Osama in Pakistan

John McCain is asked whether he would order US forces to strike Osama bin Laden in Pakistan if they had a read on his location, and he bizarrely doesn't commit to doing so citing Pakistani sovereignty as his concern. That seems a bit odd to me; it's well-known and well-understood (though perhaps not by McCain) that the Pakistani government doesn't exercise effective control over significant swathes of its nominal territory and that this is a large part of the problem of al-Qaeda hideouts there.

Under the circumstances, Pakistani sovereignty can't be your top concern. The legitimate hesitation (though perhaps not the thing to say during an election) I would have before blasting away at OBL would have to do with collateral damage. Killing or capturing bin Laden would be an excellent thing to do, but with any of these targets it's probably more important to check first and make sure you're not also going to blow up a school bus or something as you go after the main target.

Comments

McCain: I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not the mountains of Pakistan.

Posted by JoshA | July 29, 2008 3:13 PM

McCain: I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not the mountains of Pakistan.

Does that mean the mountains of Pakistan are actually Hell?

Posted by Josh R. | July 29, 2008 3:16 PM

So, Pakistan lies beyond the gates of hell? That would explain a lot.

Meanwhile, Ambinder says:

To be fair, McCain's campaign tried this, giving their press corps a "junior varsity" pass and joking about the media's captivity. But "anger" and frustration" mean that McCain is letting us see him sweat. He 's wearing his discomfort on his sleeve.

McCain hasn't had to sweat a campaign since 1982. The fact that he's gone negative early and personally, both signs of weakness in any campaign, show that McCain is fraying under the pressure.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 3:18 PM

Well, Obama said he'd follow bin Laden into Pakistan. If McCain agreed with him, that'd make Obama seem competent in terms of foreign policy.

Ergo, McCain must disagree with Obama about foreign policy.

Posted by Paul | July 29, 2008 3:22 PM

Why does no one press McCain on this? It is a total contradiction to be so hawkish on the GWOT and Osama and then not even back Obama's plan to go into Pakistan if need be.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 29, 2008 3:26 PM

If McCain agreed with him, that'd make Obama seem competent in terms of foreign policy.

Which is why McCain is wearing Maliki like a condom when it comes to timelines for withdrawal.

Then it's "I did not have sex with that timeline."

Sheesh.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 3:29 PM

Well, Obama said he'd follow bin Laden into Pakistan. If McCain agreed with him, that'd make Obama seem competent in terms of foreign policy.

Ergo, McCain must disagree with Obama about foreign policy.

Either that or he'd have said yes, and the media would be saying "Finally, Obama now agrees with McCain that we should go after Bin Laden in Pakistan."

Posted by Lamenter | July 29, 2008 3:31 PM

Collateral damage? We regularly wipe out wedding parties in Afghanistan and Iraq garnering no apparent blow back or unusually bad stateside press over it. I swear our drones have targeting coordinates with the options "OBL", "Munitions factory", and "Wedding party". I seriously doubt ANYONE in the U.S. military or White House gives a shit about Pakistani civilians. Bush would nuke a small town given 110% assurance Bin Laden was at ground zero.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 3:35 PM

I love this. Matt thinks that launching a strike against a sovereign nation, without their permission - moreover, one armed with nuclear weapons - would be a good idea.

Simultaneously, he believes that it's a bad idea to try and prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

I wonder how he manages all the cognitive dissonance

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 3:38 PM

If former President Clinton has used a 15 megaton bomb instead of the precision munition when the Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan was attacked, Mr. bin Laden would already have joined the 72 virgins in paradise.

Posted by SLC | July 29, 2008 3:48 PM

Iraq was a sovereign nation too, but McCain didn't hesitate to support an invasion to seek out non-existent WMDs. And then hang around for maybe 100 years.

The Saudi-Bush Pact will not allow the neocons to "get" OBL under any circumstances. OBL could have lunch with Cindy, and the CINC of the Surge would look the other way.

Posted by Turnaround | July 29, 2008 3:58 PM

I'm pointing out Matt's confused thinking. He apparently has a list of countries that it would be ok to whack, and another list of ones that are not ok. What I wonder is what bizarro thought process he uses to come up with his list.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 4:02 PM

I'm pointing out Matt's confused thinking

Do you mind if we point out your confused rhetoric? An attack on OBL would be an attack on OBL not on Pakistan. And you sure don't squawk -- as pointed out above -- about Iraq.

I'd call yours "cognitive dissonance" if we had another source of proof above the cognitive part.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 29, 2008 4:11 PM

Calling Warizistan part of the "sovereign nation" of Pakistan is pushing the definition of soverienty mighty far.

Furthermore, in the past 20 years we've had a steady policy of dropping cruise missles on 3rd world nations, sovereign all (at least to the extent Pakistan is sovereign), to combat terrorism. Now, it's a problem?

Mr. Robinson - may I ask what you would be typing right now if it were Obama who said he wouldn't kill Osama in Pakistan?

Posted by MAX HATS | July 29, 2008 4:15 PM

Calling Warizistan part of the "sovereign nation" of Pakistan is pushing the definition of soverienty mighty far.

Furthermore, in the past 20 years we've had a steady policy of dropping cruise missles on 3rd world nations, sovereign all (at least to the extent Pakistan is sovereign), to combat terrorism. Now, it's a problem?

Mr. Robinson - may I ask what you would be typing right now if it were Obama who said he wouldn't kill Osama in Pakistan?

Posted by MAX HATS | July 29, 2008 4:17 PM

I think that McCain misstepped and should have said something along the lines of:

"I will go to the gates of hell, if necessary, to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice...but of course only after consulting with the Generals and if conditions on the ground allow it."

Posted by anonymoose | July 29, 2008 4:21 PM

"Do you mind if we point out your confused rhetoric? An attack on OBL would be an attack on OBL not on Pakistan. And you sure don't squawk -- as pointed out above -- about Iraq.

I'd call yours "cognitive dissonance" if we had another source of proof above the cognitive part."

Hmm. So if a Chinese dissident camps out in LA, the Chinese can bomb the neighborhood?

Where do you want to draw the line on what is and isn't a reasonable attack on a sovereign state?

Your bete noir, President Bush, did give the Taliban the option of surrendering bin Laden before he attacked. The problem with this whole thing is Obama's desire to "look tough" on the cheap.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 4:23 PM

May be he has to go through Hell, Michigan?

Posted by Nick Istre | July 29, 2008 4:24 PM

Senator McCain forgets that the United States struck at al Qaeda targets in pakistan earlier this year -- at least once, maybe more often. That has been U.S. policy in fact, if not officially stated, for some time now.

Senator Obama caught hell during the primaries when he said that (1) if there was actionable intellegence pointign to a target, (2) there was an immediate threat posed by that target, and (3) the Pakistanis were not willing or able to act, his administration would do exactly the same thing. That is not a new policy; it's what we've been doing for years.

So why won't Straight-Talk McCain say so?

Posted by Andy | July 29, 2008 4:30 PM

The difference is, when we've struck inside Pakistan it's been with the knowledge and permission of the Pakistani govt. Any attack we made - as Obama has said he would - without that could be enough to take down the Pakistani govt. One thing we don't need is an Islamist govt in Pakistan - and the kind of "stupidly tough" rhetoric Obama engages in, followed by the actions he suggests, could lead to that

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 4:35 PM

I am surprised no one is mentioning that Obama get hammered in the debate 6 months ago when he said he'd follow OBL into Pakistan to get him, if necessary. Why is McCain wimping out now?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 29, 2008 4:36 PM

I don't think I've ever agreed with SLC - but he is right to recall that Osama bin Laden has enjoyed a curious immunity from two presidents. Clinton, who treated him with kid gloves, and Bush, who gave him even better treatment under much sorer provocation. Doesn't it make anybody wonder? If Osama bin Laden were the son of a washerwoman from Damascus, does anybody doubt he'd be dead right now? Funny how the multi-millionaire son of a billionaire family with extensive connections throughout the business and political system in the U.S. just does seem to escape harm. What a scamp he is. Gee, I wonder why? The first reaction of the Bush administration, after 9/11, was to make sure that a selected number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, got airlifted to safety back home. Who knows, maybe the last act will be explaining why OBL has set up camp again in some province of Afghanistan.

So I'd be surprised if either Obama or McCain would, if elected, intentionally harm a hair on his head. After all - Saudi Arabia is our ally and, as Tony Blair, in his finest Churchillian moment, said, a friend of democracy - unlike those mad mullahs in Iran!

These are the dysfunctions that happen when the governing class's interests start to diverge in a major way from the county in which they are nested. Remember, our leaders are eminently bribeable.

Posted by roger | July 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Your bete noir, President Bush, did give the Taliban the option of surrendering bin Laden before he attacked. The problem with this whole thing is Obama's desire to "look tough" on the cheap.

Quoth Obama in August of last year: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Emphasis mine, of course. The scenario described by Obama is identical to the one that led us to invade Afghanistan. Which is why it's especially perplexing to me that McCain won't sign on.

And surely you're not comparing a Chinese dissident to the orchestrator of the largest act of terror in history? No, China wouldn't drop bombs on Los Angeles, because if a man who'd killed 3,000 Chinese civilians were taking refuge in the U.S., we'd find him and turn him over.

Posted by Andrew Dupont | July 29, 2008 4:44 PM

James Robertson: Your scenario is completely illogical. On one hand, you inherently stipulate that Pakistan will not give the go-ahead on actionable intelligence (because otherwise there would be no debate in the first place). Therefore, Bin Laden can hide in Pakistan till kingdom come. How do you reconcile this with McCain's pathetic posturing "I know how to win wars! I know how to catch Bin Laden"?

This is totally ridiculous.

Besides, there was at least one predator-missile attack without Pakistan approval. What a huge deal that was (none, actually)

For someone screaming "no timetables, no timetables, they can just wait us out", it doesn't make sense to make the capture or killing of Bin Laden subject to prior permission by Pakistan. And it sure makes his "I'll follow him to the gates of hell" all the more embarrassing.

Posted by Mentar | July 29, 2008 4:53 PM

You notify ISI when the missile leaves the drone but before it hits the target. It's like unwanted company that calls to say they are coming when they are on your street. "Hello Pakistan? We're coming over! No need to go to any trouble. We've brought takeout."

Posted by joejoejoe | July 29, 2008 5:07 PM

I love how tough the left is about Pakistan, and how adamant they are that the middle east (a much more strategic area) is of no relevance. I also predict that the left will be in favor of sending missiles into the tribal areas right up until the election - afterwards, it will be a very bad idea, and will always have been a very bad idea.

Posted by James Robertson | July 29, 2008 5:14 PM

I thought that when this question first came up last year, Obama was careful to add a caveat - something about only going in to get Bin Laden if the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling to do it themselves. Now the media babble at the Larry King level has apparently turned this into a debate about sending in troops as soon as we get the actionable intelligence on Bin Laden, Pakistani capabilities or no Pakistani capabilities. McCain is right to stay away from this kind of commitment, and Obama should make it clear that such was not the commitment he made last year either.

There is also a very big difference to my mind between "sending in troops" and launching some sort of aerial attack. An aerial attack can have international political costs, but it happens quickly, and is then over and done with. It's lower risk. Sending in troops is much more likely to result in some sort of Bay of Pigs-style crisis incident, including possibly a standoff, a situation where our forces are pinned down or captured, or killed on television etc. The whole thing could easily turn into a fiasco or worse, and set nuclear-armed Pakistan off into a political explosion of Anti-American fury, or terrorism-obsessed America off into a political explosion of anti-Pakistan fury.

I really hate supporting the mythology that The Great Osama Bin Laden remains a grave threat to the US, of such an order that we would throw a gigantic interventionist monkey wrench into nuclearized South Asia just to get him. I tend to doubt seriously the gravity of the Bin Laden threat. And frankly, given our crappy diplomatic position in the world, I don't think the United States should be using its presidential election campaign right now to tell the globe that we are still inclined to go traipsing into foreign lands, and violating the sovereignty of nations willy-nilly, only to chase after the impotent, has-been hermit Osama Bin Laden. I understand the political demagoguery value of Bin Laden as Emmanuel Goldstein. But can't we ask for slightly more serious debate? And if there might perhaps be a need to send in covert special forces to do something like this someday, we should keep it under our hats and not go bellowing about it on blogs and CNN studios.

This is one reason I hate election campaigns. The national discourse gets spectacularly stupid and thoughtless. Now Mr. Liberal Internationalist, Matt Yglesias, wants to join in the collective dumboism.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 29, 2008 5:15 PM

A country has to exercise effective control of an area to claim sovereignty over that area. International law recognizes this, but it is still a serious issue.

The problem is that McCain likes the military leadership of that country, and he won't do anything to piss 'em off.

Posted by tomj | July 29, 2008 5:21 PM

I don't think "the left" would have thought it was "acting tough" to suggest if we knew where Osama Bin Ladin was that we would strike him in the fall of 2001. I think "America" would have thought it was "the bare fucking minimum".

Posted by joejoejoe | July 29, 2008 5:27 PM

Following up on my previous comment, all I'm asking for is a little bit of restraint and discretion here. If either candidate is asked about this hypothetical, I think he should respond roughly as follows:

If my administration were made aware of the precise location of Osama Bin Laden, or any terrorist threat to the United States for that matter, inside Pakistan, then we would seek to work with the government of Pakistan to eliminate the threat, and would expect their full cooperation. If the Pakistanis were unable to assist us in that effort, or were unwilling to do so, then we would of course have to consider at that time other options in defense of our national interests. What those other options might be I have no intention of discussing at this juncture. I know that my opponent agrees with me that an election campaign is no place for loose talk, in response to vaguely defined hypotheticals and contingencies, about potential US operations inside the territory of other United Nations member states. I think the American people understand the need for circumspection as well. But they can rest assured that I will do whatever is necessary to protect Americans from terrorist attacks and defend US national interests.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 29, 2008 5:53 PM

Under the circumstances, Pakistani sovereignty can't be your top concern.

Great, so the US has the right to attack any country at any time as long as someone shouts "Al Qaeda" or "war on terror" loud enough.

Posted by novakant | July 29, 2008 6:12 PM

I gotta agree with Kervick here. I think the idea of sovereignty has no bearing on the political ramifications of sending a cruise missile or troops into any country. Do you think the idea that International Law does or does not apply to the particular area comfort the residents of said area?

Is there really much to be gained from a proverbial sword fight over who would bomb another country, or send troops into said country, given one of those "if we knew 100% that OBL was there" Jack Bauer type scenarios, especially coming from a Democratic Party establishment thats trying to put forth a sane, sensible and balanced approach to foreign policy?

Posted by Adrock | July 29, 2008 6:13 PM

Of course McCain does NOT want Bin Laden caught or killed, as that would represent the accomplishment of a major war aim. And without him at large and videotaping residual support for the 'War on Terror' would subside.

Bush and Bin Laden always needed each other . . . Bush needed the threat and fear of terror to become the 'war president' who could initiate the 'slow-motion coup' described by Lawrence Tribe. No war, no war president, no power grab, no republican ascendency, no diverting trillions to cronies.

And of course Bin Laden needed Bush to recruit and activate and radicalize his followers. Perfect outsourcing for him.

No wonder we dropped the hunt at Tora Bora, and refuse to pursue. It's well worked out to everyone's advantage. If the case for 'war' were lessened McCain would be left with no argument, specious or otherwise, for his election.

Posted by embarc | July 29, 2008 6:17 PM

Of course McCain does NOT want Bin Laden caught or killed, as that would represent the accomplishment of a major war aim. And without him at large and videotaping residual support for the 'War on Terror' would subside.

Bush and Bin Laden always needed each other . . . Bush needed the threat and fear of terror to become the 'war president' who could initiate the 'slow-motion coup' described by Lawrence Tribe. No war, no war president, no power grab, no republican ascendency, no diverting trillions to cronies.

And of course Bin Laden needed Bush to recruit and activate and radicalize his followers. Perfect outsourcing for him.

No wonder we dropped the hunt at Tora Bora, and refuse to pursue. It's well worked out to everyone's advantage. If the case for 'war' were lessened McCain would be left with no argument, specious or otherwise, for his election.

Posted by embarc | July 29, 2008 6:18 PM

We actually launched an attack on a terrorist target in Pakistan without permission from the Pakistani government in January.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500_pf.html

Posted by Matt M. | July 29, 2008 6:37 PM

I gotta agree with Kervick here. I think the idea of sovereignty has no bearing on the political ramifications of sending a cruise missile or troops into any country. Do you think the idea that International Law does or does not apply to the particular area comfort the residents of said area?

Now we're getting into military minutiae. Obviously any attack in Waziristan (a remote, sparsely-populated region, mind you) would want to be done with precision and with as little risk as possible to other residents of the area.

But where do we draw the line? Is it honestly necessary to say that we can only take out OBL if we're 100.0% certain he's in a particular location, and 100.0% sure that said attack will only kill him and his henchmen? Obviously that'll never happen. I'm not a heartless bastard; I'd want the odds to be around 90% for the first and 98% for the second. But anything stricter than that, in my mind, ignores the age-old wartime calculus: will a few deaths up front prevent twenty times as many later on?

Is there really much to be gained from a proverbial sword fight over who would bomb another country, or send troops into said country, given one of those "if we knew 100% that OBL was there" Jack Bauer type scenarios, especially coming from a Democratic Party establishment thats trying to put forth a sane, sensible and balanced approach to foreign policy?

You're talking about political ramifications and I'm talking about what we'd actually do, irrespective of the political value in stating it. Either McCain honesty thinks we shouldn't ever make targeted strikes in Waziristan, regardless of the strength of the intelligence; or he thinks it's impolitic to agree with his opponent on this issue. I'm not sure which disturbs me more.

Posted by Andrew Dupont | July 29, 2008 7:34 PM

Um, no, Pakistani sovereignty _is_ your main concern, and this is a flat stupid, dangerous opinion you're voicing. Hell, you should put it as some kind of disclaimer on _HITS_. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not Pakistan controls the area effectively, they _think_ it's theirs and no other nation denies it, and going into the northwest of Pakistan because you find one high-value target there, and justifying it with, "you guys don't control that area well anyway," is actually a much, much, much dumber idea than, say, a war with Iran would be. We've done it recently, on the border, in a way that didn't involve a lot of the command chain, and with a lot of excuses ready for Pakistan. But the kind of premeditated thing McCain is being asked about there? In a context of, I could go ask the Pakistanis or just go do it? That would be the worst foreign policy mistake in modern history.

Posted by Sanjay | July 29, 2008 7:55 PM

citing Pakistani sovereignty as his concern. That seems a bit odd to me

Funny how irksome "sovereignty" is to Americans.

Besides, it might have more to do with the fact that Musharraf threatened to retaliate against NATO forces if attacks hit his country.

All of it is for show, of course, and nothing more. Neither McCain nor Obama will hesitate in the face of quaint notions of sovereignty, but Obama is demonstrating his diplomatic naivete by actually saying it out loud. Tsk, tsk, not supposed to do that. Bombing? Sure. Saying you'll bomb. Now, that's a no-no.

Even Musharraf's "threat" is for show, looking tough in the face of American overreach and especially after being considered an American "puppet." NATO has launched several strikes in Pakistan in recent months.

Posted by anderson | July 29, 2008 9:34 PM

Mr. Robertson

1) Saying an attack into Pakistan would lead to dissolving the government betrays total ignorance of the situation there. We have already, and continue to, launch attacks into Pakistan. The government is still standing. For what it's worth. Which isn't much.

2) Treating "the left" as a monolithic entity betrays equal ignorance of domestic politics. Of course some on "the left" would object to an attack into Pakistan. Others would not. It's a pretty divided idea space over here on the not-cult-worshipping Bush side of the political fence. Always has been. Do you read? Things? Besides LGF and Malkin?

Posted by MAX HATS | July 29, 2008 9:52 PM

During the Repug. debates McCain said he would go to hell and back to get Osama... but now he won't go to Pakistan. More straight talk. He sure knows how to win those wars.

Posted by dr.steveb | July 29, 2008 11:19 PM

If I was an old man with skin cancer I'd watch that "go to hell" talk.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2008 11:22 PM

"Your bete noir, President Bush, did give the Taliban the option of surrendering bin Laden before he attacked."

So has Obama dumbass.

Posted by mike | July 29, 2008 11:45 PM

Very well-stated by Dan Kervick and James Robertson.

I'm an Obama supporter from Day 1, but I am extremely concerned about what appears to be astonishing naiveity on his part concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It's all well and good to posture "tough" about these places while down-sizing the force in Iraq to avoid charges of "surrender" or "weakness" from the Republicans. But if he really believes his own bullshit here, we could be in for some tough sledding.

In the first place, the idea that we can "subdue the Taliban", who are basically "the Pashtuns", by sending a few more brigades into the Hindu Kush is ridiculous on its face. Moreover, while stabilizing Iraq is central to our vital interests, Afghanistan is at best peripheral.

Second, blundering into a war with Pakistan would make our experience in Iraq look like Grenada.

Posted by robert powell | July 30, 2008 7:24 AM

Talk about what I believe to be gross misrepresentations of the Obama position.

As far as I know (if this is incorrect, please feel free to point out inaccuracies WITH SOURCES), the Obama position is this:

1) If the US acquires actionable information on the whereabouts of OBL, he will try to obtain cooperation from Pakistan to apprehend or kill him.

2) If Pakistan refuses to comply, Obama reserves the right to act on the information _without_ approval from Pakistan. This includes aerial attacks (e.g. Predator rockets) or commando operations. It does NOT include waging a conventional war against Pakistan with ground troops.

This is essentially the very same policy which has been in use under Bush. There has been at least one Predator strike which became known, so most likely multiple more of those happened without our knowledge.

It's ludicrous from McCain to blow hot air like "follow him to the gates of hell" and at the same time asking Islamabad for permission. Especially since just recently America officially complained that based on CIA findings the Pakistani intelligence agency is _cooperating_ with terrorist groups.

So that's the McCain story? Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so nothing must happen, no matter what I blather all the time? Okay - it's a position one can take, I guess. But then it would be just all the more vital for Iran and other islamic nations to go nuclear. So that's how you want the story to go on? Letting terrorist groups roam freely in Pakistan while other nations develop nukes for full protection?

Wow.

Posted by Mentar | July 30, 2008 7:56 AM

Matt: "Under the circumstances, Pakistani sovereignty can't be your top concern."

You're an idiot, Matt.

More precisely, you're a "liberal hawk"/"liberal interventionist" idiot.

Forgot that bullshit about "liberal internationalist" - you're a fucking hawk. Admit it, oh ball-less one.

You may be against the war in Iran, but you're still totally fucking clueless when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 31, 2008 5:03 AM

John McCain is asked whether he would order US forces to strike Osama bin Laden in Pakistan if they had a read on his location, and he bizarrely doesn't commit to doing so citing Pakistani sovereignty as his concern.

It’s odd that McCain said this, since the “sovereignty” of states other than the US is antithetical to Bush’s extraordinary post-9/11 course of conduct, which McCain has supported from the beginning, with some minor exceptions. I would have expected him to say that all options are always on the table, or some synonymous utterance. I would vote for him, but only under torture. I wouldn’t critcize him for the remarks that Matt attributes to him.

With few exceptions, states do not send their warplanes to other states kill individuals in such locations, or claim the right to do so. With few exceptions, were a state to have such an attack occur within its borders, it would object, and demand remedies. These protests would be presented to the offending state via ambassadorial channels, to the UN, and to any international adjudicatory fora that had jurisdiction to consider them, and to the media. That the protests would characterize the attack as a violation of the state’s sovereignty is certain, because it would be. This is not bizarre. It is the sovereign state that has standing to protest the attack, and further the responsibility to do so.

If an attack for the purposes described above was conducted, after the attacking state had requested permission from the state on whose territory the attack would take place, an the latter had given its permission; and the person targeted was killed, and no one else was harmed, would the permission obviate the “concerns” about sovereignty such as McCain expressed when asked about air strikes to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan?

A state’s sovereignty doesn’t give it the authority to do anything it chooses, inside or outside its borders. Customary international law, and also human rights treaty law that most states are party to, prohibit torture, and non-judicial executions, among other things. An air strike by a state that kills a targeted person in the territory another state is an example of the latter. Permission from the sovereign state where the attack took place is not a defense. A state’s sovereignty does not include the authority to give such permission (nor to perpetuate an otherwise identical killing within its own borders). The purported permission would be a nullity. However the sovereignty of the permitting state, as I understand it, would make it a party to the killing it attempted to authorize.

I favor an international order based on the rule of law. For much of its history, the US did too. It didn’t always act within the law. From the beginning of the twentieth century, the US was the most influential advocate of a law-based international order. The US wrote the UN charter, and, as the leader of the winning side in WWII, was in a position to secure its adoption. At present, the US is the most influential, indeed the only, declared opponent of the scheme it once championed. Its present position is the result of political choices, not pre-determinined by structural factors, nor US culture. Nor is it required by the dangers of terrorism.

Posted by Tom Doyle | August 1, 2008 8:03 AM

Nice post, Mr. Doyle.

I would only presume to revise in that "the US wrote the UN Charter" should include Britain; and the USSR, because the American State Department official doing much of the work was a Soviet asset, and that Stalin, who was perhaps more than the US "the leader of the winning side", had considerable additional influence both on the original document, and subsequent de facto amendments.

Posted by robert powell | August 1, 2008 9:05 AM