I'm kind of over the whole "Look, we killed someone far, far, far away for dubious reasons with NEW technology" articles. These folks halfway across the world aren't bothering, nor do they actually threaten my freedom in any way shape or form.
They’re certainly bothering people and threatening peoples’ freedom. Thanks to the export of fundamentalist Islam from certain countries, my home country of Bangladesh is a more dangerous place today then when we left 30 years ago. (And it was under a military dictatorship then!) Unsurprisingly, we take harsh measures to crack down on fundamentalism, including banning Islamist parties and executing terrorists: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781 (noting that British-Bangladeshi teenager who left to join ISIS would be executed if she went back to Bangladesh). And it’s not just in Bangladesh or Pakistan—while America has been fortunate to be spared from a major terrorist attack since 9/11, our European allies deal with them routinely. To a great extent, the United States is subsidizing the cost of fighting terrorism for all of these countries. After all, in Syria, which is the subject of the article, we got dragged into the conflict by our middle eastern allies.
Now, it’s fair to say that none of this is America’s problem. And I probably agree with you. But there is a risk we wake up 30 years from now and huge swaths of the world have been taken over by fundamentalist ideologies that are very hostile to us. We should think a bit about what that world would look like and whether it’s desirable.
Americans take for granted that we live in a world shaped by American norms. 160 constitutions around the world are based directly or indirectly in our own. (Bangladesh’s constitution begins with “we the people” just like the United States’.) The Star Trek version of the future (“America in Space”) comes about because of our willingness to invest in the security and economic and social development of the world. And maybe we’ve done enough, and maybe it’s time to let others lead. I’m pretty sympathetic to the arguments that it’s time to turn our focus inward, and we’re doing more harm than good. But the analysis is much bigger than whether certain specific people are attacking US soil at this very moment.
My read of Islamic extremism is that it's largely funded by arab dictatorships, either the elites, or the governments themselves. At the same time, the basic recruitment pitch is usually grounded in popular dissatisfaction about these dictators.
So you have people like Osama Bin Laden, an elite Saudi funded by other elite Saudis, with a recruitment pitch that was heavily dependent on the intense hatred many arabs have for the brutal dictatorships of the middle east, and their American backers.
America is more or less the sole reason why dysfunctional dictatorships like Saudi Arabia survive. They provide the arms, the intelligence, the diplomatic cover, and sometimes the military assistance these states need to survive. The same states then fund the most intolerant forms of Islam, while radicalizing their own citizens and those of neighboring countries through intense repression and military adventurism.
That has elements of truth but is not really the whole story. First, terrorism is a problem in many countries. Bangladesh and India aren’t dictatorships, but face significant terror threats. The idea that a pan-Islamic state should replace the existing nation states is a real thing. Second, don’t overlook the hatred of Israel. Attitudes ranging from anti-Zionism to outright anti-semitism are nearly universal in the Muslim world. America’s support of Israel is a huge recruiting tool.
Third, you’re conflating fundamentalism with terrorism. Though the former often leads to the latter, the two are a bit different. Saudi isn’t funding terrorists that want to overthrow the Kingdom. That would make no sense. But they do want to promote and export their fundamentalism brand of Islam to make the Muslim world more cohesive (with themselves at the head of it). And insofar as there is funding of terrorism, at least the intention isn’t for it to be directed back at themselves.
Fourth, everyone, even people who intensely dislike these governments, fear what would replace them if they fell. Syria is a good example. Assad might have been a dictator, but he was propped up by the west for a long time because what was waiting to replace him was ISIS.
The Howard Zinn-style “blame America for everything” approach is illuminating to a degree because our involvement really is a key factor. But these countries also have vast and complex politics that have nothing to do with us. Overlooking the factors behind American involvement encourages magical thinking—that if only we would disengage, these problems would sort themselves out.
I actually agree with almost everything you've said. America is not responsible for the ME's ills. However, I do think that many states in the ME are classic client regimes, much more interested in keeping foreign sponsors happy than their own populations.
This creates a very strange and perverse set of incentives, where the US is incentivised to back their clients, even while the clients are essentially destabilizing the region.
I would assume[1] Saudi Arabia doesn't fund terrorists that aim to topple the kingdom. I do think that terrorism and instability is most common in states that don't have strong civil institutions, a civil society capable of mediating disputes.
Client regimes are already toxic to civil institutions, because at the end of the day, they don't need a very broad platform of civil support when their primary source of power comes from abroad. By propping up bloody-handed dictators, the US basically ensures that whatever replaces them will be worse - because the dictators are so damaging to the kind of civil society that would allow for a peaceful transition into something better.
I'm not saying that America is responsible for this. Probably if they withdrew support for Saudi Arabia, some other power would fill their shoes. I am saying that they, and nations like them, are inevitably powerful forces for instability in resource-rich, strategically important regions like the middle east. America is particularly bad because their policy is so inconsistent - one moment, it's about US strategic interests, next, economic, next, it's about exporting democracy and protecting human rights. So they prop up somebody like Saddam Hussein for years, then they sanction Iraq for years, then they basically demolish his entire country and state, and somehow expect this completely savaged country to gin up a functioning government from literally nothing while fighting a civil war. Their involvement in Afghanistan was even more insane.
[1]: It's impossible to be sure about this kind of thing. In the Russian Revolution, government funded terrorists blew up the minister of the Interior, for instance. Even a functioning state is pretty far from monolithic.
If radicalization in these countries works anything like it does in the west, then the missiles would be more effective at preventing radicalization if pointed at social media tech executives.
Rayiner, I wrote this response to you before you deleted your comment:
If the US were targeting the House of Saud then I might believe what you say, but those guys going untouched undermines claims that the US is combatting radicalization coming from the euphemistic "rich middle eastern countries with fundamentalist ideologies funding schools"
The particular missiles discussed in the article are killing high-value leaders, etc. So not so much about stopping radicalization as wearing an existing organization.
But yeah, I’m sympathetic to your overall point, for sure.
It’s not clear to me whether that’s true on a larger scale. Obviously, innocent people die in war and that’s regrettable and to be minimized. But innocent people also suffer from the instability and insecurity caused by terrorism. Note that while most countries opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, opinion polling in India—which shares a border with that country—showed a majority of people there supported military action against the Taliban.
Note that leaving terrorism unchecked also has a cost. I agree folks tend to have a perception of terrorism risks that outweighs the actual cost in lives. But while the psychology is in peoples’ heads, the dollar impact is real. People don’t want to invest in an area where terrorism isn’t a risk. People with means and opportunities leave such areas, creating brain drain. The existence of these unstable places like Afghanistan imposes a real cost on the people in surrounding countries.
Innocent people will die in any significant military action. And if avoiding those casualties is the overriding concern, then you should never engage in non-defensive military action. And that’s certainly a very defensible position, but I’m not sure it’s always the correct one.
There really isn't a threat over the next 30 as you are trying to paint. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are 90+ percent muslim. So by default, any social strike from pickpocketing to bombings are going to be perpetrated by muslims and have muslims as the victims by and large. And let's keep in mind, that ISIS is blowback from the 2003 Iraq invasion, where once again we went to the Middle East based on "terrorism".
> where once again we went to the Middle East based on "terrorism"
A little more complicated than that: invasion of Kuwait, 1st Gulf War, chemical weapons, WMD confusion, violation of UN sanctions, post 9/11 fears/unknowns, concern about impact to global energy economy, etc.
One of the benefits of the US energy leverage created by fracking is that the energy market considerations that were part of our Middle East policy aren't as important any longer, we have many more degrees of freedom in this regard. I believe there are other benefits that come from less money available for state-sponsored terrorism/extreme groups due to lower oil prices.
The critical point is that the US has never cared about any other country in the world. Every foreign policy decision is based on what is advantageous to the US at the time. For example, you seem to believe that the US is fighting Islamic extremism for the good of the world and the people in the places it's bombing. If that were a priority for the US, don't you think they'd have a problem with the Islamic extremism and dictatorship promoted and brutally enforced by their close allies in the Saudi Arabian government? Instead, the US just agreed to sell the Saudi regime more weapons.
The US engages with the rest of the world in a way that is advantageous to the US. This is clear when you learn about the modern history of US foreign policy[1]. The US backed over 40 authoritarian coups through the 20th century. To write such a long comment about how the US cares about the places they bomb is at best naivety and at worst willful ignorance.
> The critical point is that the US has never cared about any other country in the world. Every foreign policy decision is based on what is advantageous to the US at the time.
s/US/<any-country>/
Acting according to self interest is not unique to the US. And just to be clear that doesn't mean that any country's foreign policy is immune from criticism just that the US isn't unique in this respect.
> Thanks to the export of fundamentalist Islam from certain countries,
Yes Saudi Arabia which we continue to sell weapons to and blindly support. This administration is even more willing to bend to SA, as seen with Trump's visit and subsequent veto the bipartiston resolution to end US military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.
> while America has been fortunate to be spared from a major terrorist attack since 9/11
That is untrue. The Orlando shooting was absolutely driven by islamic fundamentalism, as was the 2015 Chattanooga and San Bernardino attacks and arguably the Boston Marathon Bombings.
Yeah, the headline seems to imply it’s some new ‘big bad’ where the article just slowly exposes that it’s a non-explosive missile. Killing fewer people by not combusting the surrounding area sounds like an improvement.
Extrajudicial targeted assassinations are pretty far on the bad side, no matter how few other people get killed in the process.
Sure, if you are doing it, killing fewer bystanders is preferable on the surface. But if individual assassinations are less likely to cause an international outcry since fewer people died that likely leads to more assassinations.
Well that's the thing... None of the superpowers are actually at war with anyone there.
It's mainly a local conflict with the superpowers backing different factions. Kind of like a proxy war during the cold war. A lot of countries backing opposing local factions while trying not to escalate.
A full blown declaration of war would give us WWIII in no time due to it being such a complex mess of alliances they're.
With whom exactly? With Syria? Then why have the Congress never declared war on it? With some terrorists who happen to be in Syria? Then why is the US fighting them there, not the Syrian government? What's that? The Syrian government is actually fighting them too but demands the US forces to leave the Syrian territory, which demand the US ignores because why wouldn't it? It can't be declared to be engaging in a non-provoked aggression against a sovereign state since it has veto in the UNSC, after all.
The US is not at war in Syria. ISIS is deemed to be a threat to stable governments in the area including Israel, Iraq, and even Turkey, and US is assisting those governments in fighting ISIS back. The seemingly endless civil war in Syria is still a civil war although US had at one point been supporting certain groups.
My idea was that the US is fulfilling the ally obligations towards these governments. ISIS itself is not a recognized sovereign, so it cannot be declared a war to, thus no congressional approval.
The rise of non-state actors has definitely complicated public policy regarding the use of force. IANAL, but it seems like much of the legal frameworks around use of force, just war, etc. is predicated on Westphalian sovereignty, which doesn't really have a place for groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, etc.
But usually we despise both suicide bombers and assassins, not congratulate the assassin on killing so few bystanders.
The question by GP is more along the line of "what if instead of spending lots of money to kill fewer bystanders we spent that money to reduce the number of people that are so dangerous to us that we kill them".
Of course we know that won't happen because building weapons helps US companies and building hospitals and helping local people in foreign countries doesn't.
I agree. Or to take it further, if the US had even made a serious effort to help the country / people of Afghanistan live a better life, and build up some sort of institution, instead of invading Iraq.
Or, after even the terrible decision of invading Iraq, if the US had been halfway competent / invested in post-invasion administration...
Usually because it costs more to do so. Many times the local governments are corrupt, and U.S. money gets funneled to terrorist organizations or just pocketed, never actually helping the populace have better lives..
We already invest billions abroad. But economic development cannot happen in the absence of security. Recall that in Syria, we got involved because our allies around Syria got freaked out about that the civil war would mean for their own countries’ security.
You can pour in millions into an economy, but they will only make a difference if there is peace (not even the rule of law yet). To achieve peace, you first have to win the war — if you care about peace on your terms. In a war you unfortunately have to fight — it's quite unpleasant and bloody, but else your foes will kill you and those who you are trying to protect.
I've pretty much only seen articles like these take a 'warcrimes, but even worse because technology is NEW' stance, which is honestly just as bad but at least gets the harm in it.
We have to fight them over there otherwise the alternative is armed radical militias in our streets (something that we definitely do not have anywhere in America at the moment) /s
Not really. I'm a black person in the US. Historically, the people "threatening" our freedom have always been in the US. It's never been the Soviets, never been the VietCong, never been the Sandinistas, never been Al-Qaeda or anyone the US has chosen to go to war with. As Jay-Z said:
"Bin Laden been happening in Manhattan
Crack was anthrax back then, back when
Police was Al'Qaeda to black men"
Given the many articles about new and exciting ways to kill brown people from halfway across the world at the touch of a button, I'd wager there are just as many Americans who wake up every single day plotting how they can sell their newest killing machines to the US gov in the name of stopping terrorism etc.
While we can debate the level to which America needs to get involved, are you forgetting 911 or any of the other terrorist attacks? It honestly feels downright insulting to the victims of terrorism that you would imply these extremist groups do not threaten your freedom.
The article specifically references that these devices used on members of aal-Qaida; the group responsible for 911.
You clearly didn't read my comment. It starts with "we can debate the level in which America needs to be involved." I was not interested in getting into whether or not these tactics should be used.
My point was the OP said "these people do not pose a threat to my freedom" which is categorically false. Aal-Qaida is a terrorist group that directly caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, ripping them from their loved ones. To make _this specific argument_ against this weapon is just insulting to the victims.
I should clarify: I meant to say that the first line was trying to indicate the comment was not specifically focused towards arguing for or against the weapon.
I'm not the OP, but I fully believe the disproportionate response, including invading an unrelated country in an oil grab, racial profiling, and the continued spread of FUD by politicians and lobbiests designed to sell votes and weapons, has itself created many people who now hate the US.
Dropping bombs on civilians all over the world in response to 3k people being killed in a single, highly unusual event, is not going to deter anyone - quite the opposite.
That same argument could have been used to justify staying out of WW2. Even if Hitler was guaranteed to stay out of US affairs post-war, the fact remains that joining sooner would have resulted in millions of Europeans keeping their lives.
Same here. Prematurely joining conflicts now allows us to save scores of lives abroad (at least in theory).
I would say that the recent interventions in Libya, Syria, Iraq have only destabilized the region, thus resulting in a huge loss of live and miserable living conditions for citizens of affected countries, which in turn supports and revitalizes radical Islam organizations and further destabilizes situation in Europe, which has to be on the receiving end for refuges created by those interventions.
I don't see them drone striking and assassinating the Emirs and Saudi royalty who are responsible much of the "freedom-limiting" activity in the Middle East though.
Why should we believe that? Why do you believe that? Who is to say the people targeted have affiliations to the organizations claimed? The US federal government has little credibility. Usually we demand they back up their assertions in court before they're believed. Courts exist because we know governments lie, so how can you be so confident here?
> These folks halfway across the world aren't bothering, nor do they actually threaten my freedom in any way shape or form.
As a counterargument, you can't know that. It seems like this argument could be restated as "I don't trust the US government to dispassionately determine who is a threat and even if they were a threat I am not in favor of killing people as a response." Which seems fair but the world is a complicated place and there are justifiable uses of drone strikes.
> the world is a complicated place and there are justifiable uses of drone strikes
Herein lies the problem, different people and groups see different actions as justifiable or not. Drone striking the hell out of a country half way around the world has very debatable justifications. And what throws a lot of shade on the justification is when the country doing the bombing goes on to ally itself with with countries that are, from the point of view of the justification, no better or worse than the one being bombed.
Pretty naive to not understand the concept of allowing these terrorists to operate abroad allows them to more easily coordinate and carry-out attacks in the US, but especially in Europe.
Now, it’s fair to say that none of this is America’s problem. And I probably agree with you. But there is a risk we wake up 30 years from now and huge swaths of the world have been taken over by fundamentalist ideologies that are very hostile to us. We should think a bit about what that world would look like and whether it’s desirable.
Americans take for granted that we live in a world shaped by American norms. 160 constitutions around the world are based directly or indirectly in our own. (Bangladesh’s constitution begins with “we the people” just like the United States’.) The Star Trek version of the future (“America in Space”) comes about because of our willingness to invest in the security and economic and social development of the world. And maybe we’ve done enough, and maybe it’s time to let others lead. I’m pretty sympathetic to the arguments that it’s time to turn our focus inward, and we’re doing more harm than good. But the analysis is much bigger than whether certain specific people are attacking US soil at this very moment.