Important
new piece from upcoming issue of
The New Yorker by the expert Steve Coll just posted. It's a review of new books by Mark Mazzetti and Jeremy Scahill, and more. "Obama’s enthusiasm for drones—which he believes minimizes the risk to
American forces and non-combatants on the ground—is unnervingly
reminiscent of Eisenhower’s enthusiasm for poisoning schemes and coup
plots. (The President’s foreign-policy advisers periodically cite
Eisenhower as an inspiration.) Drone strikes are also defended on the
ground that they have killed terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen before
those terrorists could kill Americans in Times Square or on the Mall, in
Washington. There is no way to assess these claims: the official
secrecy surrounding the program makes it impossible to judge the
results."
It is also far from clear that killing leaders is even a reliable
means of disrupting terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Jenna Jordan, of the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and Aaron Mannes, of the University of
Maryland, have separately reviewed dozens of past campaigns by
governments to destroy terrorist organizations and found that culling
leaders works in some instances—especially when terrorist groups are
young and small—but not in others. The approach is particularly
ineffective against religious organizations, which tend to regroup and
escalate violence in response to such efforts.
Besides, as the Boston
Marathon bombing reminded us, terrorist plots can be hatched and carried
out by individuals acting independently of any chain of command.
America’s
drone campaign is also creating an ominous global precedent. Ten years
or less from now, China will likely be able to field armed drones. How
might its Politburo apply Obama’s doctrines to Tibetan activists holding
meetings in Nepal?
No comments:
Post a Comment