Normative Narratives


2 Comments

Conflict Watch: U.S. and its Allies Believe Assad Used Chemical Weapons (But What Does it Mean?)

A little mix-up from our normal schedule. When I saw this article in the NYT this morning I could not concentrate on any economics related news, I will put something out on that front tomorrow.

“The White House, in a letter to Congressional leaders, said the nation’s intelligence agencies assessed “with varying degrees of confidence” that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had used the chemical agent sarin on a small scale.

But it said more conclusive evidence was needed before Mr. Obama would take action, referring obliquely to both the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence in the march to war in Iraq and the ramifications of any decision to enter another conflict in the Middle East.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the agencies actually expressed more certainty about the use of these weapons than the White House indicated in its letter. She said Thursday that they voiced medium to high confidence in their assessment, which officials said was based on the testing of soil samples and blood drawn from people who had been wounded.”

“In a statement last summer, Mr. Obama did not offer a technical definition of his “red line” for taking action, but said it was when “we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.” In Jerusalem last month, he said proof that Syria had used such [chemical] weapons would be a “game changer” for American involvement.”

“The timing of the White House disclosure also suggested the pressures it is facing. It came the same day that the British government said that it had “limited but persuasive” evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and two days after an Israeli military intelligence official asserted that Syria had repeatedly used chemical weapons.

In a letter to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, several weeks ago calling for a United Nations investigation, Britain laid out evidence of the attacks in Aleppo and near Damascus as well as an earlier one in Homs.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, reported that dozens of victims were treated at hospitals for shortness of breath, convulsions and dilation of the pupils, common symptoms of exposure to chemical warfare agents. Doctors reported eye irritation and fatigue after close exposure to the patients.

Citing its links to contacts in the Syrian opposition, Britain said there were reports of 15 deaths in the suburban Damascus attack and up to 10 in Aleppo, where the government and rebels have each accused the other of using chemical weapons.”

“White House officials gave no indication of what Mr. Obama might do, except to say that any American action would be taken in concert with its allies.

While lawmakers from both parties swiftly declared that the president’s red line had been breached, they differed on what he should do about it.”

And I honestly could have quoted the whole article; I highly suggest you read it if you are interested in this matter (and if you made it this far you are, so go read it).

Before I dive into the article, a little background on why chemical warfare is different from conventional warfare. “Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force.”

This means that chemical weapons can be detonated without the natural warning that conventional and nuclear weapons carry (the explosion). Chemical weapons can be silent, indiscriminate killers, and have the potential to cause mass destruction (yes chemical weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction).

The U.S. unilaterally denounced the use of chemical weapons in 1969, ratified the Geneva Convention in 1975, and ratified the Chemical Weapons convention in 1997. The U.S. has put a lot of effort into winding down chemical weapon stockpiles both at home and abroad. These are just some of the reasons why a small number of deaths (around 25), in a civil war that has claimed over 70,000 lives, is a “red line” issue.

Why, after appearing to have his “red line” crossed, is the Obama administration’s response unclear?

Most immediately, I would think of the shortcomings of conventional warfare. The Iraq war was costly, and recent sectarian violence in Iraq shows how unsustainable “nation building” can be (if it is imposed from the outside, accompanied by war, or generally pushed in an unrealistically small time-frame; the process of democratization and modernization is gradual and must come from a countries own citizenry).

There also needs to be concrete proof that Assad used these weapons. There are some who would argue that the opposition has reason to use chemical weapons. If the opposition made it appear that Assad used the weapons, it could tip the fight in its favor. While this is a morally reprehensible thought, “all is fair in love and war”. Realistically it is unlikely that the Syrian opposition, which has been hampered by an arms disadvantage throughout the 2 year civil war, has access to such weapons, even if it wanted to use them to draw outside support. Still, this unlikely scenario must be ruled out before the U.S. gets further involved in the war.    

The Obama administration has said any response would be carried out in coordination with our allies—good! But how much of the response is going to fall on the U.S? France and Britain have been particularly outspoken about EU intervention in Syria. However, a recent article highlights that U.S. military expenditure accounts for about 75% of the NATO budget. The U.S. may want its allies to take a larger role, and our allies may want to take a larger role, but unless leaders can push military expansion in a time when austerity has constrained spending even on important social programs (which I am not certain is the right thing to do or should be these countries top priority given constrained resources), it looks like America will likely be footing most of the cost of any coordinated effort.

But let us not forget our recent $10 billion arms deal with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The stated purpose of such a deal was to deter a nuclear Iran, but such geopolitical allies would almost certainly have to play a significant role in any coordinated effort to support the Syrian opposition militarily.

Also, Russia and China, Syria’s two largest allies who have continually blocked UNSC intervention, have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention banning the use of chemical weapons. If there is evidence Assad used these weapons, China and Russia may allow a UN military intervention, ending an international stalemate almost as old as the war itself.

If allies in NATO, the Middle-East, and around the world (UN intervention) pitch in, the situation in Syria could change swiftly and drastically.

There are no easy answers. I would be shocked if the U.S. attempted unilateral and conventional warfare in response to this news (they have explicitly stated they won’t so I’m not exactly going out on a limb with that prediction). Likely, if it is confirmed that Assad indeed used chemical weapons, the U.S. and its allies would for the first time supply military aid to the opposition. NATO and strategic allies in the Middle-East would likely take up the majority of any ground forces deployed.

It will be interesting to see how this recent news plays out. The Syrian civil war has been stuck in a “hurting stalemate”, perpetuating a humanitarian crisis and causing regional instability. It appears that there may finally be evidence that demands multilateral international intervention that ultimately ends the war.

And when the war does end, a whole new host of issues will emerge…

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements


2 Comments

Conflict Watch: Obama Gets Tough on Chinese Cyber-Attacks

The Obama administration ramped up its rhetoric yesterday, calling out China for the first time by name to stop its cyber-attacks “and agree to ‘acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace.’”:

“The White House, Mr. Donilon [Obama’s national security advisor] said, is seeking three things from Beijing: public recognition of the urgency of the problem; a commitment to crack down on hackers in China; and an agreement to take part in a dialogue to establish global standards.

“Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyber-intrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale,” Mr. Donilon said in a wide-ranging address to the Asia Society in New York.”

Just for comparisons sake, here’s what Obama said in his State of the Union address:

“America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber attacks.

Now, we know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private e-mails. We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air traffic control systems.

We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy. That’s why, earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information-sharing and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.”

So the Obama administration is certainly focusing more specifically on China, after mounting evidence that the vast majority of cyber-attacks come from a single building in China, which houses Chinese military activities.

It is good that the Obama administration is taking a tougher stance on China. If you remember back to the 2012 presidential campaign season, Obama was generally seen as “soft on China” compared to Mitt Romney, who was “tough on China”. But like most of Mitt’s ideas, his ideas on China we’re outdated. As I highlighted in a previous post, there is no “being soft” or “being tough” on China. China is one of our largest trade partners and an increasingly important partner in issues that require global coordination. Romney wanted the U.S. to be harder on China for currency manipulation, which is simply no longer a legitimate issue.

We must work with China, and that means picking our battles. We need China to come together and work on global environmental and security issues. China has done a good job so far dealing with its wayward ally North Korea, agreeing with the U.N. to strengthen sanctions following North Korea’s third nuclear test this past February.

China must also play fair in trade relations. Lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine when China is “dumping” goods (or over-subsidizing certain goods past what is considered acceptable by international standards) into other countries and when it is simply taking advantage of a more efficient production process. Luckily the W.T.O. exists to handle such trade disputes, so the U.S. and China do not have to have a direct political face-off when addressing such issues (there is an impartial dispute settlement process).

But cyber-attacks, either perpetuated by or simply ignored by the Chinese government, are unacceptable:

“The nation’s top intelligence official [James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence] warned Congress on Tuesday that a cyber-attack could cripple America’s infrastructure and economy and suggested that such attacks pose the most dangerous immediate threat to the United States, more pressing than an attack by global terrorist networks.”

America is generally insulated by physical attacks due to geography and military technology. 9/11 also served as a wakeup call, leading to much stricter counter-terrorism security measures. America is a safer place today from physical attacks, but remains vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

Safeguarding American economic and infrastructure information will come to be a defining issue in Obama’s legacy. As Obama said in his State of the Union address, “we cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing”. Countering cyber-attacks will take a mixed approach of better security at home and tougher penalties to deter those who would seek to steal our intellectual property / national security secrets.    

This also highlights why Obama was prudent in not addressing China as a currency manipulator. Chinese-American relations are always a sensitive matter; had Obama taken a hard stance on Chinese currency manipulation, he would have used a considerable amount of diplomatic capital on a non-issue, and would not have been able to be so assertive on the much more important issue of cyber-security.

Getting tough on China is the right thing to do, as long as we’re getting tough on the right issues.

Enhanced by Zemanta


4 Comments

Economic Outlook: The Do-Nothing-GOP Vows to Do-Nothing

I took particular interest in a recent Politifact article highlighting House Speaker John Boehner’s assessment that “There’s no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester.” This statement should not seem right to anybody who follows politics, the news, or simply has not been living under a rock for the past few months (years?). Have the democrats really dropped the ball, or is this more political jockeying by the Do-Nothing GOP? Unsurprisingly, it is the latter. The President and Senate democrats have proposed plans, just not the plans their opponents agree on. Politifact gave Boehner’s comment its worst possible rating “Pants on Fire”.

Democrats, both in the White House and Capitol Hill, have proposed alternatives to the sequester that involve cutting bloated programs and closing tax loopholes to raise revenue. The “Sequester”, as most know by now, cuts programs indiscriminately of their importance to overall economic and social security and without taking into consideration whether the program runs efficiently or not. This undesirable result was meant to be undesirable in the hopes of forcing congress into passing a more acceptable deal. Unfortunately, Congress was unable to envision its own incompetence, and the sequester became fiscal policy starting last Friday.  

But how could Boehner openly deny Democrats having offered alternative plans, when they clearly have (you can go on the White House website and “click a prominent button that says “SEE THE PLAN.” It leads to a page titled “A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit.”?”)

The answer given by Boehner’s representative would be comical, if it did not represent such a high ranking U.S. government official:

“A plan must demonstrate it has the ability to pass a chamber of Congress to be worth anything. We’ve twice passed a plan. We’re still waiting for the Senate to pass something, anything,” Buck told PolitiFact in an email.”

So the Do-Nothing-GOP has decided the democrats have not offered an alternative plan because they have made it their party’s goal to strike down any plan the Democrats offer. This sounds more like self-fulfilling economic suicide than two sides working towards an agreement that will work for the American people.

So what does the GOP require in a plan? It requires that tax loopholes that are closed must be met with equal reductions in government spending. In an effort to be “fiscally responsible”, the GOP has taken any proposal that will raise government revenue off the table.

“’Republicans want tax reform. We want to bring rates down for all Americans so that we’ve got a fairer tax code,’ Mr. Boehner said. ‘But to arbitrarily pull out a couple of tax expenditures and to say, ‘Well, we ought to use that to get rid of the sequester.’ Listen, every American knows Washington has a spending problem.’”

Does the U.S. really have a spending problem, or do we have a revenue problem? Let’s take a look at the numbers:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=FYFRGDA188S,FYONGDA188S&scale=Left,Left&range=Max,Max&cosd=1929-01-01,1929-01-01&coed=2012-01-01,2012-01-01&line_color=%230000ff,%23ff0000&link_values=false,false&line_style=Solid,Solid&mark_type=NONE,NONE&mw=4,4&lw=1,1&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=a,a&fq=Annual,Annual&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&transformation=lin,lin&vintage_date=2013-03-06,2013-03-06&revision_date=2013-03-06,2013-03-06

The blue line represents Federal government receipts (revenue), the red line represents Federal government outlays (spending). A number of interesting takeaways from this graph:

1)      The U.S. was running a budget surplus until Bush gave that surplus away in the form of tax breaks (notice the blue line sharply going down around 2000) and spending on the “war on terror” (notice how the red line goes up when around the same time period).

2)      Federal government receipts are at their lowest point since the 1960s. This is partially due to Bush Era tax cuts (which have expired for the wealthiest Americans thanks to “Fiscal Cliff” negotiations, which is probably what the current small uptick represents) and partially due to exploitation of tax loopholes (and other forms of tax evasion, such as moving profits abroad).

3)      Government spending peaked during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and has since been on the decline since.

Government spending is supposed to rise during a recession, the only reason this is a problem is because the surplus secured under President Clinton was squandered during a period of economic prosperity by President Bush. Instead of pursuing counter-cyclical fiscal policy, (save up during the good times to spend during the bad times) Bush did the opposite. Therefore, we have had to rely on deficit spending instead of spending out of a “rainy day fund”. While not exact science, if government receipts had stayed at Clinton-era levels, it appears our deficit would be about half of what it currently is (around 40% of GDP instead of 80%).

In an ideal world, we would be able to pass another stimulus program to jump-start the economy and reduce unemployment. As interest rates remain low, the government could worry about paying back this deficit once the economy is producing at its full potential. The deficit is a manufactured problem, a legacy of “starve-the-beast” fiscal policy championed by the GOP. The problem is that starve-the-beast does not work, you can reduce the amount of resources the government has, but you cannot reduce the programs people rely on to survive (especially not during times of high unemployment). What you get instead is a large government deficit.

A balanced approach to deficit reduction would be reasonable during healthy economic times. In the current economic climate, however, the red line will continue to come down on its own as the economy recovers and less people rely on entitlement programs. The blue line is the one that requires government action.

But Obama, ever the centrist, has tried to find a mixed approach of revenue increases and spending cuts that have a chance of passing a House vote. But it seems that the more Obama offers, the more the GOP demands:

“He had written a piece suggesting that if only Republicans knew how much Obama has been willing to offer, they might be willing to make a deal. Jonathan Chait set him straight, informing him that no matter what Obama put on the table, Republicans would find a way to say that it’s not enough. And sure enough, a Twitter exchange lets Klein watch that process in real time, as a top Republican consultant, confronted with evidence that Obama has already conceded what he said was all that was needed, keeps adding more demands.

So Klein admits that Republicans just don’t want to make a deal. Their objections to the deals on the table aren’t sincere; if convinced that Obama has met their demands, they just make more demands.”

The GOP has no interest in getting a deal done if that deal involves raising revenues. This is an absurd position, as government revenue is at its lowest point in decades. A balanced approach to avoiding the “Sequester” is not what the doctor ordered; fiscal stimulus and greater government revenue is the optimal fiscal policy for the American public. But the idea that we have a spending problem, and not a revenue problem, is wrong. A balanced approach is still better than the alternative, but the GOP is refusing to consider even a balanced plan to end the Sequester.

By refusing to consider any deal increasing revenue, the GOP has doubled down on its “Do-Nothing” approach to governance, to the detriment of the American people and American economy. The GOP manufactured this deficit with “starve-the-beast” fiscal policy, now it is manufacturing a need to reform entitlement programs NOW (these are long term issues, while the Sequester and stubbornly high unemployment are immediate problems that are not being addressed). 

The GOP is the party of the 1%. and the 1% are not being hurt as badly as the rest of us by the Sequester, so why should the GOP budge if it’s constituents are happy? Hopefully in 2014 the GOP receives 1% of the seats in Congress; representation based on those it truly serves. It has become clear that the Democrats need a complete majority in the Federal government if there is any hope of reversing the high unemployment and inequality and low levels of social mobility that have come to define contemporary America.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Leave a comment

Transparency Watch: The Justice Department’s “White Paper”, and Mr. Brennan Goes to Capitol Hill

This post is an attempt to track recent developments with regards to a Justice Department “white paper” detailing targeted killings with drone strikes, and Mr. Brennan’s confirmation hearing with Senate with regards to his nomination as Director of the C.I.A. Most of the post is direct quotes from relevant actors. At the end of the post I will explore some different opinions on drone strikes.

I have separated the post into different sections (although they are all related) to make the information as accessible as possible. There are quotes from a number of articles, and sometimes different parts of an article will appear in different sections of this post. If you cannot find the source of a quote, check one of the other links, as I have linked all of the articles I pulled quotes from. The post is a bit complicated, but that is the nature of the issue being addressed. Be sure to leave any questions and opinions in the comment section.

The DoJ “White Paper”:

“We learned this week, thanks to reporting by NBC News, of a 16-page, unsigned, undated Justice Department “white paper” that outlines the Obama administration’s legal reasoning about targeted killing. The paper asserts that the government may lawfully kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” decides that the target is a high-ranking Qaeda figure or affiliate who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capturing him is not feasible.’”

Mr. Brennan, as Obama’s nominee for head of the C.I.A., was due for a confirmation hearing before he assumed the position anyhow. However, the timely release of the DoJ “white paper” certainly puts more of a spotlight on the hearings, and shifts most of the attention from “enhanced interrogation techniques” to “targeted killings” via drone strikes.

Mr Brennan’s History: 

“Mr. Brennan, who has wielded tremendous power as the president’s top White House counterterrorism adviser, is expected to face occasionally sharp questioning on a range of topics: from the drone campaign in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere to his role in the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation program carried out while he was a top official at the C.I.A.”

“As the agency’s [C.I.A.]deputy executive director when waterboarding and other brutal interrogation methods were approved, he said, his job was to help “manage the day-to-day running of the agency” and he had no direct involvement in interrogations but had “significant concerns and personal objections” to elements of the program.”

“Brennan has been something of a Forrest Gump of toxic national security policies, having been in the room when everything from torture to the killing of an American citizen was being debated,” wrote Christopher Anders, the A.C.L.U.’s senior legislative counsel.

Given his wide-ranging portfolio of the past four years, Mr. Brennan’s move to the C.I.A. would narrow his responsibilities. He would have a role in the debate about whether the agency should gradually shift drone operations to the Defense Department, as many experts advise.”

Proliferation of Drone Strikes:

“Stanley McChrystal, the retired general, has warned that drone strikes are so resented abroad that their overuse could jeopardize America’s broader objectives. The secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke at his confirmation hearing of the need to make sure that ‘American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone.’”

“Leon E. Panetta, who headed the C.I.A. from 2009 to 2011 and has served as defense secretary since then, told NBC News on Sunday that he favored shifting most strikes to the military. ‘The advantage to it is it becomes much more transparent,’ Mr. Panetta said.”

“…the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit news organization in London, estimates the number of persons killed in drone attacks at 3,000 to 4,500, including well over 200 children.

“The White House has said it is still developing rules for when to kill terrorists. The United States has conducted more than 400 total strikes in at least three countries — Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia — killing more than 3,000 people in its war on Al Qaeda, according to a report by Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The majority killed were part of a C.I.A. covert program begun in 2004 and aimed at militants in Pakistan. At a minimum, United States rules should specify that no one can be killed unless actively planning or participating in terror, or helping lead the Taliban in Pakistan or Al Qaeda. Killing should be authorized only when it can be demonstrated that capture is impossible. Standards for preventing the killing of innocents who might be nearby should be detailed and thorough.

“The confirmation hearing provides an opportunity for Mr. Brennan to explain his view on whether there is any check on presidential decision-making, especially when American citizens are targeted, and whether targeted killings are creating more militants than they are eliminating.”

Because so much of the targeted killing program remains shrouded in secrecy, however, it is unclear how much the Senate Intelligence Committee will press Mr. Brennan for detailed answers about the program during the public session, or whether it will wait until the additional “closed hearing” that is routine for the confirmation hearings of C.I.A. directors.”

“An investigator for the United Nations Human Rights Council said last month that he would study the “exponential rise” in drone strikes in counterterrorism operations. More than 50 nations have or are trying to get the technology. The United States will set the standard for them all.”

Senate Hearing:

“In his opening statement, Mr. Brennan acknowledged ‘widespread debate’ about the administration’s counterterrorism operations but strongly defended them, saying the United States remained ‘at war with Al Qaeda.’

He [Brennan] said later that when C.I.A. drone strikes accidentally kill civilians, those mistakes should be admitted. ‘We need to acknowledge it publicly,’ he said. ‘In the interests of transparency, I believe the United States government should acknowledge it.’

But senators repeatedly complained that there was too little transparency about the targeted killing program, sometimes producing misleading information in the news media.

‘I think that this has gone about as far as it can go as a covert activity,’ Ms. Feinstein [Democratic Senator from California] told reporters after the hearing.’”

How can drone strikes operate in a more transparent way? Mr. Panetta has called for shifting drone operations from the C.I.A. to the D.o.D for accountability reasons. However, drones are generally used in covert missions, gathering intelligence and visually monitoring an area without striking. How can covert national security missions be made more “transparent”? While Mr. Brennan agreed more transparency was need, he had a hard time explaining how that could be achieved.

“Even Mr. Brennan had a hard time explaining how much information he thought should be disclosed about targeted killings. ‘What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time, optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security.’ he said.”

 “Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, told Mr. Brennan that the committee had never been given the full list of countries in which the C.I.A. has carried out lethal operations.” Creating such a list would go a long way towards increasing accountability with regards to drone strikes. But do we really want national security operations on a list which could potentially fall into the wrong hands?

Another idea [proposed by Ms. Feinstein] was creating a special court to oversee drone strike issues, an idea that Brennan gave a lukewarm response: “Mr. Brennan was noncommittal, noting that lethal operations are generally the sole responsibility of the executive branch. But he said the administration had “wrestled with” the concept of such a court and called the idea “certainly worthy of discussion.”

Different Opinions About Drone Strikes:

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of law and international dispute resolution at Notre Dame, is critical of the U.S. use of drone strikes:

“Today, the United States is involved in a true armed conflict only in Afghanistan. Yet drone attacks have been carried out in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and may soon begin in Libya, Mali and Nigeria.” (and honestly, who knows where else)

“For years, Mr. Obama has stretched executive power to claim that the 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda gives him the unilateral authority to order people, including American citizens, killed away from any battlefield without judicial oversight or public accountability. He took a step in the right direction on Wednesday when he directed the Justice Department to give Congressional committees its classified legal advice on targeting Americans.”

“Terms like ‘armed conflict,’ ‘combat’ and ‘battlefield’ are integral to the proper functioning of human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. Such definitions are well established and can no more be tampered with to suit the administration’s preferences than can the definition of torture.

Putting aside whether the targeted killings are even effective, the law must take precedence. Outside of armed conflict zones, the killing of innocent bystanders cannot be tolerated. The Justice Department has concocted an elastic definition of necessity — attempting to justify force in the absence of an immediate lethal threat — without citing any treaty or decision by an international court.’”

Counterpoint:

The U.S. is not legally bound to U.N [or any international organizations] decisions. The U.S. remains autonomous from the U.N (although the two work very closely, legally U.S. military action is decided by Congress and the President; how closely a President works with the U.N. varies by administration). Definitions need to be changed to meet to evolving nature of conflict. Terrorism is becoming more sophisticated with the use of new technology, therefore counterterrorism measures must keep up.

As a nation, we did not do enough to prevent 9/11 or take terrorists (Al Queda specifically) abilities to strike on U.S. soil seriously; we must not underestimate their abilities again. While humanitarian injustices are good reasons to fight terrorism abroad, the number one objective of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure no future attacks are carried out on American soil. If drone strikes help this goal, then they are a worthwhile tool to use (perhaps less liberally than the Obama administration has, although how would any regular citizen have any insight into when and where drone strikes are “justified”.  


I have personally heard many different opinions on this issue. Those opinions range from “who cares, if they are  terrorists it’s fine” to “this is an over-extension of executive powers, it undermines due process and is therefore unconstitutional.”

Every President has expanded executive power in some way to deal with the issues of the day. Is what the Obama administration doing justified? Is it constitutional? How do you feel about other countries using drone strikes? How can we improve our drone operations to make the process more effective and transparent / accountable without undermining national security interests?

This is a very interesting topic; as the debate shifts to the public realm, I can only imagine more and more people will have strong opinions about the issue. While public opinion may shape how certain actors in the media perceive the issue, ultimately these difficult decisions will have to be made by defense experts and not ordinary citizens.