Rules of Engagement Posted by Michael Cohen

Having just returned from my weekly meeting of the super secret Very Serious Democratic Foreign Policy Establishment I was thinking about the questions raised in the comments section about when is it appropriate to use American military force.

This is not an esoteric debate. It's one that candidates running for President are going to have to answer. So here goes my stab at laying out a possible roadmap for the use of force. I invite all comments and postings. I'm really curious to hear what people think about this issue.

1) Force as a last resort

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration made the use of force the first resort as opposed to the last. Clearly that was a mistake and increasingly when I listen to the GOP presidential candidates I hear the same sort of nonsense. Shoot first and ask questions later is not a good way to run a national security policy and frankly is out of mainstream of our nation's history. The next President should not just say he or she will exhaust every diplomatic, political and economic option - they should actually do it. Things get messy when we go to war.

2) Don't go alone: go multilateral

However, we must also recognize that America has enemies and military force will occasionally be necessary. If we must use force, we must make every effort to bring our Allies along. The war in Iraq has laid bare the terrible price to be paid by launching unilateral wars without UN and Allied support. The result is that the burden is on us and we and our troops are paying a terrible price. By going largely alone (whatever happened to that Coalition of the Willing) we've become responsible for every part of the post-war occupation.The United States has a six decade tradition of working in concert with our allies, whether it has been the UN or regional groupings, such as NATO. The ones where we've gone alone (I'm not counting smaller wars like Panama, Grenada etc) i.e. Vietnam and Iraq have been a disaster. There is a lesson there.

3) The Exception - unilateral force

Here's where it gets tricky. Is there ever a time when unilateral force is appropriate? I would argue yes, but only in unusual and unique circumstances. Clearly unilateralism is not a preferred option, but we have to recognize that there may be times and places where it is appropriate and where America must defend its national security. For example, quite obviously if America is attacked; if as Sen. Obama recently suggested we have actionable intelligence on the location of top Al Qaeda leaders; if there is a true imminent threat against the United States (for the record horrible images of mushroom clouds possibly appearing in US cities is not my idea of imminence).

Now, all of these challenges could potentially be met with the use of multilateral force or an international coalition and that should be our first approach. But no one can gameplan every possibility and the President needs some wiggle room to respond to unforeseen challenges.

Having said that I think we should retire this Administration's foolish preemption doctrine, while also recognizing that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to act preemptively - say for example the takeover of Pakistan and its nukes by Islamic extremists. Preemption must be a last resort and only utilized when US national interests are clearly threatened. It should not be the guiding policy lodestar of any presidential administration.

4) Consider force options short of war

One of the worst elements of the Iraq war debate was the failure to even consider a force option short of invasion and occupation. There were myriad ways we could have achieved our goals in Iraq without invading and occupying the country. After all, for 12 years we had kept in place a sanctions regime backed by military force that kept Saddam in check. When Saddam rattled his cage, even the threat of force forced him to back down. But then these guys wanted a war - cruise missiles and air strikes weren't going to satisfy them. The next President needs to act with a bit more discretion and consider all possible options. We have a great military, but let's remember: invasion AND occupation is not our forte.

Clearly there are some other specific issues that will need to be addressed - peacekeeping, humanitarian emergencies, China/Taiwan, etc but I hope this at least starts the conversation going. Keep the comments coming.

Comments

[masaccio]

Here are my rules of engagement.

The US does not have the right to invade any country that is not poised to invade the US. International law does not authorize any other standard.

The fact that someone in another country might cause damage in the US is not grounds for invading that country and killing its inhabitants.

Please state the legal and moral reasons justifying your rules, which clearly permit you to invade other countries and kill their inhabitants if you are sufficiently afraid, as you admit in your post:

Having said that I think we should retire this Administration's foolish preemption doctrine, while also recognizing that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to act preemptively - say for example the takeover of Pakistan and its nukes by Islamic extremists).

[liberalrob]

I don't have any obvious disagreement with your analysis with the exception of #3 (there's always at least one exception). I'm going to get all Michael Cohen on you and suggest that there is an argument to be made that, except in the event of actual imminent threat to the homeland itself, there is NO justification for use of unilateral military force AT ANY TIME.

We set up the United Nations with the idea that it would be a place where the nations of the world would come together to settle their differences peacefully. We committed to its success, built its headquarters in San Francisco and later New York City, and in concert with the victorious allies of WWII laid out its charter by which all member nations were committed to abide. The neocon Republicans like to bash the U.N. as a nefarious institution devoted to destroying our sovereignty and something to be ignored as it suits us (a position that would be familiar to anyone who lived during the Cold War as the general attitude of the Soviet Union towards the U.N.). The fact remains that we are a signatory to the U.N. Charter and at least nominally are bound to follow its code of conduct, and one of those strictures is to renounce waging aggressive war (Article 2 clauses 3 and 4).

If the United States was truly committed to the United Nations and the rule of International Law, it would not exempt itself from one of the pre-eminent proscriptions in the U.N. Charter. We should not arrogantly exempt ourselves from rules we find inconvenient and dare the world to "make us" abide by them. We should lead by our example. Or we should declare the United Nations as useless as the League of Nations was and withdraw from it, as we did the League, and let it founder and die; and go back to the good old days when might made right. That's the Republican dream. Democrats should not buy into it.

[Michael Cohen]

Completely agree with you. We should not be invading any country that has not attacked us - both for reasons of international law as well as simple practicality. Invasion and occupation is simply a bad idea. It's next to impossible for me to think of a good reason why we should invade and occupy any country, esp since our enemies today are non-state actors and not states.

Acting preemptively does not mean invasion in my book. For example, Obama in his recent speech laid down the standard that if we have actionable intelligence about the location of AQ leaders we should act against them (after first pushing the Pakistanis to act). I think this is a reasonable standard. I dont believe he was calling for invasion and occupation - and if he did, he would lose my vote -- but more of a surgical strike or catch and grab.

I think we should only act preemptively in the rarest of circumstances and follow the guidelines of the UN Charter, which allows for self-defense. Islamic extremists gaining control of a nuke in Pakistan is a fanciful case. I don't have the answer as to what we should do in such a circumstance, I'm just putting it out there as a possible hypothetical for when preemptive attacks might be necessary. Certainly not advocating for it. Thanks for your comment.

[Michael Cohen]

"get all Michael Cohen on you" - I love it! Can I trademark that? I think your argument is more than reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. Article 51 of the UN Charter makes clear that each nation has the "inherent right" to "individual or collective self-defense" in the case of armed attack. Again, only by the few examples I cited in my blog post do i think such action is necessary or appropriate.

I am no fan of unilateral action. Whether legal or not, I think it is generally not a good means for furthering a country's national interest. I am in no way advocating for unilateralism. But at the same time I dont believe that any country could ever agree to swear off all unilateral military actions. But it should occur in my view, only as legitimate self-defense (which of course Iraq was not). Thanks

[Dan Kervick]

It doesn't seem to me that the distinction between the unilateral application of force and the multilateral application of force is the crucial distinction on which to focus.

The United States has committed itself though numerous treaties, democratically ratified by our Senate, to certain standards of international behavior. International law, including the UN charter, recognizes the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense. It is entirely possible for a state to act both unilaterally and in full conformity with international law; it is also perfectly possible for several states to act multilaterally and in clear violation of international law.

The UN Charter also makes it clear that there are other circumstance in which military intervention is permissible, not necessarily involving self-defense: where there are grave threats to the peace, and the UN Security Council has authorized the military actions taken. In such cases of course, military action requires some sort of "multilateralism", if only in the sense that no single nation is capable of passing a UN Security Council resolution b y itself.

The question of unilateral vs. multilateral applications of force mainly deals with practical considerations. Generally speaking, it is better to have friends than to be isolated; generally speaking, large coalitions are more potent than small ones; generally speaking actions are more likely to be successful when they do not run in the face of various kinds of diplomatic and political resistance.

There is a clear distinction between preemption and prevention in moral and legal theory, and in common sense. If my neighbor is shooting at my house, I am entitled to shoot back. If my neighbor goes out onto his lawn, loads his gun and takes aim at my house in a deliberate and aggressive manner, I am also entitled to shoot back. That's preemption: once it is reasonably clear that an attack is about to take place or is under preparation, I need not wait for the first blow to be struck.

But I am not entitled to start shooting at my neighbor's house simply because he is a gun collector, has purchased ammunition from time to time, has growing sons, and has written harshly about me in some letters to the local editor. That's prevention, not preemption. The mere concern that my neighbor and his sons might someday develop into an active threat is not an acceptable basis for the use of force. I really think it should be obvious that acceptance of some such principle is essential to any sort of civilized order.

This was the chief problem with the case for war against Iraq. Even among those who believed Saddam Hussein still possessed some WMD's, very, very few affirmed that he posed a serious and credible active threat, or that he was preparing an attack, or even capable of attacking the US. He was contained; his state was impoverished; he had no track record of striking first against the US or its interests. Our own CIA estimated that the only case in which he was likely to use any WMDs he might still possess was in the event of a US invasion. Outside the small circle of Laurie Mylroie-style neocon conspiracy nuts, experts agreed that contact between the Hussein regime and jihadist groups was non-existent or negligible. Iraq was not high on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The idea that Iraq was some kind of active threat to the US was a joke. It was certainly nowhere near the level of threat that would justify such a costly and ghastly military operation.

Even Kenneth Pollock, who wrote the bible of the "take action against Saddam" crowd, didn't argue that Iraq was a present threat. He argued that at some point we would have to eliminate sanctions on Iraq, and that after that point, Saddam would begin to rebuild his capabilities and become a threat to the US and/or its interests down the road. his was thus a case for preventive war, not preemptive war. What he recommended was illegal, and still is. While I never expect to see this happen, I believe the principals of the Bush administration are in fact guilty of war crimes, and by right out to be held accountable for them.

[SteveB]

Article 51 of the UN Charter makes clear that each nation has the "inherent right" to "individual or collective self-defense" in the case of armed attack.

Does Article 51 permit preemptive, or as Dan more correctly puts it, preventive military action? My understanding is it allows a nation to use force to defend itself once it has been attacked, and then only until the UN can meet and authorize further use of force (obviously, in practice this isn't being followed). Would the quick strke you imagine Obama untertaking be permitted under Article 51?

[Michael Cohen]

Let me first say I pretty much agree with every word Dan Kervick has written.

But SteveB raises a great point - one that I wanted to discuss. Would launching an attack against AQ leadership in Pakistan qualify under Article 51? I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure, but since we really don't know the operational involvement of AQ leadership in attacks against the US it is entirely possible that an attack would actually qualify as a measure of self-defense. Any lawyers out there want to weigh in?

At the very least, the AQ leadership is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans and they have declared war against the United States. Moreover, there is little reason to believe they aren't plotting more attacks. This isn't necessarily an imminence type situation - we are already at war with these folks. It seems to me that would make them fair game and actually Article 51 wouldn't even be germane to the discussion.

Let me throw it out there - do folks think it is appropriate to attack AQ leadership in Pakistan? Was it appropriate for the US to bomb Afghanistan in 1998 to try and kill OBL? You know my view.

[Tim]

I think you're confusing state and non-state actors. OBL and such are non-state actors, and actions against them do not fall under the UN rules, except the humanitarian and human-rights rules. The silly hypothetical about action against AQ within Pakistan simply illustrates the confusion even better: if we took action in Pakistan that was not directed against the state itself, but the state itself protested (assuming it did) that is a bilateral issue, and not a collective defense issue. Thus does not involve Article 51. It's materially different from Iraq because our argument against Iraq in 2002-2003 was that the state itself, embodied in Saddam, was violating UN sanctions and would act in the long run to attack the US (preventative war and all that); and an attack on Iraq should have required the approval of the UN Security Council beyond 1441, which did not sanction military action. The UN is an international organization, not a global government and its rules are not global, but international in reach; thus it does not involve questions like the Pakistan hypothetical faced by Obama. There is some older international law which does relate, but one would need to ask an international law expert about that.
The other silly hypothetical, Pakistan taken over by Islamists, just goes back to traditional issues of justifications for war. The justifications written into the UN charter did not envision nuclear war as we understand it. Nuclear bombs were still just big bombs and not world-busters like we see them now. There is a damn good argument (going Michael Cohen here) to be made that Article 51 may be outdated by the realities of WMD. Especially biological warfare (like modified anthrax and all that happy stuff). However, the current law is still the UN charter, and until it is amended we can discuss actions under its umbrella.
The problem for the US is not about "was it justified" but how did we justify it. The evidence against OBL used in 1998 was good, but not certain. Furthermore, the intelligence on his location and the 'weapons factories' turned out to be wrong. The US has a very large fist, we should be more careful when we throw punches. 'Good' intelligence for a country like France, that is later shown to be wrong, may mean that some diplomats are expelled. 'Good' intelligence for the US, that is later shown to be wrong, may mean a few thousand people die. We have a responsibility to be more cautious. On the flip side, we are the biggest targets and the most paranoid about being hit. We are both often targeted, and also easily overreact to small things. Thus if the US had good intelligence about where to hit AQ and kill OBL and such types in Pakistan, and Musharref was opposed because he disagreed with our analysis, and we went ahead anyway, then there are really only two possible outcomes. We get OBL and/or such types and celebrate, or we miss, kill a wedding party or two, and are vilified. I think any President who orders an attack of that nature would have to hold the burden onto themselves, and be responsible for the consequences, one way or another. Leaders of countries must take actions to protect their citizens, and if wrong, must be willing to face the music. A big issues I have with Bush is his refusal to admit that the rational given for preventative war, WMD, was wrong, and thus he himself was wrong. One good reason for many people to avoid holding high office is to avoid the responsibility that invariably comes from making tough decisions. Bush makes the tough decisions but then avoids responsibility if they turn out to be wrong.
In specific answer to your question, I think the US was wrong to attack Iraq in 1998 (insufficient evidence of wrongdoing), wrong to bomb AQ targets in 1998 (insufficient intelligence to target), and wrong to invade Iraq in 2003 (insufficient evidence of wrongdoing). I do think we were right to invade Afghanistan in 2001, though we could have done it better, especially with a UN stamp of approval and more work done to lay the ground work for future action against AQ once the Taliban was eliminated.

[Xanthippas]

Having said that I think we should retire this Administration's foolish preemption doctrine, while also recognizing that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to act preemptively - say for example the takeover of Pakistan and its nukes by Islamic extremists.

The Bush doctrine is not a doctrine of pre-emptive war. It's one of preventive war, and there is a difference. Even if all of the conditions that were supposed to exist in Iraq actually existed (e.g., the WMDs) it still would have been a preventive war under the doctrines of just war or internationally recognized laws of war.

I know this is a minor point to your post, but I consider it my goal in life to get people in the blogosphere to understand the difference, especially when they're referring to the war in Iraq.

[Carlos]

The scenario of going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is exactly the kind of situation that argues for a law-enforcement type approach to combatting terrorism. Elevating the conflict against terrorists to a "War" gives them more legitimacy than they deserve. Terrorists are criminals, no different than the mob or the Crips and our response should reflect that.

Ideally we should be working to capture and prosecute whenever possible and try avoiding martyring these guys as much as possible. Once in custody, we should be applying proven interrogation techniques that police forces have been using for years to break up criminal gangs.

Now, if we knew with certainty that Osama bin Ladin was at a particular location and we could put a bomb there to take him out, we could probably justify that. But like I said, it would be much better to send a force in that could capture him so we could publicly try him.

Remember that America used to be so committed to the ideal of the rule of law and due process that we convinced the other Allies to hold real and actual trials for the Nazis, who were the worst criminals in all of human history. These were people who had engineered mechanized genocide on an almost unimaginable scale. Hardly anyone would have objected if we had lined them up against a wall and shot them without a trial, like the British perferred; or pushed through a few quick show-trials and then shot them, like the Russians wanted. But, in a move that was unprecedented in the history of war, we insisted on real trials with actual court procedures and rules of evidence, and actual legal representation for the defendants.

Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda are unquestionably bad but there's no argument to say that they are worse than the Nazis. Why are we so willing to discard our ideals when confronting the former, when we were strong enough to champion them against the latter?

[Carlos]

One clarification: by "proven interrogation techniques" I mean the kind of psychological techniques used in good police work: questioning, catching people in lies, gaining the trust of suspects, etc., and not any type of physical coercion.

[masaccio]

I understand you to say that if international law, perhaps Article 51, or some UN action authorizes invasion, then it is acceptable.

Let me push on that. What is the principle we would use to make this decision? My personal concern is that the US believes that fear is enough. Your example of Islamic Radicals taking over Pakistan is a perfect example. Exactly how is that a threat to the US? It seems that India would much more to fear than the US would, as Pakistan actually has missiles that could be used to attack, and it would be reasonably easy to move nuclear weapons into India overland or with an airplane. Surely we could prevent your putative jihadists from bringing a nuclear bomb into the country.

The willingness to consider the most horrible examples as the touchstone for policy is an intellectual mistake. The absolute presumption has to be respect for international boundaries, and respect for the people who live inside those boundaries. There aren't any exceptions driven by fear.

[Dan Kervick]

I'm not a lawyer either, Michael, but I would look at it this way: Once some party has launched an armed struggle against you, you are entitled to defend yourself continually against that party until you are able to bring about a cessation of that armed struggle. A WWII allied general can attack a Nazi or Japanese headquarters, for example, even those particular Nazis or Japanese are not engaged in a specific attack on that particular day. The question of imminence is moot, because the initial attack has already occurred, and the instigators of that attack have made it clear by their own declarations that they regard that attack as just one attack in an ongoing armed struggle they are waging against you. So unless and until the Al Qaeda leadership sues for peace or declares a truce, they are fair game.

But the question of legality aside, there are obviously very serious questions to be raised about the political and moral wisdom of such an attack, especially given the tense and unstable conditions that prevail in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Also, if it should turn out to be impossible to attack these hypothetical al-Qaeda leaders without inflicting harm on innocents, there is a further moral dimension to be considered.

It is also arguable that making martyrs out of romantic rebel mountain warriors in Pakistan, thus elevating their mythical status and re-igniting the fading passions that once burned hotly around them, is just the wrong way to go. This is especially the case when the real effectiveness of these alleged leaders has probably been greatly reduced, and may have been much exaggerated to begin with. We don't want impressionable young men to think of Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri as the new Old Men in the Mountain, leading a dashing band of assassins against the powers that be. We want to think of them as faded old has-beens, hiding in caves as they live out their last days in impotence.

When I saw that old Bin Laden tape, assuming it was genuine, that was supposedly found in Afghanistan following the US invasion, in which OBL bragged to his dinner companions that he knew that the plane attack on the World Trade Center would generate enough heat to cause the tower supports to fail and collapse, I thought to myself that this is a guy who is a master at taking credit for the initiatives of others and the vicissitudes of fortune. I know Bin Laden had training as an engineer, but my understanding is that while the process of the towers' collapse is now understood by many, the initial reaction among most of the world's engineering community to the towers' massive structural failure was shock and surprise. We shouldn't be taken in ourselves by Bin Laden's self-promotion. Anyway, the guy appears to be either dead or "retired".

Finally, I would suggest that we would do better to shift to more of a global law enforcement model in our approach to global terrorism, with only occasional low-key, small scale military assaults as needed, where apprehension of important figures is impossible, and should stop elevating the jihadist cause and building jihadist morale by portraying their violent activities as part of some kind of titanic generational struggle against a massive Empire of Islamofascist Evil. Terrorism is, regrettably, going to be with us for a long time, since there will always be terrorist-inclined rebels of some kind or other, and the growth of destructive technologies means that the Molotov cocktail thrower or pitchfork wielder of yesteryear is now a truck bomber or suicide bomber.

[Michael Cohen]

First of all, I want thank everyone who weighed in here tonight. Great stuff, indeed! I can't respond to everyone, but I'll do my best.

Several people have raised the point that the "war on terror" should be seen as a law enforcement issue, not a military issue. I completely agree and I wrote as much on this site in an earlier post. Kerry said in 2004 virtually the same thing and was of course predictably villified by the Bushies. He was right and I like the fact that in Obama's recent terrorism speech he makes a similar argument - that we can't continue to fight terrorists through exclusively military means. It's a shame that GOPers continue to sounds the same "force as first resort" argument, but I think a lot of credit goes to some Dems for trying to change the debate and argue for a more comprehensive approach to fighting terrorists. It's a bit risky in the current political environment, but they deserve our support.

On the issue of Article 51 and non-state actors, the UN Charter does not actually specify armed attack by another state, so by my reading Article 51 would apply to attacking AQ leadership (again with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, but that has been my understanding). Although Dan K probably summed it up best - we're at war with these folks. They're fair game. Tim argues that Article 51 may be outdated by modern WMD - I think it's a good point and the modern nature of international conflict (WMD in the hands of non-state actors) suggests that in fact it might be time to update Article 51 to reflect this new reality. I wonder if anyone out there is talking about amending the UN Charter to reflect changes in the international system. Would be kind of interesting exercise, don't you think?

Now many folks have argued that attacking AQ in Pakistan would be a move fraught with danger. I don't disagee, but if Musharraf can't be prodded into action then I think we must act if we think there is an excellent chance of taking out OBL and top AQ leadership. Now I say this with the caveat that we should exercise every possible alternative short of military force and do everything in our power to force Musharraf's hand. But in the end, I am of the view that the benefit of taking these guys out outweighs the costs. Not to sound overly flippant but when it comes to OBL I'm not too concerned with turning him into a martyr. Not only is he responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans, he is likely plotting to kill more and on a personal note, he murdered a very good friend of mine. . . Don't mean to sound to sound overly bloodthirsty (it's generally not in my nature) but on this question it's personal - and I also happen to think it's the right policy.

Finally, as to my hypothetical about Islamists getting control of Pakistan and its nukes, I would have to disagree that its a random hypothetical. This certainly could happen and while the US wouldn't be threatened directly our interests in the region certainly would. How would we respond? I think those who commented make the correct point that preemptive war doesn't make a ton of sense for the US, but clearly we might have to get involved. How is a question I'm not prepared to answer at 1:00 AM, but it's something important to think about :) Sorry for the punt, but it's been a long day! I'll try to touch on it tomorrow.

Thanks again for the commments, I'm really enjoying this back and forth.

[Lupin]

Dear Mr Cohen:

I would like to know if, under your guidelines, England would have been justified in attacking Ireland during the troubles with the IRA, or France Algeria when the GIA was detonating bombs in Paris, or even Spain France when the ETA often found refuge in France?

On a side note, if there were any greater power on Earth, I think that, based on its record, the US ought to be forcibly disarmed, just as much as Germany and Japan were. The notion that anyone is actually trying to invade us is laughable. The only policy that would be admirable and a true shining beacon in our case would be: "we shall never resort to violence, ever."

[IM]

Algeria or at least its goverment was fighting GIA, so the example doesn't works. But would have the UK had the right to use military force against IRA supporting Americans? The U.S. government did tolerate this activities, despite diplomatic pressure from the UK.
We already know the answer of Mr. Cohen: Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. And he wants revenge, dammit, and besides, non of his friends was ever murdered by the IRA...
I someone really a serious thinker on foreign politics, if he is mainly motivated by an irrational feeling, revenge?

[liberalrob]

Now many folks have argued that attacking AQ in Pakistan would be a move fraught with danger. I don't disagee, but if Musharraf can't be prodded into action then I think we must act if we think there is an excellent chance of taking out OBL and top AQ leadership. Now I say this with the caveat that we should exercise every possible alternative short of military force and do everything in our power to force Musharraf's hand. But in the end, I am of the view that the benefit of taking these guys out outweighs the costs.

Taking action inside the borders of Pakistan without the permission of the recognized government of Pakistan, and absent a U.N. resolution authorizing such action, is a violation of the U.N. Charter. Just because we CAN do it or because we really have an iron-clad case against Osama doesn't mean we get to violate international law. Not if we value that law.

"The benefit of taking these guys out outweighs the costs" is virtually identical to the Republican justification for taking out Saddam under false pretenses. Nobody argues that Saddam wasn't a bad guy. But if you make a habit of "taking out" people you don't like where does it end? It's just like the problem of vigiliantism in the Old West (or even today), but on a global scale. What's the point of international law if no one is going to follow it?

I would much prefer a concerted U.N. effort to take down Osama. The U.N. last fall agreed to a global strategy to combat terrorism, which did not address Osama specifically but laid out the framework for a global anti-terrorism effort. We should work that program to the fullest, rather than continually shaking our fist at the world and vowing to do whatever we feel is necessary to get that guy, and if you stand in our way we're going to run you over.

[masaccio]

I'm with liberalrob. The argument you proffer is just as valid as the argument for invading Iran, if the country is successful in building nuclear weapons. As I noted above, Pakistan, and by extension, Iran (which doesn't even have a decent air force) are not regimes that are likely to be able to deliver a weapon for use in the US, so their neighbors are in graver danger than we are. In the end, we don't get to invade other countries because we are afraid of what they might do.

Instead, I suggest we comply with the provisions of Article VIII of the UN Charter in their entirety. In general, it calls for international determination of the level of threat posed by a member nation, and points towards non-military means of reducing threat.

I say again, using extreme settings to make policy is an intellectual error. Just as the ticking bomb hypothetical results in the torture policies we now follow, invasion is the logical result of fear-mongering scenarios.

[Dan Kervick]

Not to sound overly flippant but when it comes to OBL I'm not too concerned with turning him into a martyr. Not only is he responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans, he is likely plotting to kill more and on a personal note, he murdered a very good friend of mine. . . Don't mean to sound to sound overly bloodthirsty (it's generally not in my nature) but on this question it's personal - and I also happen to think it's the right policy.

I can understand the personal sentiments, and desire for justice. But I really have my doubts as to just how important a figure OBL is, or ever was. My guess is that Osama could die tomorrow without the slightest impact on global terrorism one way or another. He may already be dead. Al-Qaeda as an organization seems to have been severely disrupted. What's left is "al-Qaedism" as a sort of global jihadist brand. Bin Laden is a logo, not a mastermind.

[Don Bacon]

There is no proof that OBL was connected to 9/11, according to the FBI.

[Quentin Crain]

For Michael's records I personally believe the absolute ONLY time ANY sort of aggression across national boundaries is justified is as self-defense during an attack on one's self. Any and all other action can only be taken on a UN SC resolution.

My belief is based on my understanding of international law. As such, Iraq was illegal in my mind. Obama's Pakistan would be illegal. And Michael's "Islamists getting control of Pakistan and its nukes" would be illegal.

Further, I feel any action outside self-defense is immoral. Anything else in my mind is not humanitarian.