a war without consequences

"In war ... the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.”- James Maddison

America is involved in a war without observable and understandable ramifications. More than that they have perfected the art of frictionless war. The average American's life rests isolated in cost free complacency.

UAVs piloted by the CIA and the USAF are currently operating in at least three countries. The two agencies operate on two different loose guidelines for how targets are chosen and approved. With each guideline making various adjustments on targets based on 'collateral damage'. So if a school, or hospital, or mosque is within the likely blast radius of the missile, that is weighted by a computer algorithm before a lethal strike is authorized. The algorithm apparently provides the acceptable number of innocent civilian for any given high-value target. Looking at the numbers of civilian deaths - it is obvious that the algorithm values the target much above any innocent bystanders caught in the blast radius.

With no soldiers returning maimed, no soldiers broken, no marines in wooden boxes covered in flags, America will find it difficult to understand the consequences of these actions.  The measure of war will always be bodies in the ground and America is able to avoid this with drones piloted from the states and bombs dropped from hidden rooms on hidden bases. 

Since war is, in part, measured in lives - America's drone war has resulted in twice as many civilian deaths than Sadam Hussein's Kuwait invasion. 

The Obama administration continues the executive branches sidestepping of congress and of the Abrams doctrine, which dictates that the disruption of civilian life is the price for war. This is not unique to his administration (this really began with Reagan, see Rachel Maddow's book 'Drift' for more) but that does not mean it should be ignored and therefore tacitly condoned.

This is a war that has not been declared, has not been justified to congress and has not been adequately explained to the American public. Yet, the American execuive leadership finds it sufficient to dodge these issues by explaining that they can be arbiters of who is bad enough to have 'justice' (read hellfire missile) rained on them instead of a trial.

The issue is not that drones are carrying out attacks into foreign countries, it is that they are doing this without adequate justification. I am not against the use of drones to fight war. And I understand that sometimes tough decisions are made; Yamamoto's plane had to be shot down. If these individuals are so bad and the threat they pose so imminent, then it should be easy to explain that to the public in clear and understandable language.

Yet, I worry about the future of conflict wherein, there is no negative repercussions to dissuade the use of violence.

Where will the memorial be to those who fought for what was important? Where will future generations look to be reminded of the folly of armed conflict? Where on the national mall will America have a permanent reminder of the consequences of these types of decisions?

Korean War Memorial Washington DC

note: I worry that if this is what America is willing to abide by under a Democratic president (always considered weak on defense) then what will be excused under a Republican president?

A war we have seen before

You’ve certainly heard about drones; however, you may not know the extent to which they are being used.

After the American invasion of Afghanistan, much of the Taliban hierarchy fled across the Pakistani border, primarily into the Waziristan region. The United States under two Presidents has been operating drone missions in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen as part of the War on Terror.

photo taken from teeth.com.pk

The details of the U.S. campaign against militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia remains shrouded in secrecy. The American drone programme has accelerated enormously under the Obama administration and has achieved success in wiping out large sections of the Al-Qaeda leadership. These strategic victories have come at considerable “collateral” costs (read civilian deaths) and arguably the strategy is fomenting resentment amongst the broader Pakistani population.

This strategic bombing campaign, carried out in a country the United States is not at war with, is resonant with another American military folly. During the Vietnam War, the US Air Force carpet-bombed Laos and Cambodia, both of whose official governments were supposedly American allies (much like Yemen and Pakistan are today; Somalia has no real government to speak of).

It has been reported that Laos was hit by an average of one B‑52 bomb load every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, between 1964 and 1973. The targets of these attacks were sanctuaries and Base Areas for the forces of the Vietcong. U.S. bombers dropped more ordnance on Laos in this period than was dropped during the whole of the World War II. Of the 260 million bombs that rained down, some 80 million failed to explode, leaving a deadly legacy. Laos remains the most heavily bombed country, per capita, in the world.

Laos, 1983. An intensive bombing campaign, coupled with artillery battles on land, has left the landscape in some areas of Laos filled with craters. Photo: Titus Peachey

The results of the attacks themselves are still debated among participants and historians. As for preventing further North Vietnamese offensives, they failed.

Jump back to today and we see a very similar scenario unfolding through the drone strikes.

Casualty Estimates CIA

Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004–2013 

Total US strikes: 364
Obama strikes: 312
Total reported killed: 2,534-3,573
Civilians reported killed: 411-884
Children reported killed: 168-197
Total reported injured: 1,172-1,463

US Covert Action in Yemen 2002–2013

Confirmed US drone strikes: 42-52
Total reported killed: 226-321
Civilians reported killed: 12-45
Children reported killed: 2
Reported injured: 60-142

Possible extra US drone strikes: 77-93
Total reported killed: 276-425
Civilians reported killed: 23-46
Children reported killed: 9-10
Reported injured: 75-96

All other US covert operations: 12-76
Total reported killed: 148-366
Civilians reported killed: 60-87
Children reported killed: 25
Reported injured: 22-111

 US Covert Action in Somalia 2007–2013

Total US strikes: 10-23
Total US drone strikes: 3-9
Total reported killed: 58-170
Civilians reported killed: 11-57
Children reported killed: 1-3

(http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/)

 The White House argues that the right to self-defense provides sound legal basis for targeting individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda or “associated forces”, even outside Afghanistan. This can include U.S. citizens.  In Yemen and Somalia, there is debate about whether the militants targeted by the U.S. are in fact plotting against the U.S. or instead fighting against their own country. Can we accept that this is necessary to stop the “bad guys”?

What forms the “due process” that is applied to choosing targets hasn’t been detailed. And the US government has not been forthcoming on how extraneous factors such as the likelihood of child deaths affect the decision making process.

Do not get me wrong the relative decline of Al-Qaeda should not be devalued. Drone strikes have taken affect by crippling the group’s leadership. These strikes may have prevented bloody streets in the Western world.

However, the exchange of innocent civilian lives in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia for potential civilian lives in the West is an unfair one. It is a continuation of previous American militarism that has failed to shift the power dynamic and resulted in dead bodies and broken lives.

General Stanley McChrystal, who led the military in Afghanistan, noted “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one.”

Alternatives to this type of force?

Malala Yousafzai represents the greatest weapon I have seen in the conflict with extremist groups; maybe that is where we should be fighting our battles.

note: A number of groups are tracking strikes and estimating casualties:

The Long War Journal covers Pakistan and Yemen.

The New America Foundation covers Pakistan.

The London Bureau of Investigative Journalism covers Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, as well as statistics from on drone strikes carried out in Afghanistan.