Secrecy Obstructs Accountability: How the Drone War Will Help Get Obama Reelected

Washington Post, ” Secrecy defines Obama’s drone war”:

Since September, at least 60 people have died in 14 reported CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions. The Obama administration has named only one of the dead, hailing the elimination of Janbaz Zadran, a top official in the Haqqani insurgent network, as a counterterrorism victory.

The identities of the rest remain classified, as does the existence of the drone program itself. Because the names of the dead and the threat they were believed to pose are secret, it is impossible for anyone without access to U.S. intelligence to assess whether the deaths were justified.

I would presume the estimated 60 people killed in four months is a mix of government statements and press reporting, but anyone with their wits about them understands the real number is likely to be considerably higher. The article explains that, although the government has dismissed “reports of collateral damage and the alleged killing of innocents” by claiming that drones “result in far fewer mistakes than less sophisticated weapons,” they have yet to provide any details to support those claims. John Brennan, President Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor, told the public in June that zero civilian casualties have occurred as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. This was an obvious lie, but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism helped prove it by cataloguing their lengthy findings on civilian casualties in the drone war, counting hundreds of civilians by name who were killed in drone strikes, including at least 168 children. There was also Noor Behram, who had been on the ground in Pakistan tallying the dead, and estimated that “for every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant.”

Tariq Aziz, the 16-year old Pakistani whose life was affected so much by the drone war that he became an activist against it, is an important anecdote. He started taking pictures of people killed by drone strikes and giving them to journalists and human rights lawyers. Three days after embarking on this mission, “on Oct. 31, he and his 12-year-old cousin were themselves killed by a drone missile strike in the North Waziristan region on the Afghan border.” As human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith told Reuters, “What they did to Tariq was absolutely disgusting.”

In a rather sickening reality of this modern warfare, one source who has been briefed on the secret CIA drone program said that “those selecting targets calculate how much potential collateral damage is acceptable relative to the value of the target.” That is truly the banality of evil in the classic Adrendt sense. How different would those calculations be if the potential “collateral damage” (translation: slaughter of innocents) were U.S. Marines, or a family member of the drone operator?

The Post report says that the drone war in Pakistan has resulted “in an estimated 1,350 to 2,250 deaths.” But the public simply doesn’t have a good idea of how many have been killed, because “the identities…remain classified, as does the existence of the drone program itself.” And there’s a very good reason for that: secrecy obstructs accountability. If Obama doesn’t have to tell us who he kills, he doesn’t have to face public scrutiny for how many were innocent. “When you have warfare with no political costs at all, it becomes much too easy to resort to violence,” as Clive Stafford Smith put it. An ignorant public is absolutely essential to the functioning of Obama’s foreign policy. Glenn Greenwald called it drone mentality: “that combination of pure ignorance and blind faith in government authorities that you will inevitably hear from anyone defending President Obama’s militarism.”

If the electorate lacks “pure ignorance and blind faith in government,” it won’t just mean an end to the drone war in Pakistan. It would mean an end to Obama’s presidency. Therefore, those conducting operations in the increasingly secret and expanded-powers-Executive-Branch need to impose that ignorance by keeping it classified, and drum up that blind faith in government by lying through their teeth about “zero civilians” having been killed and dangerous terrorists having been eliminated. The same ignorance and blind faith that got Obama elected will get him reelected, so long as his crimes are kept secret and dead innocents like Tariq Aziz don’t come whispering the truth from beyond the grave.

I End the Iraq War Whenever I Feel Blue

Have the Republican debates this year caught up with the number of times Obama has declared the Iraq war over yet? Just wondering.

Oh we love to kid the president about endlessly ending the war in Iraq, which killed possibly over a million, ruined a society, and scattered millions more — and which Panetta says has been “worth it” and Obama says is a “success”. But he really is trying to get away with simultaneously being seen as the opposite of the brash Bush and his embarrassing “Mission Accomplished” aircraft-carrier landing while having ceremony after press conference about how “he” ended the war in Iraq. Many so-somber memorials and paeans to “our men and women in uniform” — now with more gay! — are what statesmen do, see. Only a child acts like those reckless Republicans.

It’s an attitude that says image and demeanor is what’s important, instead of the plain fact that a country was obliterated, men were tortured and murdered, women were humiliated and widowed, children were scarred and irradiated. Obama’s smirk is seen as confident and reassuring, while Bush’s identical smirk was juvenile, needlessly provocative. But it was Obama who evaporated countless families in Pakistan for the crime of being in the way. Only Obama drone-murdered a US citizen who said mean things about America on YouTube and his 16-year-old son. But Obama didn’t talk about it, so it’s somehow statesmanship and not brutality.

Sorry to be such a downer, but in fact the war goes on, not least in Iraq where the prime minister seems to be consolidating Saddam-like power before the last US soldier even heads out, but also because there will be thousands of subcontracted mercenaries who remain. Yes, they’re armed, and Obama is fighting hard to exempt them from Iraqi law in case they commit some kind of mass civilian slaughter, say. And if it heats up too much, we got this — thousands of US troops will remain just across the border and around the Gulf region to pop by if necessary.

But don’t let that stop the ceremonies of choreographed sadness in front of soldiers — and more importantly, television cameras. There’s an election coming.

US Support for Bahraini Repression Slips into the Mainstream

Congratulations to the New York Times for catching up with what Antiwar.com has been covering since the first days of the Arab Spring and long before. Nicholas Kristoff’s Op-Ed on Saturday had the title “Repressing Democracy, With American Arms,” referring to U.S. policy towards Bahrain. Kristoff writes that Obama should “understand the systematic, violent repression” in Bahrain and stop sending arms and support.

People here admire much about America and welcomed me into their homes, but there is also anger that the tear gas shells that they sweep off the streets each morning are made by a Pennsylvania company, NonLethal Technologies. It is a private company that declined to comment, but the American government grants it a license for these exports — and every shell fired undermines our image.

…I asked [Zainab al-Khawaja, prominent activist, whose husband and father are both in prison and have been tortured for pro-democracy activities and was arrested herself last week] a few days before her arrest about the proposed American arms sale to Bahrain.

“At least don’t sell them arms,” she pleaded. “When Obama sells arms to dictators repressing people seeking democracy, he ruins the reputation of America. It’s never in America’s interest to turn a whole people against it.”

He also talks about the 14 year old boy shot by security forces with a tear gas canister at point blank range. A video is provided:

Here’s my post on that incident back in August: Ongoing US-Supported Repression in Bahrain

UpdateVia As’ad AbuKhalil, this is what happened in Bahrain over the weekend. By the account of a correspondent inside Bahrain, it was “by far the most violent day since during the time of emergency law.”

On the Wrong Side of History in Egypt

For those of you who have yet to see the brutality of Egyptian security forces on civilian protesters over the weekend:

It obviously cannot go without mention here that these security forces and the military junta which has ordered this latest crackdown are supported by the United States with money and weapons. Although, as Egyptian journalist Issandr El Amrani explains, “there is an alternative policy” option for Washington:

criteria-based relations with Egypt that do not rely on who’s in power but how those in power wield it. It implies a withdrawal from Egypt and the region that is not palatable to the mainstream US foreign policy community and political class (Ron Paul aside). It means ending policies that have made Washington a domestic player in Egyptian politics — a policy that may have had its rewards but also high costs in terms of image, soft power, etc.

The relationships that the US has maintained with client states like Egypt and Pakistan for the past 30-40 years have demonstrably been disastrous, severely hindering natural political processes in these countries, contributing to the marginalization of non-identity based political movements, and creating a wide range of problems for the US and its citizens, notably exposure to terrorism. It is nothing worth reproducing.

All this is worth keeping in mind at a time when SCAF, which has rewritten the history of the Egyptian uprising of late January 2011 to make it about the army siding with protestors against Mubarak rather than shoot them, and the US, which demands credit for not backing Mubarak and pressuring the army not to shoot protestors, respectively deny reality and stay mum.

…Obama and Clinton tried to take credit in February for their role in preventing the Egyptian military from killing protestors (I’ve long thought the army was not ready to do so then, since it could simply get rid of Mubarak and was unsure that its own would follow orders — the situation and context nine months later is obviously different).

Well, now the army is killing protestors and all doubts about whether this is intentional or mere incompetence should have vanished — and with it, the narrative that the Egyptian military and US are on the “right side of history”.

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | December 16, 2011

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | December 16, 2011

IN THIS ISSUE

  • Was the Iraq War worth it?
  • U.S.-Pakistan ties growing cold
  • "Winning" in Afghanistan
  • Iran and the lost drone
  • Assorted news from the empire
  • What’s new at the blog?
  • Opinion
  • Antiwar Radio

Continue reading “Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | December 16, 2011”

Deleted Comments

Dear Reader,

We are having technical problems with comments being deleted for no apparent reason. We are trying to restore them and correct this problem.

If you have any comments that get deleted from now on, please write to Angela Keaton at akeaton@antiwar.com with your screen name and which article you commented on and we will restore it, this may also help us figure out the problem.

Thank you for your patience.

Eric Garris
Webmaster, Antiwar.com