Why targeted killing?
All this speaks to the advantages to the U.S. government of targeted killing of terrorists or persons seriously believed to be terrorists, and it also speaks to the advantages to the US government from using stand-off robotics technology to perform these attacks. But the humanitarian advantages of ‘targeted’ killing are enormously important as well, and ought to be on the table. This is particularly so given that targeted killing has come in for a barrage of criticism, legal and ethical, much of which seems motivated by the fact that it can be more discriminate than full scale military assault; the fear seems to be that it makes violence too easy to undertake. The same criticism is offered of the evolution of robotic technology that increasingly allows targeted uses of force without having to risk one’s own personnel. Not using one’s own personnel allows a party to attack without the fear of counterassault that might increase the need to use greater amounts of force and cause greater collateral damage – but it also, so it is sometimes argued, thereby reduces the inhibitions on the decision to use force.Change "United States" to "Israel," consider Israel's use of the Hermes 450 drones (pictured), and just about every argument made here for the increased use of targeted killings by the United States to liquidate terrorists makes at least as much sense for Israel.
Why this should be a downside for US strategic counterterrorism policy is not entirely evident, but clearly some critics are disturbed by it. Much of the criticism amounts to a very contemporary restatement, aimed against the targeted killing that evolving robotic and surveillance technology might permit, of a very old argument against the idea itself of the introduction of humanitarian standards in conflict (one that stretches back at least to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)), that humanitarian standards by their promulgation would reduce the disincentives to war.
Whatever the critics say, however, is unlikely to sway US strategic policy, under the Obama administration or anyone else subsequently. The humanitarian benefits of precision targeting are far more obvious than the more remote and abstract suppositions of their humanitarian costs. Their direct policy consequence is to introduce greater discrimination in targeting than full-scale military assault and large-scale war permit, through targeted killing using high technology. There is a clear humanitarian advantage favoring the use of targeted killing over full-scale war. Advancing technology allows for more discrete surveillance and therefore more precise targeting that is finally better able to minimize collateral civilian damage.
Read the whole thing (Hat Tip: Instapundit).
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:15 PM
1 Comments:
The more Arab terrorists that are killed, the brighter the prospects appear for calm and tranquility. Arab-Islamic culture operates in the reverse manner from normal Western assumption of incentives and rewards for good behavior. Turns out the most effective way of securing it to repeatedly punish them for resorting to terrorism. They will not desist because it is immoral or because their culture doesn't sanction it but because the costs are too high and it will gain them no prestige and no recognition with those who love death where they come from. That is why targeted killings need to be applied rigorously and across the board. The Arabs will never love the Jews but they are concerned with keeping themselves alive. They can be taught that harming the Jews will have have severe consequences for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home