The Meaning of Imminent

This is my first time doing something like this, so if I am doing something wrong with regards to formatting, style, or substance, please let me know. I'll try to improve as I go a long.  I appreciate the opportunity to present issues amongst a brotherhood of veterans and will try not to squander it.

Two areas that have recently been in the news a lot are drone warfare and cyber warfare. These tools have been the subject of in depth exposes that has included discussion of 'classified' material and is now the subject of a FBI investigation. One wonders what will turn up. I think there are some interesting things to discuss with regards to cyber warfare but for now lets consider how we are using drones in the GWOT.

By in large, the debate on drone warfare has centered on a very specific piece of a very complex problem. The media has focused almost entirely on the issue of whether or not these programs 'work' and are legal. The 'does it work?' piece has been quite constrained, though, to a realm where government and media folks feel comfortable in the debate. They raise the question with the answer already provided to them.

"Yes, despite the queasiness that indicates that we are still moral people, it works" is the sober estimate provided by our sober and serious minded journalists. Their rationale, though, seems to be based on very shallow logic.

To show how shallow it is, I think its necessary to detour to Afghanistan where the commander of NATO recently agreed to tighten the already strict Rules of Engagement in light of civilian casualties caused by Close Air Support. Civilian structures have been close to off limits as targets since McChrystal took over in 2009, but the current commander has made it so that in almost no circumstances can artillery or air strikes be called on civilian structures. The rules were that only when NATO forces were unable to withdraw from a combat situation would they be allowed to initiate an air strike on a house that was filled with the enemy (and potentially civilians). One presumes that this is still the case in spite of the new pronouncements but perhaps not.

Now compare that scenario to one that produced an almost reverent tone from the journalist covering the scenario. A young American pilot is tasked with finding and watching a 'terrorist' in Pakistan for hours, watching him chat with his wife and play with his children. Then when the enemy was all alone, the pilot let loose with a bomb and killed him. Why so reverent? He avoided killing those innocent kids and women and still took out this evildoer in relative isolation and without fear of killing anyone other than the intended target. How great is that? There is just one crucial piece missing, though, from this happy American victory.

What's completely lacking from this story is any sort of threat to any Americans whatsoever. A Pakistani man playing with his kids does not constitute an immediate or imminent threat unless he is simultaneously playing with his children and handling a doomsday device detonator. Presumably, he doesn't have that.

In Afghanistan, a fire mission is liable to be rejected because a civilian structure is within .5km of the intended target even when under an actual attack. In Pakistan, the US government kills people that pose no immediate threat to any US citizens as soon as the kids are out of sight. When it comes to 'signature' strikes, the activity is even more bizarre and troubling. The CIA/military drops missiles on groups of Pakistanis for behaving a certain way in a certain part of the world. This is acceptable because we are at war and these guys pose imminent threats to US forces. But in what way do they do that? There are no Americans for miles, and presumably the Pakistanis do not have drones of their own that they are piloting. So what makes these targets 'imminently' dangerous?

My assumption is that imminent really means expedient. Having personally been on the planning and execution end of an Afghanistan 'imminent threat' I can tell you that there is a high level of scrutiny that goes along with what might be your approaching doom. These attacks in Pakistan lack that approaching-ness. There is nothing sinister about a guy who plays with his kids (unless its in an area where you get attacked from every other day). Perhaps he is a leader or a financier for bad guys, but in what way is that an imminent threat? At most, this represents a strategic target like a factory in World War II. But a man is not a factory or an oil field. A group of guys acting 'suspiciously' is not a artillery park or a rail yard. These attacks are way out of proportion to the degree of threat that they could possibly pose (not even that they actually pose) to any American citizen.

While I am sure that there are legitimate targets nestled amongst the mess of poor decisions, its the basest form of smarmy political legalism which would allow any bureaucrat to push themselves as being a tough guy for this sort of action or that these are all or even mostly acceptable targets. And its only the worst forms of sycophantic journalism that would tolerate this thinly veiled thuggery.

I expect bad decisions from the military and political elites of our nation. I expect journalists, though, to report it and actually point out when the government is doing bad things. These articles report the facts like these sort of actions are ok and they are not. Not for the liberal reason that these actions are wrong and makes more terrorists and not for the conservative reason that they are ineffective and wasteful. Take your pick, I don't really care. There is really no imperative to keep these strikes going besides political expedience. That is the absolute worst reason to be killing people. If it is easier to default to killing someone than not killing them when they pose no immediate threat to anyone in our country, then our democracy will not survive.

This understanding, though, leads down many dark holes of strategic madness which I'll write about later if there is any interest. For now I end with this question, why are we squandering this limited resource on 'strategic individual' strikes instead of giving the drones to more immediate concerns in Afghanistan? I can tell you from personal experience that there are not enough drones to go around in Afghanistan. Soldiers would be alive today if these platforms were being used more for actual combat missions instead of these stupid and morally questionable 'signature' strikes.

My guesses on this matter are all deeply disturbing and while this is a pub of sorts, I'm not sure I'm drunk enough to share them.