Consider the case of Turkey: For years, Ankara has sought U.S. technology to fight what it sees as an insurgency by Kurdish rebel groups, especially the "PKK" that hides in northern Iraq. Now, that high-tech help has arrived.
The United States has quietly created a joint "centralized command center" with Turkey for surveillance drones flying over northern Iraq. Turkish officers look over the shoulders of their U.S. counterparts at the imagery and are free to target suspicious activity when they see it. The United States doesn't pull the triggers; it just shows the pictures.
The fight against al-Qaeda in Yemen illustrates the complicated legal issues that intersect the use of technology. A year ago, U.S. Special Forces held back from using advanced technology to locate Anwar al-Aulaqi in Yemen; that's because he wasn't yet on a formal "capture or kill" list of terrorists who threatened the United States. He is now, so the Obama administration has decided to bring its Predator drones into the hunt over Yemen, with quiet endorsement from the Yemeni government.
These weapons are so good that they can become addictive. They make possible precise acts of war that, in another time, would be called "assassination." Other countries want to protect themselves from terrorist rebels just as much as the United States does. This means the demand for such weapons will grow.
The "laws of war" may sound like an antiquated concept in this age of robo-weapons. But, in truth, a clear international legal regime has never been more needed: It is a fact of modern life that people in conflict zones live in the perpetual cross hairs of deadly weapons. Rules are needed for targets and targeters alike.
By: Brant
Posts
1 comment:
I absolutely disagree with the notion that an international law of war is needed. It already exists, of course, but it is not needed. If anything, I would like it if the United States were to withdraw from international agreements on the law of war and reject the notion of customary law.
Here is how I got there:
1. War is ugly, and should only be engaged in when necessary. That necessity is such that nothing can be subordinated to the need to prevail in war.
2. Only the victors are in a position to hold anyone accountable following the resolution of a war.
3. The only thing that really matters to me about the conduct of our forces in war is that they act in a way that is consistent with American ideals. I don't care if other countries disagree with us - that is utterly irrelevant to me. I only care that our forces are conducting themselves in a way that reflects the values of American society and makes sense for the situation at hand.
So, the horrendous behavior of those responsible for the Abu Ghraib embarrassment should have been hammered into oblivion without a doubt, but not out of a concern for international agreements or foreign opinion. Rather, it was offensive to the American notion of how prisoners are to be treated and how Soldiers are to behave. For that, the penalties should have been more severe than they were.
However, conduct in war must be judged by the situation at hand. For instance, causing mass death and destruction among civilians stands out for a knee-jerk reaction of "Well, we can't have anyone ever doing THAT!" However, the threat of such destruction is what kept the Cold War from getting too hot - via nuclear deterrence. In some circumstances, such as when staring down a nuclear-armed would-be aggressor, the credible ability and intention to deliver this destruction on order is absolutely vital.
In another example, the need to obtain critical information from the enemy, in certain situations, cannot be realistically achieved through skilled psychological manipulation. At least, it cannot be achieved within certain time limits. Sure, good interrogators can get our enemies to share information in humane, psychologically-sophisticated ways given lots of time to do so, but there are situations in which that time will not be available. What of water-boarding then?
So, I think we should police our own. I don't see the benefit of allowing other nations to have a say in how we defend our country. When it comes to national defense, I'm not neutral. I'm American.
Post a Comment