CIA missile strike: Murky wars make for dubious morality

On Sunday, Nov. 3, a CIA-launched Hellfire missile found its target outside the Yemen capital,… On Sunday, Nov. 3, a CIA-launched Hellfire missile found its target outside the Yemen capital, reducing a carload of suspected terrorists to a streak of ash in the desert. The explosion killed 6, among them alleged al Qaeda member Qaed Salim Sinan al Harethi, the man U.S. authorities believe masterminded the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Other passengers in the car, including at least one American citizen, are believed to have been low-ranking al Qaeda members.

Read too quickly and you might skip right over “suspected” and see only “terrorists.” If you’re not careful, if you are confused and afraid, paranoia starts to set in. Surrounded by enemies shadowy and ill-defined, it becomes easy to shoot first and leave the questions to the American Civil Liberties Union. This is what has happened to those in government: In their need to define an enemy – our national need, really – they’ve steadily enlarged the battlefield of the war on terror. The results have been mixed, both morally and on a practical level.

To understand how this “mission creep” set in, you must examine the literal meaning of a War on Terror. Fundamentally, it is a war fought not against an enemy, but to make us a feel safe again. Much like the War on Drugs is a war on inanimate objects, making war on terror is using bombs and missiles to fight a concept – the idea that Americans should live in fear.

Waging war on an idea has its problems. The most obvious is that ideology wears no uniform. The enemy can’t be identified by appearance or state affiliation, only by belief. Terrorists are, most literally, believers in the use of terror, and that’s a difficult yardstick to use in defining an enemy. Without action, it’s impossible to prove or disprove how far someone is willing to go for an idea.

This brings us to another problem. You can’t kill an idea. All you can do is defeat those who believe it, our strategy thus far. Yet the more bodies that pile up, the stronger the convictions of the true believers. We add martyrs and legends to their stockpile of ideological weaponry while undermining our own morality.

The Yemen missile strike is a good example. Fighting fire with fire leads to this kind of moral clarity: Terrorists blow up cars in crowded streets to kill innocent people, while those who fight terror blow up cars in the desert to kill suspects, who, technically, should be innocent until proven guilty. Not only have we missed a perfect opportunity to interrogate a high-ranking al Qaeda leader, we’ve committed to a policy of execution wherever capture is inconvenient. This is the same morally ambiguous policy we’ve condemned when used by other countries. It also serves to alienate sovereign nations in East Asia – where many al Qaeda members are believed to now reside – by implying U.S. missile strikes upon their citizens and within their borders are not out of the question.

It might be easy to shake off these moral concerns if they affected only suspected terrorists. But then again, that word “suspected” creeps up again. If suspicion is our only criterion for identifying enemies, get ready for things to become even murkier. Remember, the war on terror begins at home, and who knows just where your loyalties lie?

As William Safire details in the Nov. 14 New York Times, “you are a suspect.” John Poindexter – infamous mastermind of the Iran-Contra scandal, now head of the governmental “Information Awareness Office” – wants the ability to track every credit card purchase and bank deposit. He’d also like to track every Web site you visit, event you attend, and medical prescription you fill. He’d appreciate being able to tie this information to every passport application, driver’s license and other governmental records.

Of course, Poindexter has only your best interest at heart. You’re lucky to have such a diligent guardian angel spying on you. And if you’re really lucky, that knock on your door will be a friendly FBI agent rather than an unfriendly Hellfire missile.

Jesse Hicks wonders if maybe the real problem here is confusing “vengeance” with “justice.” But that’s the kind of idea that gets you on a list somewhere. E-mail him at jhicks@pittnews.com.