How Obama Criticized—and Defended—His Own Drone War

In a speech today, President Barack Obama both defended and limited his administration's global air campaign against terrorist targets using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). It was the clearest statement the president has ever made on the use of UAVs to kill terrorists and militants?one that seemed to critique his own administration's actions. "This is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions about the nature of today's threats and how to confront them," Obama said in his landmark address.

There has never been anything like this campaign of air strikes?thousands likely killed by U.S aircraft, operated by the Pentagon and the CIA, in missions spanning multiple countries and without a specific, formal declaration of war. It's clear from today's speech that a phase of the Drone War is ending. Here are some core issues.

How Well Does It Really Work?

The Bush administration pioneered the use of UAVs, but this style of attack increased dramatially under Obama, from a handful of deaths to an estimated 3100, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The Obama administration saw UAVs as a way to pursue the war on al-Qaida and its affiliates as they scattered from war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan into ungoverned areas of Pakistan and Northern Africa. And Obama accepted, quietly, that given the severity of the terrorist threat, he could keep up the effort with little regard for national borders and without asking for additional Congressional approval beyond the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. He had the autority to kill anywhere in the world, in other words, and UAVs provided a low-risk way to do it.

But today, Obama said, the threat has morphed beyond worldwide combat, though he preserved the idea of pinprick strikes when necessary. "If dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11," he said. "We must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror,' but, rather, as a series of persistent, targeted efforts."

The upside to targeted killing from the U.S. is the same now as it was then: It bleeds expertise from a terrorist organization. These groups depend on leadership for cohesion, inspiration, teaching tactical skills, and recruitment. One way to top the spread of extremism is to kill the most experienced extremists.

There is a familiar argument that this tactic creates more terrorists than it kills. But a recent analysis of the drone program in Pakistan's ungoverned tribal areas, conducted by the nonpartisan International Crisis Group and released this week, states otherwise. It says: "The main causes for the spread of militancy in Federal Administered Tribal Areas are not drone strikes but domestic factors. In debates on the drone issue, the argument is commonly put forward that drones produce more terrorists than they kill: militant groups exploit real and fabricated accounts of civilian deaths to enlist fresh recruits, including the relatives of drone strike victims, for jihad against the U.S. and its allies. The actual benefit to extremist groups, including in terms of recruitment, appears, however, minimal."

Overreliance on Drones?

Obama's drone campaign has become a defining part of his foreign policy. As the president coordinated the troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was simultaneously escalating this shadow war. The killings intensified as he struggled to keep pressure on militants. An unmanned warplane became the icon for a remote, meddling, deadly American foreign policy.

Still, by putting drones front and center but keeping their operations in the shadows, the Obama administration has opened itself up to some untenable situations. Our relationship to the Pakistani government is a good example. Pakistani politicians complain publicly that the strikes violate their sovereignty but secretly condone and abet the attacks. Wikileaks cables, which included requests from Pakistani officials to be involved in UAV-attack targeting, show the extent of this relationship,.

Then the drone program became a political football in 2011 after a shootout between CIA operatives and Pakistanis soured the relationship. In the aftermath of that violence and other incidents, the CIA was forced to close a base used to conduct these strikes. The agency still operates out of Afghanistan and flies into Pakistan, but because the UAVs were the only way the Obama administration could influence this part of the world, it became a point of weakness when Pakistan pushed back against it. And because the U.S. used drones as a quick and easy fix, rather than pursuing the much more difficult task of helping the Pakistani government regain control over the tribal areas, the situation has stagnated.

"A perpetual war . . . will prove self-defeating and alter our country in troubling ways," Obama said today. "The use of force must be part of larger discussion of counterterrorism strategy." This could be read as a critique of his own policies in Pakistan and North Africa.

Standardization at Last

Obama says he has crafted guidelines for drones and that unmanned strikes are "now codified in a presidential directive I signed yesterday." They have not been publicly released, but the rules will limit when drones can be used. One could argue the wisdom of hampering military strikes in this way, but any guidance is better than none. It's the kind of clarity that could have helped Congress and diplomats convince other nations and a skeptical American public of the policy's effectiveness.

Setting limits and adhering to them is good public policy, and Obama indicated that he thought it was long overdue. "As our fight enters a new phase, America's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion," Obama said. "To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power?or risk abusing it." The guidance comes after more than six years of steady drone attacks that he authorized.

The lack of standards during Obama's escalation has led to plenty of thorny legal questions. Consider the recent controversy over signature strikes, which the White House approved last year. These attacks are not targeted at identified individuals but at groups of people congregating in ways that indicate they are militants. In 2012, the targeting technique helped the Yemeni army beat back militants who were advancing with frightening speed, but it opens up all sorts of questions over the legal underpinnings that justify the drone program. How could the United States know targets posed an imminent threat to Americans, and cannot feasibly be captured, if they were not even named?

Obama this week did not mention signature strikes by name?a heckler did, and he said, "We are looking into it"?but there are signs that they are on the way out. In a letter to Congress this week, Attorney General Eric Holder invoked language that force will be used only against targets who pose "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans." The New York Times, which spoke with unidentified administration officials, says "the rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists."

Defending Targeted Killings

"Our actions are legal," Obama said bluntly today. "We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force." This is a certainly a defense of his legacy, and one that preserves options for himself and future presidents to take to defend the nation.

If Obama had promised that UAVs would no longer conduct targeted killings, it would have been received joyously?by foes of the United States. "Despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed," Obama said in his speech. "It's not possible for the United States to deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist . . . Our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm."

Al-Qaida and other militant groups still exist and intend to conduct terrorist-style operations. A retreat from that reality, especially after targeting terrorist groups so consistently since he took office, would be hypocritical for Obama and tie the hands of future office holders. That means drones and targeted killings aren't going away. "Doing nothing is not an option," Obama said. "Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage."

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/how-obama-criticized-and-defended-his-own-drone-war-15508446?src=rss

a star is born oscar nominees oscar nominations 2012 kombucha tea separation of church and state dale earnhardt oscar predictions