Cannons and Drones
Today (Feb. 17) the Los Angles Times published yet another salvo in the editorials and columns complaining about drone attacks. Especially, everyone seems to be concerned about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, who because he held American citizenship supposedly needed to be tried first. Really?
On June 14, 1864, Confederate General Leonidas Polk was killed by a Union artillery salvo fired by the orders of W. T. Sherman. The South complained that Sherman had assassinated Polk. Sherman stated in his memoirs that he had simply seen a group of Confederate officers engaged in observing the Union positions, and ordered them to be taken under fire as he would any group of Confederate soldiers. But even if he had recognized Polk, what would have been the problem? All Confederate officers were, in the eyes of the U. S. government, engaged in rebellion and open hostilities. (Officers volunteered, while soldiers were often drafted -- and they were considered American citizens, for the Union never recognized secession as legitimate.) Surely the rules of war do not restrict killing only to strangers, and suddenly prevent combatants from being shot at if recognized.
Likewise, all members of al-Qaeda belong to a group engaged, by word and deed, in hostilities with the United States and its citizens. And there is no place that is "off the battlefield". In a "fatwa", Osama bin Laden declared that Americans should be killed wherever it was practical to do so, and I am not aware that the directive has ever been rescinded. The idea of sending troops into Yemen to capture al-Awlaki and others is a really bad one, for Islamic law forbids Unbelievers from carrying weapons on Muslim soil -- the presence of U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia may well have been to be the thing that set bin Laden off in the first place.
But I have a suggestion. Let's try to keep things fair, and also save even more lives. How about an agreement that if the terrorists stop using suicide bombers, we will stop drone attacks?
On June 14, 1864, Confederate General Leonidas Polk was killed by a Union artillery salvo fired by the orders of W. T. Sherman. The South complained that Sherman had assassinated Polk. Sherman stated in his memoirs that he had simply seen a group of Confederate officers engaged in observing the Union positions, and ordered them to be taken under fire as he would any group of Confederate soldiers. But even if he had recognized Polk, what would have been the problem? All Confederate officers were, in the eyes of the U. S. government, engaged in rebellion and open hostilities. (Officers volunteered, while soldiers were often drafted -- and they were considered American citizens, for the Union never recognized secession as legitimate.) Surely the rules of war do not restrict killing only to strangers, and suddenly prevent combatants from being shot at if recognized.
Likewise, all members of al-Qaeda belong to a group engaged, by word and deed, in hostilities with the United States and its citizens. And there is no place that is "off the battlefield". In a "fatwa", Osama bin Laden declared that Americans should be killed wherever it was practical to do so, and I am not aware that the directive has ever been rescinded. The idea of sending troops into Yemen to capture al-Awlaki and others is a really bad one, for Islamic law forbids Unbelievers from carrying weapons on Muslim soil -- the presence of U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia may well have been to be the thing that set bin Laden off in the first place.
But I have a suggestion. Let's try to keep things fair, and also save even more lives. How about an agreement that if the terrorists stop using suicide bombers, we will stop drone attacks?