A Killer Problem

The kinds of liberal folks that I usually (but not exclusively) sympathize with have been up in arms these past few days over the killing of an American-born al Qaeda member and alleged cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.  I understand their point-of-view.  It is a very reasonable one.  Their concern is whether killing someone in a far away land using a drone without trial is legal or, in fact, wise.  If an American citizen can just be disposed of in this case, where does it stop?  Aren't American citizens afforded civil rights that should protect them from being blown to bits without a moment's warning?  Isn't this why we have a system of justice?

As I say, I see what they're saying.  And, as a general rule, I am sympathetic to it.  However, I think that their perspective is off and since they are looking at things from the wrong angle, the facts that they take as obvious actually aren't, and the conclusions they draw are, therefore, mistaken.

I think the most pertinent basic question is this:  Was this an act of law enforcement or was it an act of war?  Although we would like to think that dealing with al Qaeda is a matter of law enforcement--a regrettable leftover of the Bush-Cheney cabal that consistently fought their War on Terror in the wrong ways and in the wrong places and against the wrong people--we are at war with them.  It is not a war against a concept--terror--it is a war against an organization which, simply by its zeal in pursuing jihad against us, sees itself as being at war with us.

Part of the problem is that we are used to wars being essentially geographical, even though all of our wars since 1939 have been essentially ideological even though they took place in specific locations.  This war is different.  It is a worldwide guerrilla war.  Let's think about this.  Does al-Qaeda limit its attacks to a certain prescribed geographic area?  Not at all.  Geography is almost meaningless to them.  They have attacked us in Africa (the Embassy bombings), the Middle East (the USS Cole Bombing and numerous other attacks, particularly in countries we were busy invading), and the US itself.  In doing so, they have established the rules of engagement, and those rules do not recognize such things as national sovereignty.

Had we known that we could have killed Goebbels--even had he been born in the United States--in Paris in 1943 by bombing his convoy we would have done so without hesitation.  This is, I think, a similar situation.

We are at war, and I think that the President sees it as a war and wants to end it.  And he has chosen to do so by killing the fewest number of people he can, and that means attacking al Qaeda's leadership, even their mouthpieces.

And as far as al-Awlaki's American citizenship is concerned, he was only a citizen by circumstance and was not really one by choice.  He lived only small portions of his life in the US, partly as a child and partly as a grad student who got funding based on the idea that he was not a citizen.  He clearly did not consider himself a citizen, and, even if he were, he was a traitor.  Let's not assume that the actions taken against him would be taken against a legitimate citizen.  That is a bit of a stretch.