Author: Eric Schuler

There’s a new and horrifying first-hand account of the US drone war that recently made it into a mainstream news publication. Over at The Independent in the UK, they present the story of Malik Jalal, a Pakistani man that is trying to get off the US’s “Kill List”.

At this point, the skeptical reader might reasonably wonder how exactly one learns that they are on the Kill List. After all, it’s not like you can just call up a Congressman to ask. (And given the US’s history of accidentally targeting people based on similar names or misinterpretations, it’s not entirely clear how reliable such a service would be at any rate.) No, instead, Jalal has learned of his status by experiencing multiple brushes with death at the hands of drones. These included the following:

• When an SUV identical to his own was behind him on the road and struck by a drone missile
• When he lent his car to his nephew to go get an oil change, and the mechanic’s shop was bombed by drones
• When he was on his way to a friend’s house and saw the house get bombed before he arrived
• When he told friends he would meet them for lunch, and the place of the meeting was also bombed before his arrival
• When he was running late to tribal jirga (roughly akin to a townhall or city council meeting), and the jirga was bombed, killing at least 40 people.

Of course, there are a few ways we could interpret this story. On the one hand, some will certainly try to downplay it and claim he has made it up. But this doesn’t really seem like the kind of thing people would use to get 15 minutes of fame. As a general rule, if you live in a targeted region of the world and speak Arabic, making loud statements about the depredations of US foreign policy is probably a bad move if you have an interest in self-preservation. That’s a horrible reality, but we should acknowledge that it probably is a reality. After all, it’s not like any of the people targeted for assassination are ever proven guilty, so there’s nothing at all standing in the way of targeting simple critics and calling them militants later. It goes without saying that most of the media will not challenge that determination.

Continue reading “A First-Hand Account of the US Kill List”

Donald Trump recently gave a lengthy interview to The New York Timeson the all-important subject of foreign policy. During the campaign thus far, Trump has distinguished himself among the other presidential candidates for his willingness to be the most outrageously horrible on this subject in some cases, while also being the sharpest voice of reason against the conventional wisdom in others. So in the aftermath of the Brussels Attacks, Trump bizarrely suggested that torture could be part of the solution to terrorism. Yet Trump has also harshly criticized the Iraq War to Republican audiences, going so far as to state (correctly) that the Bush Administration deliberately went to war under false pretenses. Thus, you never know which Trump you’re going to get when it comes to foreign policy. And anytime he speaks publicly on the matter, it ought to be cause for both dread and hope, in roughly equal proportions.

Fortunately, in this most recent interview with The New York Times, it was mostly the reasonable Trump that came through. He was still bad on many issues and revealed substantial ignorance in some spots. But he made a coherent, economical case in favor of reducing American involvement around the globe. In essence, he suggested that the US is subsidizing the defense of many of its allies, and that, unless these allies are willing to reimburse America for the trouble, US troops should come home. Indeed, he even proudly adopted the label of “America First” for his worldview, a reference to the prominent US antiwar / noninterventionist movement prior to World War II.

Continue reading “Trump’s Foreign Policy Interview: The Good, the Bad, and the Passive Aggressive”

The ongoing US assassination program just completed one of its most deadly strikes on record in the country of Somalia, killing an estimated 150 people. Rest assured though, the US government said that all the victims were “militants”. The US government also stated that the airstrikes were in self-defense, so you know, no big deal.

Of course, the US isn’t actually at war in Somalia. No evidence has been provided as to the identity of any of the dead. And no details have been provided as to precisely who these 150 people were allegedly threatening that necessitated their execution. The Pentagon press release merely indicated that the attack was on an al Shabaab training camp.

Yet in spite of the clear lack of information, the killing of 150 people in a neutral country does not entail a scandal or even warrant comments from the President of the United States. It’s just a normal event. The Pentagon’s version of events was reported uncritically throughout most of the US media. Not enough details were offered to really corroborate the story, and no major US outlet bothered to try. Somalia is pretty far away, after all.

Continue reading “US Kills 150 People in Somalia; Media Offers Collective Shrug”

On Tuesday, a group of ten American service members on a training mission in the Persian Gulf were detained by Iran. Upon receiving the news, Secretary of State John Kerry called his counterpart in Iran to help secure the Americans’ release. This was all over the news over the past few days here in the US and, in traditional media outlets, it was usually accompanied with a standard denunciation of Iran. In more extreme cases, the event was described as an act of aggression that demanded a response. For instance, Senator John McCain, that perpetual fount of wisdom, described this incident as another example of “Iran’s provocative behavior.”

Unfortunately, what was missing in much of mainstream media coverage of this event was any meaningful consideration of the facts. In reality, the US ships apparently drifted into Iranian waters, and were intercepted by the Iranians as a result. There’s no dictionary in the world that defines that as aggression. If you break into my house, I have a right to defend myself. The same goes for countries. Iran clearly has a right to police its territorial waters, just as the US would have the right to detain an Iranian ship that found its way into San Francisco Bay. If something is self-defense, it can’t also be aggression. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Frankly, we’re all lucky that cooler heads prevailed in the American and Iranian governments. It would have been all too easy for hardliners in Iran to (accurately) describe this as a breach of their territorial integrity and an act of aggression against them. Similarly, President Obama could have taken a cue from CNN and blamed Iran for the whole affair, omitting any mention of Iranian waters. Fortunately, this did not occur. An incident that could have dramatically raised tensions was basically over before it began. Yesterday morning, the detained Americans were promptly released, unharmed, by Iran, just as was promised.

Continue reading “No, Iran Didn’t Commit an Act of Aggression”