The Cool Realist

Barack Obama is reforming national security and drone warfare. This is being met with skepticism, but it should inspire hope.

It is tempting to dismiss the president’s speech about the “new phase” of the war on terror as simply well-acted theater, a performance Barack Obama has given many times, suggesting — with clever and promising words — that there will be change. But you should resist this temptation. The speech can also be taken as an indication that the peace movements and protests by those against an American surveillance state have been effective. Particularly blatant infringements on citizens’ rights will be forbidden.

An old problem of the American left is that they see things in black and white and often regard partial wins as losses. Looking at the Occupy movement, they prefer to see the expulsion of the camps rather than the hundreds of groups now protesting eviction, blocking a ridiculous cross-continental pipeline or demanding cheaper loans for heavily indebted students. When they look at climate control, they see the power of the large oil companies and Obama’s “yes” to fracking, not the closing of dozens of coal plants and the new provisions for fuel-efficient cars.

Not a Permanent War

In his speech at the National Defense University in Washington, the president spoke out against a permanent state of war, which has served as justification for the violation of political and civil rights as well as drone killings since the Sept. 11 attacks more than a decade ago. That is no small thing. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Obama quoted James Madison, the fourth U.S. president, who said that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Therefore, said Obama, the operations against terrorist groups must end, just as other wars must. That is what American democracy demands.

The words “must end” are a clear departure from George W. Bush’s global war on terror and the attitude that the U.S. Department of Defense has exhibited until recently, namely, that the president is forever authorized to attack any nation, organization or person connected “to the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001.”* That is what Congress decided after the strike on the World Trade Center. It is now time to rethink, and Obama has finally found the courage to do that.

In his speech, he declared that the U.S. had “compromised [its] basic values — by using torture to interrogate [its] enemies and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.” While that is not a new perspective, it is extremely surprising that the highest officer in the land would indirectly accuse security forces of torture. Until now, the acceptable phrase has been “advanced interrogation.”

Even if you welcome all this, now is not the time to relax and stop paying attention. Obama is no pacifist. He has made concessions, but he still believes in drone warfare. Only the criteria have been modified: In the future, the robot planes should only be used when America does not “have the ability to capture individual terrorists” who “pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” and when there’s a “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.” That is different from the former standards, which defined all men in the zone of attack as enemy combatants.

Never Release Them!

Obama renewed his criticism of Guantánamo, which he inherited from Bush, calling it “a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law.” Nonetheless, the president understands the closing of the prison in Cuba in an entirely different way from the lawyers representing its 166 prisoners, about 100 of whom are on a hunger strike. In closing Guantánamo, Obama simply means to relocate the illegal military tribunals to the U.S. The prisoners should also be transferred to their home countries after they have finally been cleared of all charges “to the greatest extent possible,” says Obama, who holds fast to the principle that some Guantánamo prisoners can be held indefinitely without a trial. After all, in the eyes of the U.S. government, dozens of prisoners are filed under the warning, “Never release!” Because of missing evidence or the use of torture, it is no longer possible to even approximate due process in these cases.

In spite of the new direction of his security policy, Obama remains a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist who does what he thinks lies in the interests of a superpower; he does not shrink from the use of force. That will not change, but the U.S. will hold itself back more strongly in the future. Of course, Obama’s rethought policy won’t fix all the legal problems of his administration, so human rights activists mustn’t ease the pressure. But no one should act as if nothing has changed. Such an attitude squashes hope and cripples politics.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.