Many questions had been awaiting the speech Barack Obama delivered last week at the National Defence University in Washington. He answered some of the more controversial ones, while skirting around others that were of concern to specialists, notably defence and strategic affairs professors and experts. Among the issues he avoided was the notable progress the Chinese have been making in their defence industries and their surge in activity in the construction of naval bases and facilities in Southeast Asia. The president also steered clear of the question of the possible routes of key oil and gas pipelines, or the new “Silk Road” — as the network has been called — in reference to ancient trade routes from Turkey and the Levant through Iran and Central Asia to India or to China. Academic interest in these and other questions stems from projections regarding reductions in the US defence budget over the next decade and, simultaneously, predictions linked to what has been referred to as the “dawn of the Chinese century”. Instead of addressing such issues, Obama honed in on those that have been the recent focus of attention in the media and civil society circles. Some of these questions have been a source of considerable pressure on Obama and his administration, both at home and abroad. Unfortunately, his answers to most of these questions failed to satisfy audiences and commentators, even if they marked some progress in Washington's official positions. For example, he stated that Guantanamo should never have been used as a detention facility to begin with. This was not to suggest that Guantanamo Bay should never have been deemed US territory, and that the time had come to hand it back to Cuba. Rather, he meant that the base at Guantanamo should not have been turned into a prison, known as GTMO, for the detention of terrorist suspects. Obama has long made it clear that he believes that the Bush administration was wrong to have opened such a facility in order to evade the mechanisms of constitutional and legal oversight that would prevent the practice of torture, illegal detention and other human rights abuses if detainees had been held in mainland America. One of Obama's electoral vows was to close GTMO. However, as he explained in his speech, he was hampered in the fulfilment of this pledge by obstructionism from Republicans in Congress and the unwillingness on the part of many governments to accept custody of detainees who are citizens of those countries. I doubt whether Obama would have renewed his pledge to shut down GTMO in last week's speech had he not received an assurance from Yemen, in particular, that it would receive the Yemeni nationals transferred out of GTMO. That assurance, moreover, would have come as a great relief, as Obama, the members of his administration, and a considerable segment of US liberals are acutely aware of how seriously GTMO has tainted the US's image and how this damage will increase if the US does not immediately release the detainees or bring them to justice before ordinary courts in cases where the government possesses sufficient evidence to prosecute them. Prior to the subject of GTMO, Obama dwelt on terrorism and the war against terror. Although he reiterated some views and positions that he had stated on previous occasions, it is important to note that he stressed, once again, that this war, like any other war, should not last indefinitely. Every war must come to an end, he said, while stressing that the US would not rest until it had destroyed terrorist organisations that pose a threat. The latter message was directed both to US public opinion and to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Obama admitted frankly that, since 2011, the war on terror had granted the US president a sweeping mandate. It essentially empowers him to arrest whoever he likes indefinitely and to order targeted assassinations of persons suspected of supporting and engaging in terrorism. This mandate, too, must come to end, he said, for otherwise it would jeopardise the very institutions of democracy on which the US is built. I believe that, in saying this, the president was aiming a double broadside against the Republican-dominated Congress whose politically inspired obstinacy has been obstructing the work of government, and the Republican members of which who have been keen to capitalise on the exceptional powers accorded to the president because they detract from his popularity and that of the Democratic Party. At the same time I imagine that many decision-making circles in the US feel that these powers, along with arrests without trial, targeted assassinations and the continued operations of GTMO, have severely damaged the credibility of the US in the international community, especially when it comes to the advocacy of democracy, justice and the rule of law. Obama was less convincing when he discussed the question of drones. Clearly there is a large lobby advocating the increased use of this advanced weapon and, indeed, its use skyrocketed under Obama. Some charge that there were 300 drone strikes during Obama's first four years in office, in contrast to only 50 during Bush's entire eight years. Nor is it a secret that Obama meets with members of his staff on “Terror Tuesdays”, as critics have dubbed these meetings, in order to select names from a proposed “kill list” who are to be targeted the following week. Opponents to drone strikes maintain that these attacks will not halt jihadist activities in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions or in the Yemeni mountains. They also argue that all the attacks have succeeded in accomplishing so far is to turn growing segments of Pakistani public opinion against the US. According to one anti-drone campaigner, drone strikes have become the face of America in Yemen. Obama claimed that drones did not cause as much collateral damage as conventional alternatives and even Special Operations actions. He also held that drones were the most effective weapon in wars in mountainous areas. Nevertheless, Obama pledged to institute “guidelines” — he did not say “measures” — on recourse to such military technology. The guidelines are likely to include the provision that the target identified for elimination must pose an imminent threat to the American people and that drone strikes would only be used where all other alternatives failed to accomplish the designated objective. The policy will also give preference to actions leading to the capture and prosecution of suspects over killing, and stress that civilian casualties must be avoided during any strike operations. We hardly need Obama or anyone else to tell us that drones make killing simpler. This very simplicity is certain to increase the likelihood that countries will pursue the option of war against other countries. It is commonly held that conventional warfare poses numerous moral questions that check societies' inclination to go to war. It looks like the wars of the future, dependant on computer technology and remote control, will lack such moral restraints.
The writer is a political analyst and director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
