Speaking of which….
This is a pretty big headline. President Obama signals an openness to reaching out to more moderate elements of the Taliban.
I do have qualms with some portions of the article though- this passage for instance:
The president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obama’s more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.
Yeah, the President articulated that position in the Spring of 2007 and then was rebuked for it by Democrats and Republicans alike and then was vindicated when the CIA pursued that exact strategy in 2008. If countries are unwilling or unable to pursue terrorists, then the United States is willing to strike them in their stead. It’s extremely controversial but it’s nothing new- and it’s not the President moving to the center after getting elected which is what this passage seems to suggest.
On the campaign, the statement was made with regards to Pakistan but in the NY Times interview he seems to be opening up the parameters of this position to include other countries as well.
More after the jump…
During the interview, Mr. Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found. “There could be situations— and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known Al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said.
Now I’ve been doing a bit of reading lately on the 1972 UN General Assembly discussion on the issue of international terrorism. The meeting was held to discuss the pervasiveness of international terrorism in the aftermath of the Munich attacks. At the time US Secretary of State William Rogers proposed a “convention” that would establish guidelines on how to deal with international terrorism as well as aid in determining when a terrorist attack should be dealt with on an international level. The convention was rejected and eventually the UN passed the Algerian proposal which basically said that it wasn’t within the UN’s role to pursue strong international action with regards to terrorism.
So the problem remains, then, as well as now, that we’ve yet to define what “terrorism” entails as well as what the breadth of response should entail. I worry about giving the United States or any country the power to bypass another county’s sovereignty in order to combat terrorism. I think that there has to be a level of transparency and cooperation otherwise we run the risk of setting a very dangerous precedent. What if civilian causalities result from a targeted attack?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a strong military and I understand the necessity of force but I also have to insist that we show restraint and avoid doing anything that might be perceived as reckless.
To be fair, the article doesn’t really provide context for this statement so I’m going to abstain from making a judgment or believing that this is the new US position. Still, this certainly warrants more of our attention than Rush Limbaugh.