Why doesn’t America use skilled humans like the supposed Israeli hit team? For two reasons: somehow, for causes social scientists have yet to explain, using people to kill people creates a public revulsion but blowing them up from a robot circling tens of thousands of feet above is politically acceptable. The second reason for not sending men after men is that the public has a similar revulsion to taking prisoners of whom you demand questions. The prisoners themselves may sue you for failing to Mirandize them. Three Navy SEALS are facing court martial for striking a member of al-Qaeda and cutting his lip. Blowing him to smithreens from above would have been less controversial and so things are done that way. The Alameda County Progressive Examiner say President Obama has ordered more drone hits since taking office than President Bush did in three years.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Cast No Shadow
Public revulsion? I don't think so. The public (for good reason) is revulsed by obnoxious Islamists, whether they are wandering the mountain passes of Peshawar or lounging by the pool in Dubai. It doesn't matter how they die, as long as they end up dead. The revulsion for one method over another another exists only among a certain type of liberal in the media, legal community and national security apparatus. But, these are precisely the people best positioned to decide what should or should not be revolting. Thus, a drone attack - which can easily go awry and hit the proverbial Afghan wedding - is "good;" but a clean surgical strike carried out in a lonely hotel room is "bad." Objectively, there is no difference; death is the goal and the result. But, for whatever reason, the method must be the focus, rather than the goal.
Labels:
culture,
Middle East,
the left,
war
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment