At The San Francisco Chronicle, moderate liberal
columnist Jon Carroll
writes paragraphs of criticism towards the very Obama-heavy system
of drone strikes detailed in The
New York Times a few days ago. Carroll calls the
program “assassinations.” He admits they are “not
strictly legal.” He calls them “creepy”. And he (correctly)
identifies that yes, full-out war is much, much worse. And so:

And I don’t see any way around it. We’re not going to war with
or in Yemen; we’re not going to go to war with or in Pakistan.
There is a real enemy out there, even though worries about that
enemy have been ginned up to allow for various policies, like
airport pat-downs and secret police surveillance of mosques.

(It should not go unnoted that the whole Homeland Security
infrastructure puts bread on the table of a lot of U.S.
corporations, and there is no financial incentive at all to “win”
the war on terror any time soon. It’s a permanent war; what will
happen when the al Qaeda list runs out? My guess: More will be
created. We always have enemies somewhere.)

So we have a paradox. We have a president trying to do it right,
trying to protect the nation he governs and to take personal
responsibility for the lethal decisions his administration makes,
serving the greater bad of an American dialogue drenched in
fear.

So the relevant question becomes: How much do we trust Barack
Obama? We elected him, those of us who voted for him, to rescue us
from corruption and despair. The corruption continues and the
despair escalates. What do we do now?

I am left with the image of Obama poring over the “baseball
cards” he gets listing every possible target’s personal
information, suspected crimes, current whereabouts and family
affiliation; sitting late at night in the Oval Office looking at
photos of the pre-dead. It’s not a heroic vision, but it may be the
one we’re stuck with.

Modern warfare is non-heroic, which is probably a good thing –
too many heroes are dead.

Ah, the war and
“hero” problem. 

Sure, targeting people far away certainly does not require the
bravery that traditional fighting does. And yes, George “the
decider” Bush started two boots on the ground wars and that is
undeniably worse than what is happening now. Even for pure body
counts, there is no comparison. But then, it’s awfully hard to
compare when the U.S. figures for deaths from drones is so lacking
in credibility. Death counts are
definitely higher than the U.S’s timid estimates. This is
confirmed further since Obama’s system dubs any soldier-aged
males killed by missiles as “combatants”. That
should offend anyone who objects to war. So should the utter
lack of transparency. So should the fact that Obama is supposedly
weighed down by the seriousness of this obligation (drone strikes
aren’t a
joke!). How comforting! Carroll writes “The president’s
insistence on seeing the faces and hearing the personal details of
the people he may order killed strikes me as admirable.” 

So to people like Carroll, who can identify all the things wrong
with what Obama is doing, and yet still ends up with this meek,
vague summation that the world is difficult and so Obama is doing
his best. Just say it. Why can’t they condemn him? The people who
should be held to the highest standards, presidents, are excused
because they are on your team or because the last guy was even
worse. Just say it. Say it’s not okay to wage a secret campaign,
justified by secret memos, to assassinate people in countries that
the U.S. not even at war with. Say targeting 17 year olds is not
okay. Why can’t they say it?

The New York Times article has the same problem as
Carroll’s banal little column: the critique of Obama is withering,
the details harsh, yet the takeaway is still forgiving and
respectful. The headline says it all “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a
Test of Obama’s Principles and Will.” It’s all about him. How
difficult it is to possess such powers.

Reason on
drones