On Killing the Right People

Reports in The New York Times have revealed the existence of a hitherto secret counterterrorism campaign conducted by U. S. troops in Pakistan, Syria, and other countries. The campaign reputedly dates from 2004 and has included nearly a dozen raids conducted by special operations forces that swoop into a target area, wield death and destruction, and then as quickly make their escape.

We can safely assume that the governments of Syria and Pakistan, not to mention the organizations targeted by these attacks, have known about these activities for some time. In other words, "secret" in this context means keeping the American people in the dark about actions taken in their name. We can only speculate about various sources, whether acting independently or at the behest of high authorities, have chosen at this juncture to spill the beans.

In truth, the existence of such a program, fully consistent with the Bush administration's penchant for using force and for defining executive authority in the widest terms, hardly qualifies as surprising. True, these raids, which have regularly trampled on the principle of national sovereignty, makes all the more laughable the Bush administration's condemnation of Russia for violating the sacred sovereignty of Georgia. Yet at this point no one pays much attention when the United States claims to stand on principle.

More germane is the question of who exactly we are killing. Having learned about this secret war being conducted on their behalf, Americans now have an obligation to find out more. That obligation is both moral and political. The moral obligation is to ascertain whether or not the people we are killing are in fact terrorists, that is, members of organizations engaged in actively plotting attacks against the United States. If we are killing people who are not terrorists, then these special operations attacks are profoundly wrong. Indeed, in that case, they amount to little more than state-sponsored terrorism of the sort that Washington quickly and rightly condemns in others.

The political obligation is of a different sort. The issue here becomes one of effectiveness: even if these operations are actually netting some bad guys, are we in fact reducing the overall terrorist threat as a consequence? Or are the attacks merely creating propaganda opportunities that Islamists exploit to promote anti-Americanism, while recruiting new jihadists to replace those just eliminated? Can we be certain, in other words, that we are not simply engaging in an endless game of whack-a-mole?

In this regard, recent U.S. operations not directly related to this program of secret raids should set off alarm bells. In Afghanistan, site of an overt war that has taken a turn for the worse of late, U.S. and NATO forces have been involved in a series of incidents in which they have killed not Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters, but innocent civilians. No reasonable observer is accusing coalition forces of intentionally targeting non-combatants. Yet whether attributable to incompetence or negligence or simply the fog and friction of war, the evidence that we are routinely killing the wrong people in Afghanistan is becoming difficult to refute. In the most recent example, earlier this week a U.S. combat aircraft assaulted what turned out to be an Afghan wedding party, killing nearly forty civilians.

In Pakistan, site of a semi-covert war conducted mostly by remotely-controlled, missile-firing drones, U. S. officials insist that we are indeed killing terrorists even as Pakistani officials tell another story. Who is telling the truth -- whether the truth is even fully knowable -- is anyone's guess. What cannot be disputed is that the chief observable result of these Predator attacks has been to bring Pakistan perceptibly closer to the brink of internal collapse. In short, even if every accusation of killing innocent Pakistanis is false, the attacks are producing results that are the inverse of what they are intended to do.

Americans should not rush to render an adverse judgment of this program of secret attacks. Yet neither should they accept at face value official U. S. explanations or what they get from leakers offering a partial and selective version of the story. There is a need here for sober stock-taking, which must begin with a thorough-going, no-holds-barred investigation. There are two key questions. Are we doing the right thing? Are we doing the smart thing? Alas, don't look for the Pentagon, the Congress, or the media to provide answers to these questions.

Instead, add another item to President-elect Obama's already crowded agenda.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.

Comments

[Robert59]

Afghanistan is a no win situation for the U.S.

We will continue to kill noncombatants during these targeted attacks because we rely on the Afghans for intelligence. They will give us bad information out of laziness, greed, incompetence, and malice. Based on recent attacks by our Afghan allies against coalition forces I'd conclude we're allies only one paper.

It's easy for Karzai to point fingers, but what solution is he offering? Don't attack the Taliban; just roll over and let them retake the country. The minute we leave Afghanistan the progress made will reverse itself. Whatever personal freedoms there are will vanish. Women and minorities will not just go to the back of the bus, but under its wheels.

[Robert59]

Just saw a video of an acid attack on two Afghan girls. Their crime, attending school.
Do we really think we can Westernize their way of thinking? The Russians tried and failed. Speak to the average Afghan male and he views women as little more than chattel. Ask a Pashtun what he thinks of Hazaris or Tajiks and he'll say they are lower than dung.

[SoutheastReview]

For a history professor, you made precious few references to the past. Policy without a historical reference is likely, at best, to be opportunistic and hit-and-miss.

For example, our current war posture opposes forces that we set in motion in order to bring a 'death-by-­a-thousand­-cuts' to the Soviet Union. Our leaders crowed at their success then, which we citizens paid for, and now they crow about attacking the monster that we created, which we again expend our treasure and our son's and cousin's and brother's lives in carrying out, not to mention untold thousands of faceless 'towel-heads' and other collateral fodder.

In relation to Pakistan and India, Tibet, Iran, Iraq(obviously), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and on and on and on, a similar litany of opportunistic duplicity, chicanery, bribery, and murder underlie our present "policies," which represent at best the blind greed of the true forces that underpin our government.

At worst, I shudder even to articulate what they represent, inasmuch as my vote for Barack Obama begins to look like another lame choice of "the livery of heaven to do the work of the devil in." When are we going to get a clue about this and insist on an actual citizen's power movement to overthrow this imperial butchery? Inquiring minds want to know.

[WilliamL]

Seriously?

These actions/policies have been underway for decades.

Seems some folks have simply waken up to the reality of what has been/is going on.

[divineorder]

Not so much. They were stopped for many years until Bush II.

[MidaFo]

This article is almost surreal---­-'.America­ns should not rush to render an adverse judgment of this program of secret attacks.'
Don't you know that America is renowned for this sort of crass behaviour that results in the loss of human life and has been so for over 50 years? America has been making a new language to negate their responsibility and corrupting innovative minds to enable their combatants to kill from a distance, even boasting the ability on public TV. Does the person who wrote this article recognise the role of the mall rats and the geeks and the computer games in all this? American innovation has become a marsh of ooze.
People have forgiven America because it was perceived the underlying motive was good. Now it is the underlying motive that is in question. America has used this forgiveness to become a Godzilla rising out of the ooze. This change of president threatens to be cosmetic (see Biden, Emmanuel). Unless the massive structured greed of the USA and the associated monstrous military is removed America can be as surgical and accurate as is humanly possible but will fail because whoever they and their Alaskan and Israeli pitbulls kill will be correctly seen as the humans in the equation.
Simple lesson is that a Godzilla with great accuracy remains a Godzilla

[SoutheastReview]

What a perfectly reasoned, and powerfully presented, and beautifully written argument. To me, the conclusion is clear. Lacking some sort of miraculous, magical emergence of actual participatory democracy, the "usual suspects" are going to burrow us all deeper into the mire that must, especially in the context of imploding economies everywhere, become a quagmire.

Keep up the good work.

[antirepublocrat]

Andrew Bacevich is generally a thoughtful commentator. He was against the war in Iraq long before he lost a son there. But I agree with you regarding "Amercians should not rush to render...." It boggles my mind that anybody fails to see that what we're doing is not only a crime, but worse, a mistake. A crime because the violation of another nation's sovereignty is a violation of international law. A mistake because it undermines governments that on balance have tried to help bring terrorists to justice, and contributes to the descent of these countries into failed state status.

Such attacks are beyond the pale, whether they kill civilians in Pakistan and Syria or level an aspirin factory in the Sudan. The only time our military or CIA should carry out military operations within the sovereign territory of another state is after a formal declaration of war by Congress or under authorization by the UN. It's just like torture. If you'll do it once, you'll do it always.

[SoutheastReview]

Thank you for your passionate articulation here. I do want to point something out, though, that I learned while covering a story in Savannah in which a Black man, "by mistake," served seventeen years in prison for a rape that he did not commit.

Off the cuff, I noted, during an interview with a human rights activist there, that the case "was hardly just a mistake," inasmuch as so many other instances of such error were extant in the 'just-us' system of Georgia's primarily White establishment. He then posed a question to me: "Do you even know what a mistake is?"

I had to think but replied to the effect that it had to be one of two things, either an actual accident, like a meteor hitting someone on the head, or a cover-up of negligence, malfeasance or worse. My interviewee's teeth gleamed as he laughed that "You're the only White man who ever got that question right."

This applies to the situation here. Policy, especially policy repeated for decades for clearly defined, greedy, and gainful purposes, hardly merits the cop-out label of a 'mistake.' Or, at least, I would object to such a characterization. Responsibility is impossible otherwise.

[claudiam]

I do believe that Barack is our future but I do part with him on Pakistan and Afganistan. I am on the side of diplomacy and I hope that Barack will make that the first step and use military force only when there is no other option. claudiatucsonaz

[mike38]

I 'm 4 diplomacy too,but our system does not allow any president to decides what's good 4 the country
but the corporations,& lobbyists do decide which country should be next.the American people will not be in control until we change the way Uncle Sam make our money. if you track our history you'll find that
we have to be in a war some where every year or every other year to fulfill the the Military industrial
complex & the oil companies demands .Did you all know that we just sold a large amount of arms
To Iraq ? I guess they don't care who's going to use & against whom as longer as they make their money. Here in America we only see our flag is burning with all kinds of anti America slogans.
The word Taliban, is a Bushto language in Afghanistan means ( religious student )
which makes him a citizen of the same country we want to liberate.
The people of Afghanistan Pakistan & Somalia follow the tribal system and their loyalties are
to the family & the family is loyal to the tribe that believs in REVENGE SYSTEM..every time a family member gets killed,the family member & the tribe must take revenge as an honor to the family.
Please try to watch this video with me from the BBC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dewk-XmH5Ck

[WritusMaximus]

The problem is that the enemy does not wear an uniform nor carry identifying flags, only NATO & US troops do. A lot has to do with the oh so common tactic of initiating attacks from the cover of the general population and then easily and quickly disappearing into the populace. A US counter strike targeted at the site where the attack initiated is sure to injure/kill the innocent.

[antirepublocrat]

This is always the case with counterinsurgency in a foreign culture. It's also why it's always futile unless you are prepared to commit genocide. The counter strikes always kill innocents, and always fuel the insurgency, until you have killed all able-bodied adults and most children over 10.

We need to negotiate with the Taliban and get out, and we should have left Iraq long ago.

[divineorder]

Need a job as Secretary of State? Agree, let's negotiate with ex friends Taliban and get out now! My big beef with Obama during campaign was saber rattling about Afghanistan.

[lizzwill]

I'm reading the Limits of Power now. Great, incisive view of the mess we are in and how our imperial aspirations have gotten us here. Keep sharing your wisdom with the world, Professor B!
I do so hope that with President Obama we will soon move away from such reckless military aggression. Whack-a-mole - W holding the hammer - is the perfect image. It will be good to have an adult in the oval office again.
We can pretty easily guess the answers to your final questions: no, this is not the right thing to do nor can it be smart.

[MissKaren]

I heard him interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS and I have to say that I am fascinated and impressed. He is clear-eyed and, as you said, incisive.

[groland]

The basic problem is that neocons and republicans have no capacity to see us as anything but liberators. Imagine if Texas was occupied by a foreign army trying to set up an islamic republic. There might be a few peeved locals with guns lurking about, do you think? Meanwhile, we are amazed that Iran wants nuclear weapons. Well, maybe because we invaded the country next door!!! The Iranians will not make the same mistake as Sadaam, who hung up the "beware of dog" sign but forgot to get the dog.

[mike38]

Let's get it closer to everybody's mind,Fighting terrorism should be handled by the police force between countries.you can't tell me you need to fly our troops 9.000 miles to fight someone we think they might be plotting against our country ! if you live in NY & have a dispute with a certain group of people in India, WOULD YOU SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO INDIA TO FIGHT THEM OVER THERE,
INSTEAD OF FIGHTING THEM IN here ? " everybody must obtain a U.S. visa to be allowed in America
And NO ONE of these people would be able to enter this country without a visa from our embassy "
It's the time to put America back on the right path &makes it beautiful again 4 us & the whole world.
We must learn from other countries experience & not make the same mistakes they did,no other
than the British empire.

[wiltmellow]

If the British had a similar policy before the US revolution, which founders would we have never known?

[scubasteve]

Wow, I'm no fan of Bush et al, no fan of the Iraq War and no fan of indiscriminate or foolish targeting of combatants in the Middle East or Southeast Asia, but are you seriously comparing the founders of the U.S. to Islamist thugs? The US founders established principals of freedom and gave us the vehicle by which to perfect what they initiated. Islamist thugs aren't at all interested in any development of such liberties. Your comment is so outrageous that it brings out the neocon in me.

[FOXYLADY]

SCUB...........HAVE YOU CHECKED WHAT THE LIBERTY MEN DID TO BRITISH LOYALISTS? THERE ARE ALWAYS, ALWAYS EXTREMISTS IN ALL RELIGIONS/SECTS AND NATIONALITIES. HOW ABOUT "JONES' IN SOUTH AMERICAN WHO POISONED HIS FOLLOWERS. ACTUALLY, IF YOU TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THEY HAVE THE SYMPTOMS OF "BULLIES/E­XTREMISTS'­" .. FOR EXAMPLE...­TORTURE...­.....SPYIN­G ON INNOCENT CITIZENS..­....STARTI­NG WARS W LIES AND MACHINATIO­NS........­..I COULD GO ON AND ON................

[LeonBNJ]

One has to wonder about the quality of intellegance as to the targeted sites. Perhaps enemies of those tribes, families or ethnic groups that are attcked are intentionally giving us bad info so they can get the USA to blame for the attacks. Then too, marriages or other family or tribal celebrations may be used as covers for terrorists or groups to meet so we can't ignore them either. Clearly we need more accurate intellegance, some more verifiable on the ground to reduce the risks of making costly mistakes. If we don't have good enough info, then we can't bomb those sites, especially outside of Iraq and Afganistan.

[FOXYLADY]

HOW ABOUT INBEDDING 'SPECIAL FORCES'? WE HAVE MANY IRAQI IMMIGRANTS AND IRAQI AMERICAN CITIZENS..­..........­...

[buckeye487]

No different than the Spec Ops guys. Just a different plan; different logistics.

I am not sure how I feel about this being leaked/revealed. I think it does place some soldiers in danger.

But, if our military is using these deadly forces on targets that may or may not be true enemies, that is certainly disconcerting.

Here is the problem... there will always be claims that the targets were simply innocent civilians. They don't wear unis, they don't look like soldiers. That's kind of the point.

[MajorKong]

Sledgehammers don't make good flyswatters.

[mcostello]

what a great and pertinent observation: LOL

[FOXYLADY]

RIGHT ON MAJOR!! LIKE THAT RIDICULOUSLY NAMED ATTACK, "SHOCK AND AWE"....THAT NO DOUBT KILLED MANY INNOCENT IRAQIS....­.........A TOTALLY UNNECESSARY WAR... SADDAM WAS BLUFFING, A BIG MOUTH.........NO WMD'S..........THE ISRAELI HAD ALREADY BOMBED THEIR NUKE PLANT IN THE 80'S......­........AL­L A BUNCH OF OPPORTUNIST LIES BY THE BUSH GANY

[arvay]

We really do need more information on the success or not of this program.

The idea of a highly targeted campaign, conducted by real experts rather than by troops and remote pilots, seems preferable to what we're doing, which is often indiscriminate and a boon to insurgent recruiting.

The other alternative is what the Russians did to squelch the Chechen insurgency -- modeled on how the Roman army quelled rebellions -- mass obliteration and giving people a choice between being quiet and certain death. The Pakistani army seems embarked on this option in some of their tribal areas.

I'm very happy to believe that the American people would not want this option.

Whatever the success of such covert programs, it seems we'll end up negotiating with some part of the Taliban for some power-sharing in Afghanistan, since a military solution seems beyond our grasp. I'm inclined to think there are Taliban elements who are not happy with what they got as a result of helping el Quaeda, and might be willing to hand some of them over to one of our secret teams.

Perhaps we and the Pakistanis can also work out an arrangement under which the Pakistani intelligence service can keep these people in its back pocket in case they want to use them in Kashmir, provided they don't do internal terrorism or attack Afghanistan.

[Rog49Thomas]

An interesting article from a conservative - in the long forgotten meaning of the word.

And a very good analyst of what ails the USA.

[MissKaren]

I agree. He is what the conservative movement used to be and should be.

[xxnounxx]

NO THE U.S OF A IS DOING THE WORNG THING..BECOUSE THIS IS ONLY TURNING MODERATE PEOPLE INTO TERRORISTS..BECOUSE SIMPLY THEY ARE FED UP

[ReHoover51]

if we would stay out of their holy land and out of their business, they wouldnt be wanting to kill americans, or get nukes to destroy the world ... they have rights too and their religious beliefs, as strange to you christians and they seem, are as valid as yours are ...
now do you see the insanely dangerous world bush created with his g*d told me to invade iraq???
if we would create our own energy empire here in the USA, then they will leave us alone ... dont think i am right?
then try it ... it would, at least, save the lives of our soldiers that are sitting ducks in their holy land.
we brought on 9/11 by refusing to leave their lands ...
look at the terrorists on those planes ... 99% saudi arabian, not afghan, or iraqi, or iranian ...saudi ... that must say something .... and have you seen the bush family holding hands with the saudis????
get a clue, if we were energy self-sufficient and stayed out of their countries there would be no terrorists, and no soldiers needlessly dying for oil and christianity

[Liberalrep1980]

I wouldn't be suprised if we had attacks going on in any country at any time. Anyone remember the whole "They hate us because we are free and happy." saying that was going around for a bit. Please, no one hates people for being happy, unless this is some new demographic I haven't heard of. Any form of government acts in secret, plots assasinations just in case, and always sends in small groups to cause chaos and recon. They have all done sick and pathetic things and it won't ever stop until people decide to stop it.