Yeah, the headline seems to imply it’s some new ‘big bad’ where the article just slowly exposes that it’s a non-explosive missile. Killing fewer people by not combusting the surrounding area sounds like an improvement.
Extrajudicial targeted assassinations are pretty far on the bad side, no matter how few other people get killed in the process.
Sure, if you are doing it, killing fewer bystanders is preferable on the surface. But if individual assassinations are less likely to cause an international outcry since fewer people died that likely leads to more assassinations.
Well that's the thing... None of the superpowers are actually at war with anyone there.
It's mainly a local conflict with the superpowers backing different factions. Kind of like a proxy war during the cold war. A lot of countries backing opposing local factions while trying not to escalate.
A full blown declaration of war would give us WWIII in no time due to it being such a complex mess of alliances they're.
With whom exactly? With Syria? Then why have the Congress never declared war on it? With some terrorists who happen to be in Syria? Then why is the US fighting them there, not the Syrian government? What's that? The Syrian government is actually fighting them too but demands the US forces to leave the Syrian territory, which demand the US ignores because why wouldn't it? It can't be declared to be engaging in a non-provoked aggression against a sovereign state since it has veto in the UNSC, after all.
The US is not at war in Syria. ISIS is deemed to be a threat to stable governments in the area including Israel, Iraq, and even Turkey, and US is assisting those governments in fighting ISIS back. The seemingly endless civil war in Syria is still a civil war although US had at one point been supporting certain groups.
My idea was that the US is fulfilling the ally obligations towards these governments. ISIS itself is not a recognized sovereign, so it cannot be declared a war to, thus no congressional approval.
The rise of non-state actors has definitely complicated public policy regarding the use of force. IANAL, but it seems like much of the legal frameworks around use of force, just war, etc. is predicated on Westphalian sovereignty, which doesn't really have a place for groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, etc.
But usually we despise both suicide bombers and assassins, not congratulate the assassin on killing so few bystanders.
The question by GP is more along the line of "what if instead of spending lots of money to kill fewer bystanders we spent that money to reduce the number of people that are so dangerous to us that we kill them".
Of course we know that won't happen because building weapons helps US companies and building hospitals and helping local people in foreign countries doesn't.
I agree. Or to take it further, if the US had even made a serious effort to help the country / people of Afghanistan live a better life, and build up some sort of institution, instead of invading Iraq.
Or, after even the terrible decision of invading Iraq, if the US had been halfway competent / invested in post-invasion administration...
Many of the countries were arguably better under the regional dictator. I'm sure the people of Iraq, Libya, etc. Are so glad that "peace" and "prosperity" were exported to them.
Usually because it costs more to do so. Many times the local governments are corrupt, and U.S. money gets funneled to terrorist organizations or just pocketed, never actually helping the populace have better lives..
We already invest billions abroad. But economic development cannot happen in the absence of security. Recall that in Syria, we got involved because our allies around Syria got freaked out about that the civil war would mean for their own countries’ security.
You can pour in millions into an economy, but they will only make a difference if there is peace (not even the rule of law yet). To achieve peace, you first have to win the war — if you care about peace on your terms. In a war you unfortunately have to fight — it's quite unpleasant and bloody, but else your foes will kill you and those who you are trying to protect.
