First of all, it amazes me that our global military presence doesn't, in itself, seem unjust to most people.
Somehow the American neo-imperial project is treated as a given - perhaps in the name of "God", or "freedom", or "democracy", or "civilization", or "development" etc. just use whichever euphemism makes you more comfortable - and what is questioned is either its operational effectiveness or domestic legality.
The article "The Predator War" focuses on drone attacks, which have become ubiquitous within the imperial project. The author doesn't spend one sentence questioning the concept of "terrorism" or "terrorists", in fact, he opens up the exposition of the C.I.A. drone program by explaining that it targets terror suspects around the world - even in countries which have yet to accept American troops.
I understand that an article must have a clear focus however I don't think the drone war can be so cleanly separated from American imperialism. The article only briefly outlines the American public's transition into accepting the drone program and at certain points the author refers to "terrorists" as militants.
Then the article transitions into the risks of the covert drone program.
The author highlights the secrecy of the C.I.A. drone program (as opposed to the military's version) along with the C.I.A.'s inexperience in murder in contrast to the military. Its seems like the article is suggesting the drone program would be acceptable if it were more accountable. However, what would be the result of such accountability? A public announcement of a program which we all know about anyway? I assume such an announcement would be preceded with a publicity/propaganda campaign. Then the laws would change in order to accommodate it. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem like an official acknowledgement would change anything.
Then there is some discussion about the how the drone attacks produce more "terrorists" since their target population doesn't appreciate the civilian casulaties and the dishonorable nature of such a detached form of warfare conducted by "cubicle warriors".
However, I don't understand what the alternative would be. Would the imperial campaign produce less "terrorists" if the murderers were on the ground killing civilians? It seems like we are defining "terrorist" as anyone who attacks American soldiers stationed in their country and clearly they would only be more successful as "terrorists" if there were any American soldiers on the ground for them to kill. It doesn't seem like any of these people pose an existential threat against me, an American citizen, nor my interests which don't involve any quests for natural gas pipelines, oil, strategic bases against Russia or China, cheap labor etc, so I just can't see how they are "terrorizing" the American public from their house in Pakistan.
Yet, again the cleanest answer to "terrorists" is robotic warfare since that way our "cubicle warriors" are safe to go shopping after they kill a few people across the globe. And this seems to be the conclusion our author reaches since he concludes his article with a quote reiterating "[the Obama adminsitration] doesn't really have anything else".
Somehow the American neo-imperial project is treated as a given - perhaps in the name of "God", or "freedom", or "democracy", or "civilization", or "development" etc. just use whichever euphemism makes you more comfortable - and what is questioned is either its operational effectiveness or domestic legality.
The article "The Predator War" focuses on drone attacks, which have become ubiquitous within the imperial project. The author doesn't spend one sentence questioning the concept of "terrorism" or "terrorists", in fact, he opens up the exposition of the C.I.A. drone program by explaining that it targets terror suspects around the world - even in countries which have yet to accept American troops.
I understand that an article must have a clear focus however I don't think the drone war can be so cleanly separated from American imperialism. The article only briefly outlines the American public's transition into accepting the drone program and at certain points the author refers to "terrorists" as militants.
Then the article transitions into the risks of the covert drone program.
The author highlights the secrecy of the C.I.A. drone program (as opposed to the military's version) along with the C.I.A.'s inexperience in murder in contrast to the military. Its seems like the article is suggesting the drone program would be acceptable if it were more accountable. However, what would be the result of such accountability? A public announcement of a program which we all know about anyway? I assume such an announcement would be preceded with a publicity/propaganda campaign. Then the laws would change in order to accommodate it. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem like an official acknowledgement would change anything.
Then there is some discussion about the how the drone attacks produce more "terrorists" since their target population doesn't appreciate the civilian casulaties and the dishonorable nature of such a detached form of warfare conducted by "cubicle warriors".
However, I don't understand what the alternative would be. Would the imperial campaign produce less "terrorists" if the murderers were on the ground killing civilians? It seems like we are defining "terrorist" as anyone who attacks American soldiers stationed in their country and clearly they would only be more successful as "terrorists" if there were any American soldiers on the ground for them to kill. It doesn't seem like any of these people pose an existential threat against me, an American citizen, nor my interests which don't involve any quests for natural gas pipelines, oil, strategic bases against Russia or China, cheap labor etc, so I just can't see how they are "terrorizing" the American public from their house in Pakistan.
Yet, again the cleanest answer to "terrorists" is robotic warfare since that way our "cubicle warriors" are safe to go shopping after they kill a few people across the globe. And this seems to be the conclusion our author reaches since he concludes his article with a quote reiterating "[the Obama adminsitration] doesn't really have anything else".
Ahhh, I see that you separated your own musings from the video link. Your worries over the use of the term "terrorist" are quite valid, and I think were common in the wake of September 11th and during the Bush years (at least from the political left). I think in some circles that term is still recognized as less than ideal, though the arguments may have moved on to other areas.
ReplyDeleteTo play devil's advocate, I'm sure that supporters of the drone/UAV program would point out that the targets do pose a clear danger to U.S. citizens. You are minimizing the threat, but they are perhaps overstating it, hence the concerns over burden of proof and criteria for targeting.
Some smart critique here, and I appreciate your attention to language and the assumptions embedded therein.