Read on Twitter
Obama’s blithe treatment of drone killings of civilians is morally wrong and a scar on his legacy.
But we also need to think about how the presidency itself—and its relationship to national security, military, and intelligence agencies—reifies an indifference to human life.
But we also need to think about how the presidency itself—and its relationship to national security, military, and intelligence agencies—reifies an indifference to human life.
Presidents enter the “situation room” (itself a deep-rooted construct) in a subordinate position: they make decisions, yet have less expertise than anyone else in the room. Issues are then presented to them in ways framed by the ideological inertia of US foreign policy.
Presidents learn: what were strategic goals to this point? What is underway? What is at stake? What options are available? Even if not deliberately, national security/intelligence officials will present this information in ways skewed by their priorities & presuppositions.
Usually elected based on domestic issues & under-informed about foreign policy specifics, presidents are surrounded by professional military/intelligence leaders with vast localized knowledge. That’s a recipe for even a committed pacifist to make unconscionable choices.
Identifying these institutional causes is not meant to exonerate Obama, but to suggest their is a structural reason presidents tend to gravitate toward the same national defense & foreign policy trajectories over and over again.
To avert more policies like Obama’s, we need to rethink the relationship of national security, military leadership, and the presidency.
A tragedy of Trump’s administration is that his aimless, haphazard defiance of generals & security officials will make that task even harder.
A tragedy of Trump’s administration is that his aimless, haphazard defiance of generals & security officials will make that task even harder.
Many Trump critics unreflexively embraced generals (esp. Mattis) who challenged the president’s erratic behavior. Now Biden, to contrast himself with Trump, will show even greater deference to those figures and their advice.
In short: if we want to avert destruction of civilian life, it’s not just about who we elect (though a president with deep commitments to ending needless violence would help). It’s also about dismantling aspects of the presidency & deeply held assumptions about expertise.
