re: "No Foe, No Friend"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club discussed having it both ways (or not).

Money quote(s):

"Walter Russell Mead, writing in American Interest, believes the root of the problem is that the President wants to fight terrorism in two potentially contradictory ways: as a war and a non-war; as combat and as law enforcement. In his view the Al-Awlaki operation highlights the problem of trying to have it both ways at once."

It's interesting how this circle has been squared. Rightly or wrongly, then-presidential candidate Sen. Kerry was vilified for comparing international terrorism for comparing international terrorism to a law enforcement problem such as prostitution (IIRC). But keeping one's options open is generally thought to be a good thing.

"(W)hat Walter Russell Mead believes and what Barack Obama believes are two different things. While Mead may want clarity, Barack Obama is following the time honored political tradition of creating two sets of rules which he can separately invoke as convenience demands. When it suits him to act the “law enforcement officer” in order to mollify his left wing base and European opinion, then he will don that hat. When it suits him to act like a Commander in Chief to prevent the eventuation of a threat (which would lose votes), he will don the other other hat."

We should be thankful that sufficient motivation exists for acting like a commander in chief.

"The basic cultural problem is the media has conditioned the public not to be able to handle the truth. Certain segments of the public want safety but don’t want to be told how it is obtained."

"You can't handle the truth!"?

Well, judging by what we've seen of the Occupy Wall Street phenomena, Solyndra, and other stories, there's no desire on the parts of many to be told the truth, at least not by those who those many are likely to be listening.

"But trying telling the truth on the air and a whole line of pundits will queue up to call you a bigot and warmonger; except when the same set of people aren’t demanding that you do the opposite to be kept safe. Walter Russell Mead is right. You can’t have it both ways. But it is politically incorrect to say so. Therefore people like Judyth Hill of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation can say with a straight face that our response to September 11 should be to “make soup … Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and fresh mown fields”. This passes for wisdom and if you disagree you’re a bigot.

And since logic like that can stand as public policy, we will inevitably reap its logical conclusion. We’ll get fantasy for fantasy. A fantasy strategy will eventually result in an imaginary victory for the protection of imaginary rights. Because what goes around comes around. You get what you pay for. So what does US citizenship count for? What in a war or under law enforcement? It is ironic that no one realized that when the clear bright line between enemy and dissident was muddled that everyone would wind up in the same pot. When there are no enemies — except sometimes, then there will be no rights — except sometimes."

10/2

re: "This Week at War: Send in the Lawyers?"

Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") answers the question "Why the president's legal advisors are in no hurry to justify the bin Laden raid."

Money quote(s):

"Osama bin Laden's fourth son Omar along with some of his brothers have called for an international investigation into the killing of their father. A statement written by the sons and published in the New York Times calls for President Barack Obama to cooperate with their demand for a U.N. inquiry into the question of "why our father was not arrested and tried but summarily executed without a court of law." Should there be no response within 30 days, the sons have pledged to assemble a "panel of eminent British and international lawyers" to pursue legal action against the U.S. government and its officials."

This is called lawfare.

"Bin Laden's sons as well as other analysts outside the United States view the raid in the context of the procedures of criminal law. By contrast, Holder and most observers inside the United States view the raid as a military mission with bin Laden just another combatant. Enemy military personnel are not subject to the rights due a suspect under criminal procedure but rather are at risk of ambush and sudden lethal attack without warning. In the military context, it doesn't matter if the combatant is not holding a weapon, is not in a military uniform, or is in an "unthreatening" posture (such as asleep). The only circumstances under which military forces are required to "give quarter" is after an enemy combatant has completed a surrender or is too wounded to resist, something very unlikely to have occurred in the bin Laden compound given the aggressive rules of engagement issued to the assault team. Bin Laden's sons reject this interpretation, viewing bin Laden as a criminal suspect deserving the rights of legal process."

Those inclined to take the criminal law/enforcement model seriously (Sen. Kerry, call your office) will do so. All young Omar and his ilk deserve from the U.S. Government is, perhaps, the traditional telegram notification sent to next-of-kin.

"The U.S. view is that the 9/11 attacks sparked an "armed conflict" between the United States and al Qaeda, a legal status that both the Congress and the United Nations quickly affirmed. The "armed conflict" status has allowed the United States to use its military power and the international laws of war to permit such techniques as lethal drone attacks and commando raids against combatants -- legally delivered without warning or legal process.

All modern conflicts involve irregular non-state actors as combatants. These combatants and their fellow travelers seek to emphasize their status as civilians when useful, both for defense against modern military technology and in an attempt to take advantage of legal rights. Conversely, the United States government will seek, when necessary, to achieve an international recognition of armed conflict status against its irregular adversaries in order to take advantage of the military and legal advantages it gains from such a status. The government's challenge will be justifying the particular circumstances that warrant unsheathing the government's armed conflict powers against specific adversaries."

Considering that UBL had issued his own declaration of war against the U.S. as early as the 1990s, plus all those fairly damning video diatribes, it's difficult to imagine a more clearcut case of an irregular non-state actor qualifying as a combatant (unlawful or otherwise).

re: "Specialized Interrogation Unit May Be Created"

C.J. at A Soldier's Perspective ("personal information, views and commentary about the military") pretty much made a mockery of this proposal.

This is of a piece of one of our perpetual mistakes: conflating law enforcement solutions to warfare problems.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Department of Justice will now be leading interrogations ofhigh value targets of military importance. Oh, and these"interrogations" will happen "without the use of coercion." Yeah,good luck with that!"

&

"Anyway the unit should be awesome! Naturally, the administration noted that "based on where things stand now, the CIA isn't slated to be the lead on whatever plan is put into place." Phsaw! Why would ANYONE in their right mind put an agency in charge who only does this sort of thing for a living and has buttloads of experience?! That would just be dumb!"