The Obama Doctrine, and the Evolution of Foreign Policy

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Obama Doctrine, and the Evolution of Foreign Policy

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

quote:

One day, over lunch in the Oval Office dining room, I asked the president how he thought his foreign policy might be understood by historians. He started by describing for me a four-box grid representing the main schools of American foreign-policy thought. One box he called isolationism, which he dismissed out of hand. �The world is ever-shrinking,� he said. �Withdrawal is untenable.� The other boxes he labeled realism, liberal interventionism, and internationalism. �I suppose you could call me a realist in believing we can�t, at any given moment, relieve all the world�s misery,� he said. �We have to choose where we can make a real impact.� He also noted that he was quite obviously an internationalist, devoted as he is to strengthening multilateral organizations and international norms.

Obama has made some mistakes but I think he's set the correct path to go on. It's not an easy path and there will be a lot of points where it seems like a bad idea, but I think he's on the correct path of internationalism.

The US cannot keep being the world police. The rest of the world complains when we don't intervene and the rest of the world complains when we do intervene. They rely on us for stability and military strength and resent us for taking advantage of that to promote our own interests. A stable and sustainable future sees US leadership giving way to US assistance and support for the European Union, African Union, et al. I've seen this as Obama's foreign policy vision based on his actions and its nice to see him state it explicitly.

It's going to be a long road. Libya is a perfect example of a stumble. The US intervened on request, went with a multinational force, let the Europeans take the lead role even though the US was supplying the equipment and expertise. All good things. But there was no good end game. Nobody could manage post-Gadhafi Libya, not the Europeans nor the Libyans. We couldn't take charge because that would destroy the legitimacy of whatever we put in place.
But even though things went badly, doesn't mean giving up. Keep building diplomatic and military multilateral organizations, keep trying.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 00:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:37

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

nopantsjack posted:

Firstly, drone strikes violate international law, and probably US law too so my own moral opinion is meaningless.

But so I'm not just dodging the question there is little moral difference between a drone strike and air strike used to do the same thing but drone strikes are not used to do the same thing.
Drone strikes are fulfilling the out of fashion airstrike role of just saturation bombing "soft" targets which is morally repulsive, though drone strikes are used for intermittently but consistently bombing soft targets.
Also I think most moral codes see some difference between killing a fighter on a battlefield and killing a fighter and everyone around him when hes at the 7-11.

The main reason to be very concerned about drone warfare is they legitimise those old soft target tactics, if the USA can successfully define some guy in Utah shooting a hellfire into a flat in Kabul, killing nearly everyone inside as a "pinpoint targetted killing" or whatever and refuse to release accurate information on it then that will be how the USA and everyone acts going forward. Whats more they can now just go on indefinitely as a blatant terror strategy as we can see in Pakistan.

The weirdest thing about Obama is that a constitutional lawyer went HAM on domestic spying and an international assassination campaign.

We're going to need some evidence for these claims.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 19:11

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

JFairfax posted:

Two reports released on the eve of a White House visit by Pakistan's prime minister allege that the U.S. has "violated international law with top-secret targeted-killing operations that claimed dozens of civilian lives in Yemen and Pakistan," as McClatchy Newspapers writes.

In one of the reports, Amnesty International says that:

"Based on what officials from the [Obama] administration have stated publicly, and what has been reliably reported by news media, current U.S. policy and practices for the intentional use of lethal force against terrorism suspects and other people who happen to be near such suspects appear to go far beyond what international human rights law permits. Indeed, from what has been publicly disclosed, the policy and its implementation seem simply to disregard international protections for the right to life and the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of life. In at least some cases, the policy appears to allow for unlawful killings referred to in human rights terms as 'extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions' or 'extrajudicial executions.' "

NPR's Philip Reeves reports from London that Amnesty International examined 45 drone strikes on targets in Pakistan from January 2012 through September of this year. The organization focused particularly on nine incidents, Phil added, including one in which "18 laborers were killed when a missile crashed into their tent and a second missile struck those who came to help."

The other report comes from a similar organization, Human Rights Watch. It concludes that U.S. airstrikes "against alleged terrorists in Yemen have killed civilians in violation of international law ... creating a public backlash that undermines US efforts against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula."

The organization says that "during six weeks in Yemen in 2012-2013, Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed more than 90 people about the strikes including witnesses, relatives of those killed, lawyers, human rights defenders, and government officials. Human Rights Watch reviewed evidence including ordnance and videos from attack sites. Security concerns prevented visits to four of the attack areas."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/22/239597012/u-s-drone-strikes-violate-international-law-reports-allege

Okay. I interpreted his assertion "drone strikes violate international law" to mean that drone strikes are inherently illegal rather than there have been drone strikes which violated international law.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 19:24

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

JFairfax posted:

Well given that pretty much all drone strikes are 'extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions' they pretty much are inherently illegal.

Human Rights Watch does not agree

quote:

The laws of war permit attacks only against military objectives, such as enemy fighters or weapons and ammunition. Civilians are immune from attack, except those individuals �directly participating in the hostilities.� While the phrase �directly participating in hostilities� has various interpretations, it is generally accepted to include not only persons currently engaged in fighting, but also individuals actively planning or directing future military operations. For a specific attack on a military objective to be lawful, it must discriminate between combatants and civilians, and the expected loss of civilian life or property cannot be disproportionate to the anticipated military gain of the attack. Therefore, not all attacks that cause civilian deaths violate the laws of war, only those that target civilians, are indiscriminate or cause disproportionate civilian loss.

quote:

The use of unmanned aircraft or drones for targeted killings does not directly affect the legal analysis of a particular attack. Drones themselves and their weaponry of missiles and laser-guided bombs are not illegal weapons under the laws of war � they can be used lawfully or unlawfully depending on the circumstances. When used appropriately, drones offer certain advantages over manned aircraft or cruise missiles that can help to minimize civilian casualties in combat operations. Drones have enhanced surveillance capabilities that allow them to linger with a view of the target for long periods without risk to human operators. Drone operators are thus in theory better equipped to distinguish valid military targets from civilians who are immune from attack. As with other aerial attacks, drone operations may be hampered by poor intelligence or local actors� manipulation, especially when operating outside of areas where US ground forces can direct them.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 19:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Obama Doctrine, and the Evolution of Foreign Policy