Much Ado About Nothing

Yesterday President Obama delivered his much anticipated policy address on U.S. counterterrorism policy at the National Defense University.

Although it was anticipated it would mark a significant turning point in the War on Terror and, particularly in "The Drone War," but I think the title of Bloomberg's editorial this morning hit the nail on the head: "Obama's Drone Changes Change Very Little"

Put aside the questions of Guantanamo and indefinite detention, in which the President once again stressed he is really, really committed to closing the prison facility, and that he means it this time. (This sounds eerily like my pledges to mow the lawn in late summer. "Yes, honey, I know I said I would mow it last week, and the week before, but I promise I'll get to it tomorrow . . . after the baseball game, probably" Meanwhile, we've lost our toddler somewhere in the high grass out by the tool shed in the backyard.).

Basically, the President pledged three innovations to our current policy of targeted killings. First, targets will be limited to those who "pose a continuing, imminent threat to Americans" and are deemed too difficult to capture alive. The first part of that formulation depends upon an extremely malleable definition (i.e. Is somebody planning an attack an imminent threat, or only people actually assembling a bomb for transport? What about somebody who only handles bank transfers for an extremist organization? Is somebody planning their first attack a "continuing threat," which in the case of suicide bombers like 2010's Underwear Bomber, they tend to only get one chance?) while the second formulation is also completely subjective (i.e. There was a significant divide in the late 1990s between policymakers, the CIA, and senior military leaders as to whether the capture of Osama bin Laden was feasible).

In other words, this guidance can still be interpreted however the President chooses depending upon the circumstances, and hence really isn't much guidance at all.  (However, it does appear to end so-called "signature strikes" that target individuals without their identities being definitively established, but rather because of a pattern of suspicious behavior. But the inherently covert nature of such strikes means there will likely never be any way to verify whether or not the President has been living up to his own guidance here either).

Second, Obama declared "Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target Al Qaeda and its associated forces," which is a change from the previous formulation in his 2009 address that we were at war "with Al Qaeda and its affiliates." This semantic change is significant, in that there is a hard definition of "affiliate" when it comes to al-Qa'ida, specifically a group or individual who has sworn loyalty to bin Laden (or now, Ayman al-Zawahiri). Yet at the same time again, "associate" is much more elastic, and could theoretically be applied to any extremist that believes in Salafist jihad whether or not they have received any support or training from al-Qa'ida core.

Again, while this sounds like a limitation on drone strikes, in reality it is completely a matter of interpretation at the discretion of the President.

Finally, and most disconcerting, is the President's pledge that within the aforementioned parameters, the United States will only use drone strikes where there is "near certainty" of no civilian casualties. As former Air Force JAG (and current Duke University law professor) Charlie Dunlap notes in Politico: "That risks inviting terrorists to surround themselves with civilians and could have unintended and counterproductive consequences." 

When I heard this, I was immediately reminded of the President's 2009 speech announcing the "Afghan Surge," in which he coupled the announcement of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan with the pledge that the Surge would only last for 18 months. Both times he placed a caveat on his announcement in order to try to sound reasonable, but which in reality drastically undercut the effectiveness of his strategy. Now theoretically every terrorist from Benghazi to Waziristan knows all he has to do is to walk around with an infant in a baby bjorn and he's safe from U.S. air strikes! You think I'm kidding, but this is exactly what Fatah and Hamas leaders did -- granted, without actual bjorns -- when they figured out the Israeli restrictions on civilian casualties in targeted killings.

Again, for whatever criticisms I may have of this Administration's other policies, I've always given President Obama full credit for his counterterrorism policies, which despite his campaign rhetoric have been an acknowledgement that the Bush administration was generally correct to treat the War on Terror as a war, rather than as a law enforcement exercise. But even when making this case yesterday, the speech was an exercise in vacuous rhetoric.

Once again he said that after he came into office "we unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress." As Max Boot points out in Commentary, "Umm, actually all of that happened in Bush's second term."

The rest of the speech was such a combination of empty platitudes and vague promises that only a hyperpartisan could call "an excellent speech" with anything close to a straight face. Jen Rubin's analysis in the Washington Post yesterday comes closer to the mark.  Although to be sure, the President deserves incredibly high marks for his composure when heckled by the odious Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. Every politician who gives speeches should have one or two prepared responses for such an occasion, and this will likely go down as the best non-teleprompter remark of his Presidency.

Anyhow, I'll have more to say on some of his other formulations a bit later. I hope everybody has a happy and safe Memorial Day weekend, and takes a moment in between trips to the grill and/or cooler to remember our fallen heroes.