Apparently the Obama administration doesn’t take innocent deaths as seriously as they used to.
The White House acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Barack Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.
The Obama administration’s acknowledgment came as a response to questions posed about reports that a U.S. Tomahawk missile potentially killed almost 12 Syrian villagers on September 23, including both women and children.
The old policy, announced by Obama in May 2013, barred any lethal drone strikes without a “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.” It was fairly explicit, mostly formed with the intention to gain approval of military involvement by both U.S. as well as Syrian and Iraqi civilians.
However, the new policy, named “Proportionality and Distinction," prohibits the “deliberate targeting of civilian areas” and requires the U.S. to try to prevent as many civilian deaths as possible during such strikes. Essentially, this policy drastically loosens the binding restrictions of our older policy and allows for what’s most easily characterized as collateral damage. Who needs double-checking anyway?
Civilian death is an unfortunate inevitability in war. It would be, simply put, naïve not to admit that. However, the U.S. consistently prides itself on being the bigger person, one better and more ethical than the enemy. It should at least strive to reduce those deaths so as to not appear incredibly hypocritical when it doesn’t achieve those goals.
“They seem to be creating this gray zone. If we’re not applying the strict rules to Syria and Iraq, then they are of relatively limited value,” Harold Koh, the State Department’s lawyer in Obama’s first term in office, explained.
In instances of war like this, especially when our efforts are divided in different directions, some things are bound to slip through the cracks. However, in cases where innocent lives are on the line, we need to ensure that such cracks are sealed as tight as possible.
If the administration can’t live up to the strict policies it proposed a mere five months ago, perhaps it had no business entering the conflict in the first place. Evidently, it doesn't know enough about the situation to handle it adequately or, in that sense, realistically.
The U.S. military needs to form a policy in this war and stick to it. It’s important to stop making exceptions when thrust into difficult situations and stand firm. After all, it’s one thing to take into our consideration ineffective policies and modify them in a way they will fit, a whole other to say one thing and then a year later introduce a policy that discounts completely avoidable civilian deaths.
Not only that, but these deaths spurred major anti-U.S. protests in northern Syria. On Sept. 26, protesters denounced the drone strikes and demanded for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, chanting, “Our first enemy is America and its allies.”
If we expect to take down Islamic militants terrorizing innocents, then we need to not become the villain in the people’s eyes. It’s crucial, if we expect to try to ease tensions in this conflict, that we keep tighter standards and take into consideration the social and political standings and values in the countries.
The U.S. obviously is in over its head in this conflict. Seeking to fight Jihadist groups in the Middle East is a noble goal. However, in order to ease tensions and not make them worse, the military needs to approach with caution, re-implementing the strict guidelines and further educating itself on the people in these countries and their outlook on the conflict before making major strikes.
U.S. foreign policy throughout this Middle Eastern conflict has been riddled with an underlying tone of hypocrisy, but now more than ever it’s essential that the U.S. eliminate indecisiveness that is taking innocent lives and find steady ground to stand on. It's an incredibly complex conflict, one that delves into both social and political issues in the Middle East; as a result, the military needs to proceed with incredible caution.
Reach the columnist at mjanetsk@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @meganjanetsky
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
