Benny Avni writing about the Goldstone Hustle in the New York Post concludes:
If Goldstone’s tactics succeed, future imitators will surely build cases for “war crimes” in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. Indeed, the ICC’s top prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has already expressed interest in trying allegations against NATO troops, including Americans, operating against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
The United States should protect Israel in this case as if it were protecting itself — because it is.
Barry Rubin wonders how the Obama administration defines “U.S. interests.”
There are two possibilities in explaining this phrase about “U.S. interests.†The first is that it was careless phrasing, a sign of low competence.
The second is that it does reflect a thinking which conflates defining any force that poses a threat to U.S. interests with identifying a force that seeks a direct attack on the U.S. homeland. After all, the Obama Administration only views itself as being at war with al-Qaida because al-Qaida wants to attack New York or Detroit and–though they don’t necessarily seem clear on this point–Fort Hood.
But what signal does this send to U.S. allies? That, Hizballah, Pakistani-based terrorists striking against India, Syria which is subverting Iraq, Iran’s growing power, or countries like North Korea or Venezuela are no big problem?
This may seem a minor problem in Washington but it is a huge concern in dozens of other countries. And if the administration is hazy on this point, it is some day going to find itself in a much weaker position in terms of both America’s friends and enemies.
Given the news from the new fronts of the war on terror, how the adminstration answers these questions will clearly affect America’s efforts to defend itself.
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.
The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever
While the Washington Post reporter seemingly decries the hit on Saleh Ali Nabhan for the loss of actionable intelligence, there’s something else going on here. If Israel had undertaken a comparable action, it would have been decried by many as an extrajudicial killing. If killing Al Qaeda operatives is the preferred anti-terrorist approach of the administration, it ought to regard the Goldstone commission as a direct threat to its ability to defend America and take a much more active role – not just a rhetorical one – in fighting Goldstone’s slander. How long will it be before some radical leftist or Islamist starts agitating for putting America’s current leadership on trial for the very same actions they deplore when Israel carries them out.
(Isn’t it ironic that the administration considers incarceration at Guantanamo as inhumane and a blot on America’s reputation while killing terrorists – without trial – is acceptable?)
As Barry Rubin makes clear, though, it appears that the administration isn’t giving that much forethought to its efforts to defend the country. It does not see threats against America’s allies as threats against America itself. So one can hardly expect the administration to take the necessary steps to fight the Goldstone report instead of just criticizing it.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
I’m going to present two thoughts about Obama and terror. In a generous light, he may have matured in the office to the point where he realizes he needs to dump his old, crappy friends like Ayres and Dohrn and actually protect the USA. OTOH, he may just have a job in protecting the USA that he simply and viscerally hates to do.
Obama and his fellows lack foresight, among other intellectual qualities. They do not understand causality and they do not foresee the consequences of any actions they take. And yet we hear that Obama is so highly intelligent; why he’s a Harvard Law grad, what better proof of genius do you want? It’s sort of like the beginning of “The Saga of Burnt Njal”. I forget the name of the Icelander the Saga describes, so I’ll use one at random, but it goes “Snorri was the wisest man in Iceland who was not gifted with foresight.” This is a very serious lack in a man who would be President, and he is not going to make up for this lack by getting advice from the sort of twits he has surrounded himself with; they are equally clueless and lacking in foresight.