"The Terminator
is not far off. We could soon see fully autonomous robots, or robot drones,
capable of deciding when to conduct a strike. For the moment, the United States
has chosen not to develop this type of technology. But it is by no means trivial
that it was the Pentagon that issued the moratorium in November. Doubtless it reserves
the right to change its mind if a rival suddenly begins to develop such weapons
..."
The invasion of Iraq is
ten years old. It led to a profound transformation of the American art of war -
a change that raises profound questions.
As the faceless hero of an endless war, the shooter is
screwed. This soldier left the army without waiting to receive a pension. Today
he is unemployed, without health insurance, and without prospects. And yet, he
is the man who liquidated public enemy number one, Osama bin Laden.
The confession of the shooter, whose name is kept secret, is
the focus of an article
published in the monthly Esquire Magazine.
The article oscillates between the suspense of the hunt and the difficulty of
returning to civilian life. As might be expected, the greatest fear is of becoming
an everyday man again. And it's no wonder.
Every day, about
22 U.S. veterans commit suicide. In 2010, more soldiers committed suicide
than died on the front. Approximately 13 percent of homeless Americans are
former military. The unemployment rate of veterans is two points higher than
the already-high national average.
The hawks are no
longer convincing
The slogan "support our troops," so omnipresent at
the beginning of the war in Iraq a decade ago, was very-conveniently forgotten
at the time of withdrawal. "Rambo syndrome" threatens America. Will
the boys find their place, or will they become social outcasts, as it was with some
Vietnam veterans?
Like the first Rambo, (who was not a dark killing machine,
but a veteran rejected by his country), they may indeed involuntarily embody a
bad memory - an adventure gone wrong. Even on the right, the hawks don't seem
convincing. In February, Washington replayed the budget drama that has occupied
it for the past two years. The race was on to avoid confiscation, or automatic
cuts, expected from the "sequester," a mechanism conceived in 2012 to
force an agreement between Democrats and Republicans. But this threat was not
enough, and the federal budget was slashed by $85 billion (€64.3 billion).
The Pentagon won't escape the axe. But the risk is greater
for Republicans, who claim to be champions of a strong America. Senator John
McCain has tried hard to mobilize his colleagues to avoid reductions in
military spending, but he wasn't heard. Austerity and its partner isolationism
swept him away.
Towards a renewal of
military doctrine?
The date of reckoning is here. Different publications are reflecting
on this fact. What will remain of the war on terror, and what military doctrine
should the United States adopt?
The renowned magazine Foreign
Policy recently conducted a survey of 71 specialists on matters of defense.
The results give the impression that the most likely outcome will be
disengagement. The majority of these experts believe that al-Qaeda is weaker
today, that the withdrawal from Afghanistan is taking place too slowly or at
the right pace, and that the Pentagon budget will be cut over the next ten
years.
Once again, the debt will lead to revelations. Are members
of this learned group willing to follow the lead of former U.S. Joint Chiefs of
Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, for whom the greatest threat to national security is
the debt? The result is clear: defense experts are divided into two camps of
almost equal size. The post-September 11 consensus has been shattered.
Barack Obama still maintains his posture as a warlord. In
the case of Iran, he continues to adopt a firm tone that excludes nothing - not
even military intervention. Richard Betts, a member of the influential think
tank The Council on Foreign Relations, stated in Foreign Affairs that a containment strategy would be better
advised. It would be better, he says, to contain Iranian power without firing a
shot and to target the authorities in Tehran.
In case of attack by Iran, a substitute for war "would
be not to threaten to annihilate the Iranian people, but rather to destroy the
regime, its leaders, security agencies, and the assets of the Iranian
government, if this government had recourse to nuclear arms [translated quote]."
Accordingly, the United States could well leave Israel to conduct a massive counter-attack.
The Iraq adventure has left its mark: preventive war generates less enthusiasm.
General as Power-Point
maestro
Another example of warlike posturing: Barack Obama wants to
decide for himself who the suspected terrorists are and which are to be be
eliminated by drone. It is a procedure similar to the one followed by Lyndon
Johnson in 1965, during the bombing campaign called Operation Rolling
Thunder. He, too, liked to choose the targets. Even if America is on its
knees, militarism remains in place at the White House.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The army has also taken a hybrid form in recent years, and
now favors bureaucratic privilege. The general, David Petraeus, emblematic of
this decade of war, hardly left ultra-protected U.S. army bases, as underlined
by The New Yorker. Rarely was he
there at the front or on patrol. He was far more a maestro of the Power Point presentation
than a man of the field. (In this respect, it is quite significant that his
fall was a result of an exchange of e-mails.)
The crowning achievement of his career was his capacity to
become part of the civil administration - the CIA - where he became boss in
2011. There he continued to transform the art of American warfare into the
administration of targeted attacks by drones. Thus, from Nevada, a pilot may
never leave the ground (or the comfort of the office) to conduct strikes on
Yemen, Pakistan, and anywhere in the world that the White House sees fit.
Controversy surrounding this program is growing, and the
U.S. government is now choosing to cover its tracks, deliberately maintaining
confusion. Unfortunately, dangerous precedents are being created, as
The New York Review of Books (NYRB) indignantly notes.
It is particularly worrisome to see a day approaching when
Russia and China assume the same privileges as the United States. And what
would we say of a police force apprehend individuals that supposedly represent
an "imminent threat"? This is exactly what the CIA currently does. Finally,
in order to ensure transparency, the NYRB says that
this defense program should be administered by the Pentagon, where more light
can be shed than at the offices of the CIA.
Such a change seems inevitable - because the Terminator is
not far off. We could soon see fully autonomous robots, or robot drones,
capable of deciding when to conduct a strike. For the moment, the United States
has chosen not to develop this type of technology. But it is by no means trivial
that it was the Pentagon that issued the moratorium in November. Doubtless it reserves
the right to change its mind if a rival suddenly begins to develop such weapons
...
