First of all, and largely tangential to my major point, the “5 myths/5 truths” gambit is, 95 percent of the time, a lazy piece of punitory padding and jiggery-pokey, with occasional backstabbings, of which Marc’s piece is an excellent example. First of all, we learn that “The drone war is not fought primarily with drones”! No, there are fighter jets, submarines, and all manner of normal shit involved! “The munition and vehicle used depends on the target, his location, his importance, and the resources available to the military and CIA at the time.” Amazing!
Furthermore, “The CIA does not ‘fly’ drones”! No, someone else flies them for the CIA. See, that’s why you were so confused. You probably thought that the CIA flew its own drones, which is why you thought it was wrong to murder the innocent. So, you see, it’s a lot more complicated than that.
Marc’s big lie comes third “The targeted killing policy is the best of all worst options for two reasons.” The problems are that 1) we don’t have a “coherent and legitimate capture and detention policy” that would, um, allow us to kidnap people in foreign countries and lock them away forever with zero due process. Also, our “human intelligence” is so bad that we don’t really know who the “bad guys” are. So, since we can’t capture we kill, and since we don’t really know who is “bad” and who isn’t, we pretty much kill anyone who is “potentially dangerous.”
It never occurs to Marc, obviously, that “bad guys,” defined as someone engaged in serious plot to endanger American lives—a definition that excludes underwear bombs and plans to cut through the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge with a ten-dollar blowtorch—don’t exist. I know that’s shocking, but it’s true. As Marc rather awkwardly acknowledges, we’re murdering members of the affiliates of the affiliates of Al Qaeda, because they’re the only ones who are left.
Marc’s fourth “truth” is that “Al Qaeda core has not successfully pulled off a plot against the West since 2005,” which apparently proves that we’re doing the right thing, even though Marc wanders dangerously off message here, almost suggesting that killing the affiliates of the affiliates makes no sense, because these people are no threat to us, which would make our policy one of gratuitous murder. “Most of the militants targeted by the U.S. in Pakistan today have absolutely no interest in attacking the U.S. homeland. They DO have an interest, a series of very parochial interests, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At some point, it makes no sense to chase down [chase down and murder—AV note] every person who ever uttered a threat against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The threat from al Qaeda affiliates (and still the intelligence community bickers over the definition of what an affiliate is) is less than the threat from al Qaeda core.” If only Marc could wrap his head around the fact that the “Al Qaeda core” offers no threat, and that the threat from the “affiliates” is less than nothing. But that thought would put an awful lot of people out of work.
After he’s gotten the heavy shit out of the way, Marc wraps things up with a no-brainer. “RPVs are NOT the future of warfare. They are a future part OF warfare.” OK, I’m glad we got that cleared up.
Marc, I hope this is the worst piece you’ve ever written, and the worst piece you ever will write. Hypocrisy in defense of murder smells rank indeed.
