No Comment — May 23, 2012, 1:12 pm

Behold the Lord High Executioner!

Kimberley Dozier of the Associated Press reports that the burden of making the life-and-death decisions surrounding drone use is settling on the shoulders of a single man, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan:

White House counterterror chief John Brennan has seized the lead in guiding the debate on which terror leaders will be targeted for drone attacks or raids, establishing a new procedure to vet both military and CIA targets. The move concentrates power over the use of lethal U.S. force outside war zones at the White House.

The process, which is about a month old, means Brennan’s staff consults the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies as to who should go on the list, making a previous military-run review process in place since 2009 less relevant, according to two current and three former U.S. officials aware of the evolution in how the government targets terrorists. In describing Brennan’s arrangement to The Associated Press, the officials provided the first detailed description of the military’s previous review process that set a schedule for killing or capturing terror leaders around the Arab world and beyond.

The report notes that Brennan’s role has been justified by the winding down of the Pentagon’s role in drone use in Afghanistan, where U.S. military operations are entering their next, lower-profile stage. The Pentagon’s drone deployments have, however, been far less controversial than the CIA-dominated deployments in places like Pakistan and Yemen. Brennan has distinguished himself as a champion of a militarized CIA, outfitted with drone technology and given a critical role on the hot battlefield just south of the Durand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This position has been unsurprising considering his career at CIA, where he was a key architect of the agency’s war-on-terror strategies.

Dozier’s report adds another drop of information to what we already know about the Obama Administration’s drone policies and processes. The government has steadily countered the public’s demands for information by insisting that the CIA’s drone wars fall under the shield of “covert action.” It has occasionally unveiled small fragments of drone policy by dispatching Brennan, Attorney General Eric Holder, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh, and others to deliver public speeches, but the information released has been scattered and thin. Even the program’s legal underpinnings remain largely mysterious.

Now Brennan has emerged as the White House’s drone czar—though Gilbert and Sullivan provide us with the more appropriate title of Lord High Executioner. Dozier tells us that Brennan will consolidate agency recommendations and present final analyses to the president—bureaucratic euphemisms for what is in fact a program of death penalties to be handed down by the government’s growing assassinations bureau.

Most Americans would likely agree that drone assassinations are justified at some level—most especially in the context of an active war. But other aspects of the program, such as the targeting of U.S. citizens far from any active battlefield, have the public concerned and demanding a more candid description of the Obama White House’s activities. The elevation of Brennan, a non-military figure outside of the conventional chain of command, accentuates these concerns. Prudent policy would require such operations to be handled by the military. Instead, they are shifting to the intelligence community, whose unwholesome influence is growing.

The immediate question is why Brennan has been chosen. Few figures in the Obama White House inspire less confidence. Brennan was thought to be Obama’s first choice to head the CIA, but he dropped out when details emerged about his support for torture techniques before he joined the Obama campaign and repudiated them. As a White House adviser, he has attracted negative attention for being gabby with the press about supposedly covert matters, for instance in a Washington Times interview where he justified the decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki before it happened, in his pathetically confused account of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and in his absurd contention that CIA drone attacks in Pakistan have produced “not a single collateral death.”

Brennan’s misstatements may have prepared him for the comic-opera role of Lord High Executioner, but they disqualify him from playing the more serious part of adviser to the president on drone assassinations. We do need more information about how drones are being used, and on how the decisions about their use are being made, but we’ve seen enough from Brennan to know that he’s not going to provide it—and that he’s not fit to be managing this program.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

March 2018

Nobody Knows

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Other Whisper Network

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Infinity of the Small

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Empty Suits

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Great Divide

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Other Whisper Network·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

No one would talk to me for this piece. Or rather, more than twenty women talked to me, sometimes for hours at a time, but only after I promised to leave out their names, and give them what I began to call deep anonymity. This was strange, because what they were saying did not always seem that extreme. Yet here in my living room, at coffee shops, in my inbox and on my voicemail, were otherwise outspoken female novelists, editors, writers, real estate agents, professors, and journalists of various ages so afraid of appearing politically insensitive that they wouldn’t put their names to their thoughts, and I couldn’t blame them. 

Of course, the prepublication frenzy of Twitter fantasy and fury about this essay, which exploded in early January, is Exhibit A for why nobody wants to speak openly. Before the piece was even finished, let alone published, people were calling me “pro-rape,” “human scum,” a “harridan,” a “monster out of Stephen King’s ‘IT,’?” a “ghoul,” a “bitch,” and a “garbage person”—all because of a rumor that I was planning to name the creator of the so-called Shitty Media Men list. The Twitter feminist Jessica Valenti called this prospect “profoundly shitty” and “incredibly dangerous” without having read a single word of my piece. Other tweets were more direct: “man if katie roiphe actually publishes that article she can consider her career over.” “Katie Roiphe can suck my dick.” With this level of thought policing, who in their right mind would try to say anything even mildly provocative or original? 

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Percentage of U.S. gun retailers who believe that “it is too easy for criminals to get guns in this country”:

55

Alcohol increases straight men’s homophobia toward gay men but not lesbians.

US president Donald Trump, who once said it “doesn’t matter” what journalists write about him if he has a “piece of ass” that is “young,” blamed the press coverage of the abuse allegations on the White House communications director, whom Trump has reportedly called a “piece of tail” and asked to steam a pair of pants he was wearing.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today