Tag Archives: war

drone stikes

Here’s some more evidence that drone strikes are not as surgical as we have been led to believe.

THE FREQUENCY WITH which “targeted killing” operations hit unnamed bystanders is among the more striking takeaways from the Haymaker slides. The documents show that during a five-month stretch of the campaign, nearly nine out of 10 people who died in airstrikes were not the Americans’ direct targets. By February 2013, Haymaker airstrikes had resulted in no more than 35 “jackpots,” a term used to signal the neutralization of a specific targeted individual, while more than 200 people were declared EKIA — “enemy killed in action.”

In the complex world of remote killing in remote locations, labeling the dead as “enemies” until proven otherwise is commonplace, said an intelligence community source with experience working on high-value targeting missions in Afghanistan, who provided the documents on the Haymaker campaign. The process often depends on assumptions or best guesses in provinces like Kunar or Nuristan, the source said, particularly if the dead include “military-age males,” or MAMs, in military parlance. “If there is no evidence that proves a person killed in a strike was either not a MAM, or was a MAM but not an unlawful enemy combatant, then there is no question,” he said. “They label them EKIA.” In the case of airstrikes in a campaign like Haymaker, the source added, missiles could be fired from a variety of aircraft. “But nine times out of 10 it’s a drone strike.”

regime change and refugees

Here’s an article that asks whether the Iraq War and calls for regime change in Syria are root causes of the current war and refugee crisis. This reminds me of something I have always struggled with – is it really ever possible for war to reduce suffering, or does it always hurt more people than it helps? Even in the case of a Saddam or the Taliban or possibly even a Hitler, it’s possible that intervening ultimately caused more pain and suffering than not intervening would have. It’s a difficult question.

climate change and mass migration

This article tries to make a link between current mass migrations of people and climate, giving Syria as one example.

There is not a migrant or refugee crisis. We’re in the midst of a global migration shift. While its unrelenting realities of forced displacement, whether from war, persecution or economic despair originate from disparate causes, they all share a singular fact: The nascent stages of this historical migration shift require long-term planning, not short-term designation.

Nearly 60 million people fled their homes in 2014, according to a recent UN report. Within a generation, according to estimates by numerous climate scientists and the international organizations dealing with migration, 150-200 million people could be displaced by the fallout of severe drought, flooding and extreme climate.

As the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences noted in a recent study, “the severity and duration of the recent Syrian drought,” which has triggered some of the largest displacements of refugees across the Mediterranean, are a significant part of the roots of the Syrian civil war itself.

DoD and Climate Change

The U.S. Department of Defense believes in climate change:

DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water.1 These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.

Will the U.S. public finally be ready to just laugh science-denying Presidential candidates off the stage next year?

July 2015 in Review

I’m experimenting with my +3/-3 rating system again this month, just to convey the idea that not all stories are equal in importance. The result is that July was a pretty negative month! Whether that reflects more the state of the world or the state of my mind, or some combination, you can decide.

Negative stories (-21):

  • In The Dead Hand, I learned that the risk of nuclear annihilation in the 1980s was greater than I thought, and the true story of Soviet biological weapons production was much worse than I thought. (-3)
  • Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, among others, are concerned about a real-life Terminator scenario. (-2)
  • I playfully pointed out that the Pope’s encyclical contains some themes that sound like the more lucid paragraphs in the Unabomber Manifesto, namely that the amoral pursuit of technology has improved our level of material comfort and physical health while devastating the natural world, creating new risks, and leaving us feeling empty somehow. (-1)
  • Bumblebees are getting squeezed by climate change. (-1)
  • The Cold War seems to be rearing its ugly head. (-2)
  • There may be a “global renaissance of coal”. (-3)
  • Joel Kotkin and other anti-urban voices like him want to make sure you don’t have the choice of living in a walkable community. (-2)
  • I think Obama may be remembered as an effective, conservative president, in the dictionary sense of playing it safe and avoiding major mistakes. Navigating the financial crisis, achieving some financial and health care reforms, and defusing several wars and conflicts are probably his greatest achievements. However, if a major war or financial crisis erupts in the near future that can be traced back to decisions he made, his legacy will suffer whether it is fair or not. (-0)
  • We can think of natural capital as a battery that took a long time to charge and has now been discharged almost instantly. (-3)
  • James Hansen is warning of much faster and greater sea level rise than current mainstream expectations. (-3)
  • Lloyd’s of London has spun a scenario of how a food crisis could play out. (-1)

Positive stories (+7):

AI Weapons

Stephen Hawking and others have signed a letter urging the world not to start a new artificial intelligence arms race, arguing that these weapons will be…

…feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.

Many arguments have been made for and against autonomous weapons, for example that replacing human soldiers by machines is good by reducing casualties for the owner but bad by thereby lowering the threshold for going to battle. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce. It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc. Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity. There are many ways in which AI can make battlefields safer for humans, especially civilians, without creating new tools for killing people.

War and Peace and Obama

Here is Jeffrey Sachs on Obama’s war and peace legacy:

Viewed through the lens of history, the main job of US presidents is to be mature and wise enough to stand up to the permanent war machine. Kennedy tried; his successor, Lyndon Johnson, did not, and the debacle of Vietnam ensued. Jimmy Carter tried; Reagan did not (his CIA helped to unleash death and mayhem in Central America throughout the 1980s). Clinton mostly tried (except in the Balkans); George W. Bush did not, and generated new wars and turmoil.

On the whole, Obama has tried to restrain the warmongers, yet he has given in to them frequently – not only by relying on weaponized drones, but also by waging covert wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. Nor did he truly end the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he replaced troops on the ground with US drones, air strikes, and “private” contractors.

Iran is surely his finest moment, a historic milestone that demands full-throated approval. The political difficulty of making peace with Iran is similar to that of JFK’s peacemaking with the Soviet Union in 1963.

Obama

Somehow Obama came and went within a block of my office today and I never noticed. Now I know why they call it the “Secret” Service. Anyway, while he was here he made a case for reducing the prison population and providing free college, among other things. Free college – it sounds like a utopian goal, right? I found one article that estimates how much that would cost the federal government – about $63 billion dollars a year, on top of what state and local governments are already spending. That sounds like a lot, except that according to this article the government is currently spending about $69 billion on higher education grants, work-study programs, and tax breaks. This is pretty astonishing if true – we might be able to spend less and get more. The only losers would be private and for-profit colleges. The obvious beneficiaries would be a more educated, skilled, and hopefully creative and innovative work force that we need for the coming decades and beyond.

Which left me thinking about Obama’s legacy. I think history may judge him kindly for many reasons, although there have also been some really bad things that have happened on his watch. Part of how history judges him will depend on whether the really bad things get worse from here, whether or not that is beyond his control.

First, the good stuff:

  • The economy did not fall apart completely after the financial crisis. I think history will eventually judge that he made some tough decisions that seemed unfair and unpopular at the time, but ultimately quelled the panic that could have otherwise threatened the viability of the system itself.
  • He got better financial regulation and limits on irresponsible risk taking in place compared to what we had before the crisis. As long as there isn’t another major crisis in the near future, I think history will say he made progress against tough odds and did the most he could possibly do politically. If there is another severe crisis, history will rightly point out that the reforms weren’t enough, and they were on his watch.
  • He helped us take a big step toward universal health care. Advanced, industrialized, civilized countries have universal health care. We do not, but now we are closer. It was a huge fight against incredible odds, and I think history will judge it kindly as finally breaking a decades-old deadlock and putting us on the right path.
  • He ended, at least kinda sorta more or less, major American involvement in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were bloody, expensive, unpopular, and achieving nothing. I think history will judge this kindly.
  • I’ll put killing Osama bin Laden in the win column. It was justice. Although I found the euphoric response to his death a little sad.
  • Incredibly, he has defused both the Cuba situation and the Iran situation, two decades-old Cold War conflicts that have persisted until now for no obvious reason. History will tell us whether the Iran deal is a momentary pause in the Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, or the beginning of the end of it.
  • He’s taken some steps toward climate change regulation, nothing even close to sufficient but probably the most that was possible politically.

The bad stuff:

  • Riots in metro St. Louis and Baltimore.
  • The greater Middle East has turned into a massive blood bath, from North Africa to Afghanistan and Pakistan. History will tell us whether these conflicts spread, spawn international terrorism, or even go nuclear.
  • Relations with Russia and China have both soured considerably, to the point where a major war, or even a nuclear war, seems possible where it would have been almost unthinkable eight years ago.

The riots are just a little embarrassing, but you can probably say that racial and inequality issues in the U.S. were more on the surface and openly talked about during Obama’s presidency than during the previous couple decades, and you need to acknowledge and define problems before you can solve them. I don’t think history will blame him for creating these problems or making them worse.

The potential for serious geopolitical conflict and even nuclear war is a horrifying development that doesn’t bode well for our civilization, especially when we need to be coming together to deal with serious global emergencies like pollution, food, and climate change. Can we blame Obama for his response to any of this? I’ll admit he hasn’t been as good as his predecessors at brinksmanship. Leaders from Kennedy to Reagan to Bush were willing to play a massive game of chicken, convincing potential enemies that we would not hesitate to go to war at the smallest provocation, and that we were willing to accept the consequences however dire. You can argue they gambled recklessly and were lucky enough to win. Our enemies were generally terrified and backed down. Obama was less of a cowboy, and never even played one on TV. He has been more risk averse, weighing the consequences of military conflict vs. diplomatic and economic measures, and generally choosing the latter. These are tough decisions that take courage either way. Here again, I think his legacy depends on whether things calm down, or whether there are serious conflicts down the road with roots that can be traced back to decisions he made.

My summary: If there is not a major financial crisis or war in the next 10-20 years, I think we will look back at him as a good president who avoided those things and made a major course correction in the health care system. If major crises or wars happen, they will overshadow his accomplishments and he may ultimately get a share of the blame. It was a tough moment in history to be president, and I for one think he was a courageous and mature leader who did the most anyone could do within our constraining political system.

The Cold War Resumes?

I for one have really been enjoying the thaw in the Cold War over the last 25 years. From NPR:

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., speaking at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security. … If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

Dunford, 59, said it would be “reasonable” to send lethal weapons to Ukraine to help it battle Russian-backed rebels. “Frankly, without that kind of support, they are not going to be able to defend themselves against Russian aggression,” he said.

“[If] you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia,” he told senators.

June 2015 in Review

Negative stories:

Positive stories: