a campaign promess worth breaking

The new administration deserves appreciation for some of its initial actions. It is great progress that Obama has decisively declared an end to torture, that he has committed to close Guantanamo and all of the CIA’s secret prisons. Obama’s commitment to opening up the Freedom of information process is also positive. His instruction to the pentagon to draw up plans for removing troops from Iraq is a good first step. I’m even willing to be hopeful about the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. All this seems in keeping with campaign promises.

Unfortunately there is one campaign promises Obama seems to be keeping that is a foreign policy boon dog. On the 23rd of January a drone plane flew into Pakistan and killed at least 15 people, possibly an al Qaeda leader, but also at least 3 children. Continuing these attacks was in keeping campaign statements he made. When debating McCain he said, “if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” In my opinion this position is wrong, and this recent strike was wrong for several reasons: 1) Although governments think they have the right to kill, killing is murder. 2) Collateral damage is another term for killing innocent people, in this case at least 3 children 3) Invading Pakistan like this is not good for building relations with the Pakistani government.4) Extrajudicial assassinations make the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo look like paragons of justice. Finally 5) what this act amounts to is a continuation of the Bush policy of preemptive military action.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive attack undermines the previously prevailing consensus regarding rules of international conflict. If preemptive attacks are justified then any government can claim that their initiation of violence was actually preemptive, an attempt to protect against attack. This was the argument for invading Iraq and has been used in discussions of possible attacks on Iran. Al Qaeda of course is the ultimate boogie man, and it will be argued that since we are in war with al Qaeda we have to strike them wherever they are. But when we strike inside of a country with out that countries approval it is an attack on that country.

This principle of preemptive action can be borrowed and widely spread. I recently read a debate about who first broke the cease fire that led to the recent invasion of Gaza by Israel, but who started it is no longer the question governments have to ask since preemptive actions can be justifiable. This kind of argument makes a difficult situation even worse. As the lone superpower in the world other nations look to the U.S. for the standards of international behavior. Until the Bush doctrine is overturned virtually any military action can be justified.

It is important for those of us working for a less violent world to push Obama to reject the Bush doctrine. This will mean that he will have to go back on that one campaign promise.

Many who want peace are delighted that Obama is in office and the general direction he is moving in. I share that general pleasure. Nonetheless this does not mean that our work is done, rather our work is cut out for us. One of the most refreshing traits of Baraq Obama is that he does listen to people. Now more than anytime that I can recall, our voices do have the potential to be heard. Yes things are better, but here is one area where we need to work for more, we need to demand the braking of a campaign promise.