Let's just run through the evidence that has emerged over the past couple weeks:
1) WikiLeaks (a relatively new watchdog group attempting to check abuse of executive power, among other things) released footage of US military members in an Apache targeting suspects who they believed had guns. It turns out they were in fact cameras, not AK-47s, and the suspects were journalists and photographers, not enemy militants. A cargo van carrying that arrived on the scene several minutes after the US forces opened fire came to save the injured, but that van was also attacked. The van also was carrying 2 children, who were injured (not killed in the raid as well. If that were not enough, this tape was filmed in 2007 and suppressed by government forces. The incident also was elaborately covered up, to the point where atrocities - such as the fact that reinforcement tanks that came after the firing ceased ran over several dead bodies - were specifically explained away in press interviews (a general interviewed by the Washington Post explained that didn't allow tanks into the area since they were unable to without running over bodies).
2) Obama has authorized assassination of US citizens abroad who have been deemed enemy combatants. This requires no due process, no proof - just suspicion or "intelligence."
3) US military recently opened fire on a bus carrying civilians, killing at least 5 and injuring around 20
This is what I've got a problem with: our strategy to win the war - according to what has come to light despite apparent government attempts to stanch these facts from becoming known - is to shoot people we think carry guns. It's 2011 - phones can give us directions to somewhere in China, toilets know when we've stopped shitting and flush accordingly, cars can know when your sleepy and suggest a nappy-poo, but despite all this innovation we still conduct wars like it's fucking Duck Hunt? Are all of our great minds too busy designing iPhone apps that our war department is being run by dumbasses? Of course not, but they're not making a good case for themselves with this evidence popping up.
Even if I think it's dumb and there could be a better way to win a war, that's no case for changing the strategy. But in a recent article of the NYTimes - on their Opinionator blog - Robert Wright cites a study done by Jenna Jordon of U of Chicago that focuses on "leadership decapitation," a name for the strategy of targeting and offing senior leaders in organizations in order to pacify their organizations completely. That's what we're doing in Afghanistan, which you know due to the abundance of headlines that read "A Senior [insert terrorist org. here] Leader was killed today..." But Jordan's study finds that this strategy not only doesn't work, but in the case of religious extremist groups especially, has the opposite effect. How about that. Killing senior leaders (who not only inevitably get replaced, but Wright argues they are potentially replaced by more capable leaders, citing the replacement of CEOs and bosses at corporations). Wright deftly explains why this unquestionably the wrong tactic:
Of course, if you did enough killing, you might make the job of computer executive so unattractive that companies had to pay more and more for ever-less-capable executives. But that’s one difference between the computer business and the terrorism business. Terrorists aren’t in it for the money to begin with. They have less tangible incentives — and some of these may be strengthened by targeted killings.He goes on:
You can imagine why, as Jordan’s data suggest, this counterproductive effect of decapitation might be stronger for religious groups than for groups driven by a secular ideology. To the intensely religious even the harshest adversity can seem like a test administered by a God who will reward faithful perseverance. And the belief that death in a holy war gets you to heaven can’t hurt when you’re looking for someone to replace an assassinated leader.
Now along with this being counterproductive in our immediate war with Afghanistan, think about the future of wars after America has set this precedent. And I know, living in America, it's sometimes easy to forget that America sets a lot of international precedents, but think about what other countries will do in future wars if this conduct goes uncontested. We're not only fanning the flames of the dangerous terrorist forces we're currently fighting - we're justifying their actions as we kill their families and we're telling the rest of the world that that's okay. It's a wonder our international allies haven't spoken out against these atrocities, but they'll have us to thank when their enemies starting fighting like us.
There is never a reason to throw lives away like this. Moreover, when it does not even achieve the desired result, there's not a reason on earth for the government to protect and support policies like this.
[article cited: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/title-2/]
For further reading on the topic, Glenn Greenwald of salon.com has extensively covered these issues, focusing on their illegality. Here is the most recent:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/afghanistan/index.html
and you can find the others linked to that one.
