Foreign Policy In Focus

The shame about being an American in which thoughtful Americans have been awash, especially during the Bush years, hit another new low with a military tactic that Glenn Greenwald describes at Salon on February 5.

In a just-released, richly documented report, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, on behalf of the Sunday Times, documents that this is exactly what the U.S. is doing — and worse: The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed. …

A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Remember the wellspring of Wikileaks? Greenwald reminds us:

… recall the worst part of the Baghdad attack video released by WikiLeaks: that the Apache helicopter first fired on the group containing Reuters journalists, then fired again on the people who arrived to help wounded.

Also, of course, suicide bombers were regularly dispatched in similar sequential patterns in Iraq and by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. When Hamas engaged in this diabolical practice, Homeland Security, Greenwald writes, dubbed it the "double tap." In other words, it's a tried and true terrorist technique.

As during the Bush years, the Obama administration seems to be doing its level best to obliterate the distinction between terrorism and counterterrorism. Guess the moral high ground is shrouded in mist and clouds. Out of sight, out of mind: no one wants to occupy it any more. 

For sheer chutzpah, the request by the United States government that Iran return an American drone in its possession takes some beating.

The background to this remarkable story is as follows: on December 4^th, Iran claimed to have brought down an American Sentinel drone, a pilotless and weaponless spy plane, near its border with Afghanistan. The drone, or “unmanned aerial vehicle” (UAV), to use the technical term, was then displayed on Iranian TV.

While acknowledging the loss of a drone, the US/NATO disputed Iran’s boast that they bore responsibility for bringing it down, with Rick Gladstone of the New York Times reporting that “American officials have attributed the loss of the drone to a technical malfunction.”

Regardless of who is correct, the fact remains that the US has indeed lost the drone and Iran now considers it its “property.”

It seems very likely that the drone was on an intelligence gathering mission in Iran. As the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner remarked, “speculation is rife that this particular aircraft was flying deep inside Iran to gather intelligence and real-time video footage of Iran's nuclear sites.” Moreover, Reuters reported on December 13^th that “a person familiar with the situation has since told Reuters in Washington that the drone was on a surveillance mission over Iran.”

The diplomatic campaign launched by the US government following this foreign policy setback has been wonderfully bold. Rather than refusing to comment on the episode, which in the circumstances would probably have been the wisest course of action, US officials have instead asked for the plane back. This is akin to a burglar breaking into someone’s home, then going back the next day to ask for his jimmy back.

Speaking at a press conference with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague on December 12th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the US had “submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment.” Lost, that is, while secretly gathering intelligence in Iranian airspace. Mrs. Clinton sounded far from optimistic about the potential for success, though, opining that in light of “Iran’s behavior to date we do not expect them to comply” and alluded to “all of these [Iranian] provocations and concerning actions.”

Secretary Clinton was joined in her remonstrations by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who “said the request to return the drone was appropriate,” noted the Washington Post.

Just take a moment to consider the extraordinary nature of this demand. The US has not ruled out the use of military force to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme, and yet it expects the Iranians to kindly return a plane it was using for espionage.

Notwithstanding the shaky ground occupied by the American administration, Mrs. Clinton received moral support from William Hague, who likewise talked tough on Iran, declaring that “in recent weeks and months .... we’ve seen an increasing predilection for dangerous and illegal adventures on the part of at least parts of the Iranian regime.” Although he had choice words for Iran, Mr. Hague did not consider the recent dangerous and illegal infringement of Iranian territory by the US worthy of condemnation.

Unsurprisingly, and understandably, the response from Iran to the American request that the drone be returned was negative. A spokesman pointed out that Iranian airspace, as well as international law, had been violated. 

There can be no doubt about the seriousness of this incident. Infringing the airspace of another state, especially one with which the US does not have diplomatic relations, is incendiary and could be construed as an act of war.

It is worth considering how the US government would have reacted had the shoe been on the other foot. This might be dismissed as a purely academic exercise, for given the sophistication of the US military, it is of course improbable that an Iranian spy plane would succeed in violating the airspace of the United States. Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that such an eventuality would be met with incandescent outrage by the US government, and demands for an appropriate response, presumably military action, from Congress and the public, would almost certainly follow. And just imagine if the Iranians had the nerve to ask for their plane back! Howls of derision would rightly follow, and not only in the US.

In short, the stance of the US in this instance is one of pure hypocrisy. And while it is not exactly original to accuse the American government of double standards, in the case of the Sentinel drone, it is guilty as charged.

Michael Walker has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.

By now you may have seen the video of the drone that crashed in Iran.  Is it credible? The New York Times reports:

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a consulting firm, said in response to a query from CNN about the video images that the aircraft did not look the way he would expect it to look after a crash, fueling suspicion that the Iranians may have displayed a mock-up.

Adam Rawnsley at Wired's Danger Room cautions:

The footage of the drone released Thursday by Iran seems to show an intact aircraft that seems to roughly conform to the RQ-170′s dimensions and appearance. But it’s a little fishy for an aircraft that would have fallen hundreds or thousands of feet to appear without so much as a scratch on it, as this one does.

But the pride that Iranian Revolutionary Guard Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh displays in the aircraft is tough to find. Meanwhile, reports the Washington Post, U.S. officials maintained that the incident was

… not a fatal blow to the stealth drone program. … the CIA had used technologies that it could afford to have exposed. Among the main concerns is that Iran could use an intact aircraft to examine the vulnerabilities in stealth technology and take countermeasures with its air defense systems.

According to the Israeli intelligence site Debka, Israel is even more alarmed. (All emphasis added).

The Obama administration's decision … not to send US commando or air units into Iran to retrieve or destroy the secret RQ-170 stealth drone which fell into Iranian hands has strengthened the hands of the Israeli faction which argues the case for striking Iran's nuclear installations without waiting for the Americans to make their move.

Wait, how did Debka come to that conclusion? It explains.

Senior Israeli diplomatic and security officials who followed the discussion in Washington concluded that, by failing to act, the administration has left Iran not only with the secrets of the Sentinel's stealth coating, its sensors and cameras, but also with the data stored in its computer cells on targets marked out by the US and/or Israeli for attack.

Hence

… military sources say that this knowledge compels the US and Israel to revise their plans of attack for aborting the Iranian nuclear program. Like every clandestine weapons system, the RQ-170 had a self-destruct mechanism to prevent its secrets spilling out to the enemy in the event of a crash or capture. This did not happen.

What's more, the

… Obama administration's internal discussion on how to handle the loss of the high-value reconnaissance drone was followed tensely in Jerusalem. The decision it took against mounting a mission to recover or destroy the top-secret Sentinel was perceived in Israel as symptomatic of a wider decision to call off the covert war America has been conducting for some months against Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb – at least until the damage caused by RQ-170 incident is fully assessed.

It's difficult to understand how Israel draws the conclusion from the United States' decision to refrain from chasing down the downed drone that it's abandoning its covert war. Debka again.

A senior Israeli security official had this to say: “Everything that’s happened around the RQ-170 shows that when it comes to Iran and its nuclear program, the Obama administration and Israel have different objectives. On this issue, each country needs to go its own way.” 

One can't help but think that Israel is looking for an excuse to "go its own way" and mount an attack against Iran on its own -- secure, of course, in the knowledge that the United States will come to its rescue when it inevitably gets in over its head.

I can't remember where I read this last week, thus no link to back it up. But a reporter who struck me as credible made the statement that the U.S. military is initiating no new aviation programs outside of drones. Sounds like the kind of generalization that's just waiting to be shot down. Nevertheless, one can imagine that becoming the case in the not-too-distant future.

At Danger Room, David Axe provides us with an indication why:

Orders grounding the Air Force's F-22 Raptor stealth fighter spread from Virginia to Alaska last week, briefly sidelining up to half of the roughly 170 Raptors. It’s becoming clearer by the day that the problems vexing America's premier stealth fighter are neither minor nor temporary.

The current lock-down echoes a fleet-wide grounding between May and September that was prompted by a suspected flaw in the $150-million-a-copy jet’s on-board oxygen-generating system. Pilots had reported mid-flight blackouts and disorientation, possibly resulting from too much nitrogen in their air mix.

As a result "the Air Force's increasingly out-of-practice F-22 pilots enjoyed just a few weeks of refresher training before an incident in the skies over Virginia prompted the latest stand-down. … With investigators still flummoxed and pilots still blacking out, it's a safe bet that the stealth fighters -- and their pilots -- will be spending a lot of time on the ground for the foreseeable future.

In an update to his post, Axe informs us that the F-22s have since been cleared for takeoff again. "But the oxygen problem remains unresolved -- and could easily prompt another grounding at any time."

Let's hope that none of those groundings come in the form of an F-22 turned lawn dart. Meanwhile, these types of problems -- with neither the aircraft or its rusty pilots truly airworthy -- are yet another excuse for the military to requisition more drones. Would that drones represented a movement towards a less belligerent foreign policy, but alas, in that regard, it's but a lateral move.

Lost in the debate over whether the Obama administration had the right to carry out the extra-legal execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Yemeni cleric and al-Qaeda member, is who pulled the trigger? It is not a minor question, and it lies at the heart of the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the 1977 additions to the '49 agreement: civilians cannot engage in war.

In the main, laws of war focus on the protection of civilians. For instance, Article 48, the “Basic Rule” of Part IV of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, states, “In order to ensure respect for and protection of civilian populations and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilian populations and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”

What follows in the 1977 Conventions are nine articles specifying what the general rule means, ranging from prohibitions against attacking power plants and water sources and spreading “terror among civilian populations” to destroying the “natural environment.” There are many civilian-related sections in other parts of the Conventions, but the 10 articles that make up Chapter I, Section I, Part IV on “Civilian Population” are the clearest guidelines about what is allowed when civilians are caught up in war.

The Conventions were mainly a response to the horrors of World War II, where civilian deaths were more than twice those on the military side. Of the approximate 80 million people who died in WW II, 55 million of them were civilians. In comparison, out of some 17 million who died in World War I, seven million were civilians.

The logic behind Article IV of the Conventions is that civilians are innocent bystanders, with no ability to defend themselves or inflict damage on an antagonist. However, if civilians take part in hostilities, they lose their protected status. If the warring parties have an obligation to protect non-combatants, civilians also have obligations, the most important of which is that they do not act as soldiers.

In short, if someone takes a pot shot at you, it is irrelevant if he or she is a civilian, by their actions they are no longer innocent bystanders.  Members of a resistance movement may not wear uniforms or be part of a military organization, but if they blow up your Humvee or ambush your patrol, they are combatants.

Which is why the question of who killed Anwar al-Awlaki (and over 2,000 people in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen killed by drones) is relevant. If the cleric was killed as part of a military operation—as with, for instance the assassination of Osama bin-Laden—then the arguments are around issues like whether we have the right to execute enemies without a trial (the Conventions say we don’t), or violate another nation’s sovereignty.

But al-Awlaki was not taken out by Navy Seals, he was assassinated by a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, the organization that runs the drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. CIA members are civilians. Indeed, the new director, David Petraeus, formally resigned his Army commission to make that point. Even if he had not, however, the CIA is not a military organization and is not under the control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Why is this important?  Because if civilians in the U.S. are killing combatants in another country, then those civilians lose their protection under the Conventions. Worse, it means all U.S. civilians become potential targets. If a CIA employee based in Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, or Djibouti in Africa kills a Pakistani, Somalian, or Afghan with a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone, one can hardly complain if everyday U.S. citizens are targeted for retaliation.

One could argue that, since al-Awlaki was an American citizen, the hit didn’t really contravene the Conventions and the arguments should be over whether you can order the killing of an American citizen without due process. However, others targeted by the drone war—like members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Group, and the Somali Shabaab—do not fall in this category.

According to the CIA, the drone wars have killed no civilians. “There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop,” John O’Brennan, the Obama administration’s counterterrorism advisor told the New York Times.

That assertion is almost beyond ridiculous. Even a supporter of the drone war like Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal, says the claim is “absurd.” The United Kingdom based Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that out of the 2,292 people killed by drones in Pakistan, 775 of them were civilians. Pakistan journalist Noor Behram puts the total much higher, telling  The Guardian (UK), “For every 10 to 15 people killed [by drones], maybe they get one militant.”

The U.S. claim, however false, allows the drone war to continue. There is nothing in the Conventions that bars lying.

The Obama administration (and the previous Bush administration) argue that drone war is part of the “war on terror” that Congress mandated after the 9/11 attacks: hence we are at “war” with at least the Taliban and its allies, the Shabaab, and al-Qaeda. But the CIA still has no authority to execute a war. The last two run by the organization—the war in Laos and the Contra war against Nicaragua—were not only unmitigated disasters, they were illegal.

Many countries have already stretched the Geneva Conventions to the breaking point with regards to civilians and the treatment of prisoners. For instance, by using the term “collateral” to describe civilian deaths, a country sidesteps the Convention’s stricture against “deliberate targeting” of civilians by claiming the damage was “inadvertent.” By calling insurgents “combatants” rather than “soldiers,” the U.S. has waterboarded people, thus finessing both the Conventions and the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture.

One could get cynical about this—aren’t civilians always the victims of war?—but in their own uneven way, the Geneva Conventions have protected civilians. Indeed, it was the Conventions that led to what is now an almost worldwide ban on landmines and may end up eliminating cluster weapons in the future. The fact that laws don’t always work, or that people of ill will figure how to contravene them, is an argument for greater adherence to the rules, not ignoring or contravening them.

The danger is that the U.S. is blurring the difference between civilian and military, and that is a dangerously slippery slope. We already have a former general running the CIA, and former CIA Director Leon Panetta heads up the Defense Department. If we reach a point where there is nothing to distinguish our military institutions from our civilian ones, then all of us are fair game.

For more of Conn Hallinan's essays visit Dispatches From the Edge. Meanwhile, his novels about the ancient Romans can be found at The Middle Empire Series.