JOINT CIA-JSOC OPERATION KILLS AWLAKI

BUT RAISES HOST OF LEGAL AND MORAL ISSUES—FOR SOME

The killing of leading Al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader Anwar al-Awlaki concludes a relentless search and kill operation conducted by a joint CIA-JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) group that began over two years ago. The strike reinforces President Obama’s image as a relentless hunter of AQ terrorists, and signifies another step in the shifting manner in which the United States is conducting the war on terrorism.

This drone strike on Awlaki was also the first known to be launched against an American (he had dual US-Yemeni citizenship) and as such has raised a number of legal, moral and constitutional issues.

The killing of Awlaki is another in a series of highly successful strikes against Al Qaeda leaders and field commanders over the past two years. Awlaki’s death follows the killing of the #2 AQ official, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, in August and Osama bin Laden in May. While al-Awlaki was primarily known as a skilled propagandist with native fluency in English, the Obama administration has taken great pains to describe him as a key operational figure as well. Not hard to do—Awlaki prepared Abdul Mutallab’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane in Christmas 2009, inspired Major Hassan to conduct his deadly killing of servicemen at Ft. Hood, and participated in plots designed in Yemen by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) against targets in the U.S. and Yemen.

Awlaki was born in New Mexico to Yemini parents and first gained notoriety from his inflammatory preaching in San Diego. While there the FBI said he had contact with two of the 9/11 highjackers. He returned to Yemen in 2004 and his English-language screeds became even more stridently anti-American. Awlaki had been on the radar screen of both U.S. and American-trained Yemini Special Forces units for more than two years.

This latest in a series of CIA-JSOC successes has also raised two major concerns. First, critics of the administration’s counter-terrorism (CT) policy, mainly from the left, charge that the Obama administration is conducting a ruthless CT strategy that far exceeds anything that President Bush and his team devised. Secondly, given that a U.S. citizen was targeted, that the President has ignored constitutional constraints against killing Americans unless they have had the benefit of “due process of law”.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S EXPANDING CT CAMPAIGN

There is no doubt that the campaign to exterminate known terrorists has accelerated under President Obama. One critic complained that “It is apparent that Obama’s relentless covert campaign knows no boundaries”, a fairly accurate observation. Even Republican candidates for President have applauded the Obama team’s strategy and conduct of its CT operations.

As the NYT noted today, “Disillusioned by huge costs and uncertain outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration has decisively embraced the drone, along with small-scale lightning raids” such as the one that killed OBL. American officials are relying more and more on what is seen as a “cheap, safe, and precise” tool to eliminate enemies. As we all recall, just a few years ago “nation-building” and COIN (counter-insurgency) was “all the rage”. But shrinking budgets and diminished public enthusiasm for large deployments over long periods of time have made COIN much less attractive. There is precious little appetite for the “risk, cost and long timelines” required for a successful COIN strategy, the Times article concludes.

Indeed, the number of Predator drone strikes has more than tripled during Obama’s presidency. Early on the focus was on Pakistan, but now drones are being flown from new, highly secret bases in Somalia and Yemen, for example. The strike against Awlaki was the first in Yemen since 2002. Some observers have expressed concern over the potential for the CIA-JSOC teams to become involved in the increasingly deadly civil war in that country.

Another less remarked on aspect of the drone strikes is that they have enhanced Obama’s image as a relentless hunter of AQ and other terrorists. Indeed, the President’s popularity shot up right after the successful strike on OBL’s compound, as it did after the killing of Awlaki. However, those jumps have not been sustainable and the dreary economic forecast brings those numbers down in short order.

WAS THE STRIKE ON AWLAKI LEGAL? MORAL?

The nature of Awlaki’s death raised important legal and moral issues about the evidence against him and whether or not he was given the “due process” of law that all American citizens enjoy. Under the Administration’s reasoning, Awlaki and other terrorists can be targeted because they are deemed to pose an “imminent threat” or a have been identified as part of an “enemy army”. The President apparently issued a finding recently that placed Awlaki in both of those categories. The American Civil Liberties Union—and they are not alone—have condemned the killing as illegal and unconstitutional.

It seems to me that the Administration is on firm ground here. First, Awlaki did pose an imminent threat to lives of Americans given his involvement in the plot to blow up an airliner, and secondly, he had been fighting alongside the enemy in armed conflict with the U.S. While it is true that Awlaki received less due process than he would have been permitted from a court, the thorough and unusual steps the administration took to characterize and define Awlaki seem prudent and appropriate.

I do not agree with the ACLU and other critics that this killing amounts to “extrajudicial execution” nor that it violates international law. Having said that we must be alert that our oversight does not become too elastic, specifically in defining what constitutes an “imminent threat” and when, where and against whom we launch these “targeted assassinations”.

GOING FORWARD

In the future we can anticipate increased reliance on drone strikes and targeted killings of key terrorist leaders and their followers. It may be part of what some see as the ongoing “militarization” of the CIA and the intelligence community as the Agency often will command military forces in these secret operations and uniformed officers play a growing role in the intelligence apparatus. We can anticipate a greater reliance on drones and new kinds of air power, weapons that are very seductive given their lower costs, stealth employment, and to date, impressive results. This has become, some would argue, the emerging “American Way of War”.

Tyrus W. Cobb

NSF Minister of Enlightenment

October 2, 2011