RSS

Sat, Nov 13th 2010, 23:34

Jennifer Nicole Prystupa, NYU-CGA grad student, Silver Contributor (45)

Very nice insight. There definitely needs to be an attitude, if not a policy adjustment, to how "the laws of war" are perceived and interpreted. The question needs asked to policy makers: can one apply a war of unforeseen duration, essentially against an ideology of a minority population, to the traditional laws of war, a la the Geneva Conventions? This dates back for years, most recently to the conception of the GWOT, the definition of "enemy combatants" in that context, as well as Guantanamo. And a second thought of clarification: this is not a standard, traditional war of great armies (even in Iraq, though with America's military might, fought (bulldozed) the Iraqi "army;" yet it's most problematic obstacle was the fierce resistance from non-traditional forces). Forgive me, but the best description of what is going on cannot be called a war, but for lack of a better term, is the default word of the new millennium for this type of wide-scale, almost cyclical set of skirmishes.

But the author brings up an interesting point in terms of satellite imagery and targeting technology. How can this be applied to the laws of "war" as we find ourselves today? Sovereignty should matter, and I think a realist would say that this imagery and subsequent targeted killing violates sovereignty, but in reality (no pun intended) it doesn't. We've all heard reports of the Pakistani government giving the go-ahead, albeit silently, to the Obama Administration for targeted strikes against the Taliban in their territory. I think it was wise for the State Dept. to hold off on offering the Saudis the technology to fight the Houthis, given the sensitivity of the problems in Sana'a, the tribal regions in Yemen and what the Americans want to do there. I see France as less attached to the area, but wishing to stay relevant...in a positive way for once.

I also do not see Saudi Arabia (the government) as a threat to Israel - in fact it should be the other way around given the sophistication of the Israeli military, but both are more concerned with Iran than with each other. Can this trigger a regional satellite race? I don't think so, and given the fact that the Americans already shared the system with Turkey, are in control in Iraq, may or may not have assisted Israeli if the state is capable of doing so, I don't think it will happen. And France shared its intelligence with the Saudis...it is Western nations divulging the information and technologies. Syria and Lebanon more than likely would get help from Iran because they cannot afford it on their own, and the latter just began a satellite program, if I am not mistaken. But the level of sophistication of a U.S. and a France is a long way off.

I do agree that this form of violence, targeted killing is addictive as it is practical in theory. But it is not perfect, nor are the people behind it, mistakes will happen and given the modus operandi of the targets, civilians will be killed.