I don't hate Israel, but ... I don't hate Israel, but ...

You have a pattern of distortion that certainly gives the impression you hate Israel. You lied about Arafat. And when called on it, you disappear. Again here you failed to address your deception.
Oh, that's right, it's not Israel or Jews, it's Zionists. Cute trick. But guess what, wounded, you don't get to define Zionism. I don't get to define Islam. Muslims get to do that. I don't get to define Catholicism. Catholics get to do that. And that goes for Catholic Charities, St. John Elementary School and St. Luke's Hospital. And you don't get to define Zionism and then criticize it.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

Your second point is very troubling, wounded. Why does the world hate Jews, you ask. As if there can be a rational explanation. As if an entire race or religion or ethnicity can be responsible for something and then the hatred could be justified. No, wounded, nothing like that can be justified, ever. Not against Jews, Christians or Muslims. Not against blacks, Latinos, Asians or whites. Not against women. Not against any group.
That you can even ask the question says something about you. Would you ask if it were your group, your religion, your ethnicity? Would there be a rational explanation? But that you can ask is the first step in dehumanizing that group. That you think a rational explanation exists means that maybe the hatred was justified. And of course, if it was justified, then their status as victims of that persecution doesn't hold. After all, they deserved what they got. That's the clear implication of your statement. Then they weren't victims and they weren't real refugees when they fled. And they shouldn't have expected sanctuary where they landed, because they weren't entitled to it. But they were victims of hatred and persecution. Their fear was legitimate. Their status as political refugees was true. And the sanctuary they should have expected wherever they landed was not what they received. Not when they fled to Palestine under the Ottoman empire. Not under the British in British Palestine. Not after WW II. And reading your words, not from you, ever. Be happy you landed here, and you were greeted better.

Abdu Omar 5 years, 11 months ago

How low have you set the bar for America?

cowboy 5 years, 11 months ago

We should leave this sand pit to its own demise , that being said there is not one of these terrorist fifth century aholes who is worth the life of one of our soldiers. Take em out with the drones and get out of that hellhole as soon as possible.

JackMcKee 5 years, 11 months ago

Big surprise. A Krauthammer hit piece on Obama. I guessed the author before I even clicked on the link. Where was Charles from 2002-2008?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.