Kill Or Capture: War on T [Tapa dura]

Those reading Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power will also want to read Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency. It is the story of how Obama ultimately adopted a national security policy far different from the one most of his supporters expected. In particular, it's the story of how Obama ultimately abandoned his original vow to try terrorists in civilian court and how he turned more and more to drone strikes, which leave a corpse, not a prisoner. Are we killing because we don't know what to do with prisoners? Klaidman does not flatly answer this question, nor does he editorialize on drone strikes, which have indeed killed suspected terrorists, including an American citizen, without due process, have also caused civilian deaths, and have stirred intense anger in Pakistan and Yemen, possibly recruiting new terrorists.

One of the values of this book is that it shows Obama's policy emerging -- as often happens in Washington -- from intense infighting in the Obama administration. Central is the conflict between the principled Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the hawkish and cynical Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Under intense pressure from Congress and buffeted by events (including the attempted Christmas 2010 "underwear bombing" on a flight approaching Detroit), Obama chooses expediency, partly under this duress, partly because he himself has more than a streak of it.

Klaidman writes a fast-paced journalistic narrative, which only occasionally slows down for analysis. For a closer look at the issues in drone strikes, see Drone Warfare.

This is the best account of Obama's national security policy decision-making that I have read. Like Jane Mayer's "The DarkSide", it is both highly informative and ultimately discouraging...I could only read about ten pages at a time before taking a time out to think about something more optimistic. It is sobering that even someone with the training of a constitutional law professor and the progressive instincts of President Obama can fall prey to the so-called imperatives of national security and be lured into unconstitutional use of drones strikes and limitless detainment. We live in a dangerous world, to state the obvious. But adherence to our constitutional principles is the only thing that can keep us safe in the long run.

One of the lesser talked-about legacies of the George W. Bush administration is a group of prisoners who are, almost literally, in limbo.

Because of the ways in which they were interrogated (torture) and imprisoned (inhumanely), they cannot be prosecuted. Yet, as it happens, they contain genuine threats to national security, so neither can they be released. So what should a president do?

And the idea of drone warfare can be scary, because it brings to mind thoughts of cold, emotionless killings. The thing is, though...how much do "we the people" really know about it?

Based on this compelling; well-written-if not wholly encouraging-book, probably less than we should. For instance, the argument is made by a player within that drone operators are actually *more* forced to confront the human costs of their actions.

In previous wars, soldiers dropped bombs on people they'd never even seen. The process of a drone strike requires the operator to carefully study a potential target's day-to-day life, which often includes their family. They must watch the strike unfolding in real-time video and stick around to watch the mourning and the aftermath.

I'd say reading this book is the very *least* necessary before forming an at least partially informed opinion on drones. After doing so, mine is: While I may not love it...it may also be the least of an unending list of evil choices.

And one line from the book that does give me at least some hope is this, about two of the men responsible for signing off on targets: "...they were serious, intelligent men who genuinely struggled with excruciatingly difficult questions of security, morality, and law."

I don't know if that's good--this is the kind of thing where likely there is no good--but it is at least, less bad.

At least.