Who should be running the shadow war?

“Who should be running the shadow war?” asks a recent New York Times article which simultaneously exposes and lends support to the recent shift towards secret, unaccountable, and unconstitutional military aggression by the United States government.

The attack offered a glimpse of the Obama administration’s shadow war against Al Qaeda and its allies. In roughly a dozen countries – from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife – the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists.

The White House has intensified the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone missile campaign in Pakistan, approved raids against Qaeda operatives in Somalia and launched clandestine operations from Kenya. The administration has worked with European allies to dismantle terrorist groups in North Africa, efforts that include a recent French strike in Algeria. And the Pentagon tapped a network of private contractors to gather intelligence about things like militant hide-outs in Pakistan and the location of an American soldier currently in Taliban hands.

While the stealth war began in the Bush administration, it has expanded under President Obama, who rose to prominence in part for his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Virtually none of the newly aggressive steps undertaken by the United States government have been publicly acknowledged. In contrast with the troop buildup in Afghanistan, which came after months of robust debate, for example, the American military campaign in Yemen began without notice in December and has never been officially confirmed.

Obama administration officials point to the benefits of bringing the fight against Al Qaeda and other militants into the shadows. Afghanistan and Iraq, they said, have sobered American politicians and voters about the staggering costs of big wars that topple governments, require years of occupation and can be a catalyst for further radicalization throughout the Muslim world.

Progressives who continue to defend and cheerlead for President Obama because they’re afraid that the right wing will destroy his presidency need to ask themselves at what point they will drop their loyalty to Obama and/or the Democratic Party, and take a stand against the imperial madness that Obama is accelerating.

While the Times article provides tacit approval of such a shadow war — asking questions only of its effectiveness rather than its moral or constitutional validity  — the people of the U.S. need to go much further and ask where this strategy is leading. As the White House, Pentagon, and CIA expand their shadow aggression to new lands, and beef up programs for covert destruction, it is time for the good people of the U.S. to derail this agenda, regardless of the impact on President Obama’s legacy. At the very least, U.S. citizens need to force Obama to take a clear stand, and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is an ethical, empathetic leader of good will. Nearly every single move of his presidency has shown the opposite. Robert Gibbs was wrong that those who compare Obama to Bush ought to be drug-tested. Obama is far more dangerous because progressive-minded citizens who took to the streets against Bush’s wars are mindlessly and reflexively supporting many of the same devastating policies.  

It is time to make sure that you are NOT building a religion. Are Obama supporters opiated? Who needs to be drug-tested?