Obama Defends Killing Civilians – When the U.S. is Doing the Killing
The rules for Israel are, as always, different than the rules for the rest of the world.
From The New Yorker, January 27, 2014:
“I think any President should be troubled by any war or any kinetic action that leads to death,” Obama told me when I brought up Yousafzai’s remarks. “The way I’ve thought about this issue is, I have a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans—killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes. That’s not speculation. It’s their explicit agenda.“
Obama said that, if terrorists can be captured and prosecuted, “that’s always my preference. If we can’t, I cannot stand by and do nothing. They operate in places where oftentimes we cannot reach them, or the countries are either unwilling or unable to capture them in partnership with us. And that then narrows my options: we can simply be on defense and try to harden our defense. But in this day and age that’s of limited—well, that’s insufficient. We can say to those countries, as my predecessor did, if you are harboring terrorists, we will hold you accountable—in which case, we could be fighting a lot of wars around the world. And, statistically, it is indisputable that the costs in terms of not only our men and women in uniform but also innocent civilians would be much higher. Or, where possible, we can take targeted strikes, understanding that anytime you take a military strike there are risks involved. What I’ve tried to do is to tighten the process so much and limit the risks of civilian casualties so much that we have the least fallout from those actions. But it’s not perfect.“
Related coverageJune 30, 2016 3:51 pm
“Look, you wrestle with it,“ Obama said. “And those who have questioned our drone policy are doing exactly what should be done in a democracy—asking some tough questions. The only time I get frustrated is when folks act like it’s not complicated and there aren’t some real tough decisions, and are sanctimonious, as if somehow these aren’t complicated questions.”
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration’s drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.
Every single justification Obama gives for killing civilians applies to Israel. With one major difference: he is killing people a half a world away.
Israelis all live at the front, under direct, immediate threat – less than two minutes away from possibly being killed, day in and day out. Nothing theoretical or indirect about it. Israelis would gladly trade places with Americans to have enemies thousands of miles away.
But they aren’t allowed to eliminate the threat, according to Obama – even when the threat is more immediate, more concrete, more real, and the actions needed are far more clear and direct.
Someone should ask Obama why his critics aren’t allowed to be “sanctimonious” about the difficulty of waging a war without civilian casualties – but he is.