In the wake of two hostages being killed, and Italian and
American respectively, in a drone strike targeting and Al Qaeda stronghold in
Pakistan, there is renewed focus on the Drone War. This is one of Pres. Barack Obama's great failures during
his presidency. Under President Bush there were 50 drone strikes but under
Pres. Obama there have been 475. The use of drones in warfare opens up a
Pandora's box of bad precedents.
Micah Zenko, a drone expert at the Council of Foreign Relations,
said that the spread of drone technology and usage is slowly progressing to
other countries. The British and the Israelis use drones, but soon in perhaps 5
to 10 years down the line other countries will have drone technology, which
opens up a plethora of scenarios. For example, what if Russia starts using
drones and then Russian hackers take over the computers that control the drones
and start flying them over and firing missiles on places that send the globe
into a panic? Will other countries start flying drones towards the United
States that it then has to shoot down, firing missiles from within its own
country, to protect itself. It seems crazy, but if you can imagine it so easily
only says it could be a possible reality.
But that's future semi-horror/fantasy. In the here and now,
the worst thing that Mr. Zenko outlined was that drone strikes are the calling
card of US foreign policy, the face
of US foreign policy. This not-so-secret perpetual state of warfare through
drone use hampers the United State’s ability to negotiate and influence other
countries. Granted, the United States isn’t truly negotiating with countries
where they’re using drones, despite its ‘partnership’ with Pakistan, where many
missions are directed.
Tom Donilon, former national security advisor for Pres.
Obama, explained very carefully that in the assessment of this target, “an
enemy facility in the Aghan theater of war,” it was the facility itself were
what was under scrutiny, not the identities of the individuals in the
facility. In that context, the CIA
had authorization because they were correct in that particular assessment that
it was indeed an Al Qaeda stronghold.
It’s the fact of that result that registers most with the American
people and the domestic repercussions are minimal right now. Mr. Donilon said as much, while tragic
that hostages were killed, there is no absolute certainty in a war zone.
These are part of the unintended consequences – hostages
being killed, civilians being injured in a retaliatory terrorist attacks for
the use of those drones, and a deteriorating ability to negotiate with other
countries around the world will all continue. Another consequence, Mr. Zenko
explained, is the change in calculus as to how frequent these strikes are
carried out. He explained that if these were special forces incursions there
wouldn't be nearly as many or if these were manned aircraft strikes there also
wouldn't be nearly as many. So the impetus for the de-escalation of these
strikes given that safety calculus is very low. Drone strikes and the failure
to close Guantanamo Bay Prison are two big failures that tarnish Mr. Obama’s
legacy as president, there is no doubt.
Speaking of tarnished legacies it is difficult to run for
president when you already have one at the state of the race. Of course we are
speaking about Hillary Clinton and the rumblings of quid pro quo money for
influence favors with the Clinton Foundation. The real problem here is that
even the more liberal commentators and progress are using words like Evan buy
from Yahoo news used on today's program which is arrogance and disregard for
conflict of interest and putting it most mildly was governor Asa Hutchinson of
Arkansas who said the Clintons were complicated. It's really hard to say where
all of this is going to shake out however if it gets worse and Mrs. Clinton
doesn't take Doris Kearns-Goodwin's advice of dealing with this herself and the
Democrats have no fallback candidate if this goes in a nightmarish direction
for Mrs. Clinton. We like most others don't feel that this will ultimately be a
big deal but it adds to a negative narrative established twenty years with Mr.
Clinton, and it’s this rehash that we dread.
Lastly, there is the impending Supreme Court decision on
whether or not to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states and we thought
that Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies frame the argument most properly. In denying
same-sex marriage you are denying individuals rights that are afforded to
others and under the Constitution. Everyone should have equal rights under the
law. We understand the religious sensitivities that people have towards the
notion of same-sex marriage but as was discussed the progression towards
majority social acceptance has been historically fast. This just says that
people are more accepting of differences but that those differences shouldn't
mean that you have less rights than someone else. That's called advanced
democracy. There’s no absolute
certainty that the country always get there, but we’re on board with the
practice.
Panel: Asa Hutchinson, Governor of Arkansas; Doris
Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Evan Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment