Por exemplo, na última sexta-feira um ataque de drone [avião não tripulado] visando Hakimullah Mehsud, do Tehreek-e-Taliban Paquistão (TTP) teria acabado com a vida do alvo e de pelo menos outras 25 pessoas. Como se para fornecer prova adicional da condição do presidente de homicida bem-sucedido, o cômputo de mortes decorrentes daquela decisão poderá atingir muito mais do que os diretamente afetados. Isso porque referido ataque foi efetuado com violação direta de divulgada promessa a Shahbaz Sharif, ministro principal da Província de Punjab, no Paquistão, de que os Estados Unidos não efetuariam quaisquer ataques de drones durante suas conversações de paz com o TTP. Aparentemente essas conversações dependiam de tal promessa, e o TTP imediatamente retirou-se, dizendo que não deseja paz com “escravos dos Estados Unidos.”

A reação do Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos foi afirmar que as conversações de paz eram “assunto interno” do Paquistão. “Assunto interno” ou não, eram esperança de paz no Paquistão, e é preciso ser muito insensível para ordenar o ataque apesar disso.

Você talvez esteja dizendo para si próprio que, apesar desse programa em andamento de matança por meio de drones por todo o Oriente Médio, pelo menos Obama progrediu em ir mudando de ideia quanto ao envolvimento dos Estados Unidos no Iraque. Se você se disse isso, falou cedo demais. No mesmo dia em que fuzilou esperanças de paz no Paquistão, Obama reuniu-se com o primeiro-ministro iraquiano Nouri al-Maliki. O foco dessa conversa — curiosamente não impedida por ataque de drones dos aliados de nenhuma das partes — foi como o governo dos Estados Unidos poderia ajudar a “repelir” a al Qaeda no Iraq.

Juntamente com seus conhecimentos gerais de todos os tópicos relacionados com matar, Obama presenteou al-Maliki com ajuda militar adicional. Entre as contribuições de Obama para tal ciclo de violência estarão aviões de combate F-16 colocados nas mãos do primeiro-ministro.

Obviamente, com tudo isso foi feita a sugestão de Obama de que os mortos na guerra do Iraque seriam vistos com grande respeito se o Iraque se tornasse uma democracia plena. Presumivelmente, isso significa ser similar à democracia plena que deu início à guerra.

Pode ser que Obama esteja confiante em que al-Maliki usará essa dádiva de força militar para inaugurar nova era de paz e liberdade, mas os cidadãos do Iraque têm razões para sentir de modo diverso. Não parece improvável que a crescente desordem no Iraque deva-se em parte ao comportamente cleptocrático e autoritário do líder do país.

Dar a al-Maliki as armas de que ele precisa poderá ser uma forma de combater a al Qaeda, mas será também meio de assegurar a continuação da repressão violenta aos civis iraquianos.

Isto destaca uma das coisas que tornam Obama tão verdadeiramente excelente em matar pessoas: mesmo quando ele não pode promover o derramamento de sangue diretamente, pode pelo menos ajudar algum outro governo a fazê-lo à moda própria. Amiúde, há também mortes dominó resultantes de efeitos adversos imprevistos ou distúrbios sociais que o envolvimento mais direto dele causa, como no acima mencionado ataque à paz no Paquistão.

Entretanto, essa perícia técnica não é exclusiva dele. Não é só Obama que é “realmente eficaz em matar pessoas.” Hiroshima e Nagasaki sabem muito bem como Truman era bom nisso. É difícil, também, competir com as campanhas de Lyndon Johnson no Vietnã.

Além de apenas os dos Estados Unidos, outros chefes de estado (como o já mencionaldo al-Maliki) também não são muito incompetentes nisso. Há bastantes exemplos tão óbvios que nem preciso nomeá-los. E o mesmo se aplica a todo chefe de estado, especialmente no funcionamento de sua força policial, pelo tempo em que desejem continuar sendo chefes de estado.

Há muitas áreas de razoável debate acerca de se o governo é instituição eficaz ou ineficaz. Matança não é uma dessas áreas.

Se você gosta de ver pessoas morrendo em grande número sem qualquer fim à vista, manter os governos do mundo no poder é sua melhor opção. Se você gosta de ver pessoas não morrendo em grande número sem qualquer fim à vista, trabalhar contra o governo poderá não resolver o problema, mas provavelmente mal não fará.

Artigo original afixado por Jason Lee Byas em 4 de novembro de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

For example, last Friday a drone strike targeting Hakimullah Mehsud of the Tehreek-e- Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly ended his life and at least 25 other lives. As if to provide further proof of the president’s status as a successful killer, the death toll from that decision might reach much higher than those directly affected. That’s because that strike was in direct violation of reported promises to Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Pakistan’s Punjab Province, that the United States would not perform any drone strikes during their peace talks with the TTP. Apparently those talks hinged on this promise, and the TTP immediately withdrew, saying they want no peace with “US slaves.”

The United States State Department’s response was to claim that the peace talks were “an internal matter” for Pakistan. “Internal matter” or not, it was a hope for peace in Pakistan, and it takes quite a calloused soul to call in the strike in spite of that.

You might be saying to yourself that even with his ongoing program of drone killings across the Middle East, at least Obama has slowly moved away from United States involvement in Iraq. If you did, you spoke too soon. The same day that he gunned down hopes for peace in Pakistan, Obama met with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. The focus of these talks — curiously not prevented by a drone strike from either side’s allies — was on how the US government could help “push back” against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Along with his general wisdom about all topics related to killing, Obama gifted al-Maliki with additional military aid. Among Obama’s contributions to that cycle of violence will be F-16 fighter jets placed in the prime minister’s hands.

Of course, all of this came Obama’s suggestion that those dead from the Iraq War would be most honored if Iraq became more of a functioning democracy. Presumably, this means being like the functioning democracy that started the war.

Obama might rest assured that al-Maliki will use this gift of military strength to usher in a new era of peace and freedom, but the citizens of Iraq have reason to feel differently. It doesn’t seem unlikely that the growing disorder in Iraq is partially due to his own kleptocratic and authoritarian behavior.

To give al-Maliki the weapons he needs might be one way of combating al Qaeda, but it’s also one way to ensure the continued violent repression of Iraqi civilians.

This highlights one of those things that make Obama so truly excellent at killing people:  even when he can’t bring the bloodshed directly, he can at least help some other government do it their way. Often, there are also domino deaths resulting from the blowback or social unrest his more direct involvement causes, as in the earlier mentioned strike on Pakistani peace.

However, this technical prowess isn’t unique to him. It’s not just Obama who’s “really good at killing people.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki know all too well how good Truman was at it. Lyndon Johnson’s campaigns in Viet Nam, too, are hard to compete with.

Beyond just the United States, other heads of state (such as the aforementioned al-Maliki) aren’t too bad themselves. There are plenty of examples so obvious I don’t even need to name them. Yet it also applies to every head of state, especially in the operation of their police force, as long as they want to keep being a head of state.

There are plenty of areas of reasonable debate about whether government is effective or ineffective. Killing isn’t one of them.

If you value people dying in large numbers without any end in sight, keeping the governments of the world in power is your best bet. If you value people not dying in large numbers without any end in sight, working against government might not solve it, but it probably wouldn’t hurt.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Obama Prova Ser Realmente Eficaz em Matar Pessoas.

Violence has become our foreign policy – it is the status quo. Our nation-state acts as an agent of terror to occupied territories and lesser states under its influence. The system will stop at no cost. As Bush-era “shock and awe” grew unpopular, the system was able to change the face of its aggression with the Obama era drone wars.

Perhaps what is most disturbing is the support the public lauds on politicians who support aggressive foreign policy. This represents the decaying moral fabric of the nation – the economy, scandals and social issues dominate public thought. Hawks such as Lindsey Graham (waging an all out assault on the habeas corpus), vulgar libertarians such as Rand Paul (whose filibuster, cheered as patriotic by the very people who supported the invasion of Iraq, did not call for the end of drone attacks overseas, only to protect us Americans) and let’s not forget the most effective evil, the noble peace prize-winning Commander-in-Chief (whose NDAA effectively silences dissent, much more ominous than the Patriot Act – who he himself signed again) are all popular politicians. What has become of the anti-war movement?

Our foreign policy is morally unjust. As our troops are separated from their loved ones, flown overseas, killed and maimed, so too are innocent people in our occupied territories. Towns and villages are bombed, occasions such as weddings, birthdays and funerals are bombed, first responders are bombed, men, women and children are murdered, families are torn apart, hundreds of thousands are displaced, people are indefinitely detained and tortured in detainment. Our tax dollars fund this inconceivable aggression, but what is the scandal – the targeting of political groups? What about state sanctioned murder?

We are laying waste to helpless people, who have often been repressed by dictators and authoritarian regimes we placed in power. Where is our national conscience? We were hurt when people cheered September 11^th, but then acted just as barbaric at the news of Bin Laden’s death. How do we not get it?

Change must come from within. The system will obviously still act, regardless of falling public support for the war. But, we are an obedient society. The more we obey the harsher the state becomes, and the more it is able stop dissent. With laws such as the NDAA, the state has defined what is just, but it is the state that is unjust.

The state says in order to uphold the American way we must be strong, and our economy must grow at any cost – this rhetoric is championed by conservatives and liberals alike. We can stand for this no more. We need freed markets, we need to decentralize our institutions, we need to develop alternatives to power, we need to change our moral consciousness. Humanity needs peace.

Our crisis is institutional, but also moral and intellectual. If the government will not stop the war, we must stop the government. Will we?

…about the question of oversight, and the related pleas for “accountability” and “transparency”: keep in mind what the Murder Program is. The executive branch claims that it can murder anyone it chooses anywhere in the world, for any reason it wishes. Someone needs to explain to me how oversight, accountability and transparency will make such a program better. But they can’t explain that — because it cannot be done. A program that is evil in the manner the Murder Program is evil cannot be “improved,” or “managed” so as to make it decent and humane. The Murder Program is an abomination. You don’t “fix” abominations of this kind. You end them. You end them this very moment. As I said about this issue last November:

Evil does not become less evil because people are “open” about it. It is not miraculously transformed into good through some mysterious process of alchemy. Evil becomes only worse, infinitely worse. …

So if certain “critics” of the Murder Program get what they want, the State will be blessedly open about its programs devoted to evil. It will torture and murder regularly, perhaps every day, but in broad daylight, with all of us watching.

And a lot of people will be very pleased indeed. Pleased, hell. They’ll be goddamned thrilled.

The document, 16 pages of Bushian doublespeak, declares “Here the Justice Department concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force would be lawful.”

Those conditions? “[A]n informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”

In other words, we’ll obliterate you because of reasons, and you’re now a terrorist because we said so.

Anwar al-Awlaki, to whom the Justice Department refers when it writes, “a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida,” was killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011; his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, died in another drone strike weeks later. Their deaths, not to mention numerous other killings in Yemen, were well-documented by reporters, including Jeremy Scahill. Yet the government has continued to refuse to publicly acknowledge that it assassinated two American citizens.

From page two of the DOJ white paper:

“Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment, that individual’s citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal operation. Under the traditional due process balancing analysis of Mathews v. Eldridge, we recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a person’s interest in his life. But that interest must be balanced against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans that arises from an individual who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida and/or an associated force of al-Qa’ida and who is engaged in plotting against the United States.”

This paragraph, in particular, seems to rustle the jimmies of more than just your average ACLU lawyer, Glenn Greenwald or libertarians of all stripes. According to the Associated Press, several Democratic senators, including Maryland’s Steny Hoyer and Delaware’s Chris Coons, are leading an increasingly loud congressional outcry against the administration’s drone program. Panels have been scheduled, investigations convened, etc., in the name of bringing the drone program under congressional control.

While it’s definitely a good thing that even Democrats are finally concerned about the utter wrongness of drone assassinations, “congressional control” is exactly the opposite of what we want. The military drone program, among other things, needs to be completely dismantled, not “regulated.”

For the record, it should be pointed out that this white paper isn’t exactly revelatory. It confirms the claims of drone critics offered over the last five years — that this program grants the executive branch massive power, more power than any one person can stand up to. And it proves that the critics weren’t just spinning their wheels.

When al-Awlaki and son (who hadn’t been linked to any sort of terrorist organization to begin with) were killed, when Samir Khan was killed, people tried to call out the Obama administration for engaging in the worst kind of authoritarianism. They were shouted down by supporters who thought the only goal of criticizing the administration on this issue was to cost Obama re-election.

Think about that for a second: People protesting the assassination of American citizens were scorned for raising a “petty, divisive” wedge issue in electoral politics. The absurdity of this scenario threatens to implode the universe.

Now that it isn’t “just a wedge issue,” this statement maybe won’t be so derided: The drone program is murderous and must be stopped. We need a ground-up anti-war movement to ensure that it is stopped, along with every other act of imperialism perpetrated by this government.

You’ve got all the evidence you could possibly need. The ball is in your court.