Sexist Practice in White House Approval of Counter-terrorism Strikes

by Charles Knight


Is President Obama’s practice sexist when he sorts residents of Pakistan into “enemy combatants” or “civilians” before ordering the CIA to fire a Hellfire missile at a truck or compound many thousands of miles away?  A friend doubts my recent claim made on Facebook that it is.  Perhaps he is correct.  After I posted my comment on Facebook I had my own doubts.

I was reacting to this sentence in the New York Times article “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will," 29 May 2012 [http://defensealt.org/MhZioa]: 


“Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” 

The context for this statement is, as the article says, “Mr. Obama … at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill[-ing]." The article further elaborates: "If the agency [CIA] did not have a 'near certainty' that a strike would result in zero civilian deaths, Mr. Obama wanted to decide personally whether to go ahead." And adds, "This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinary low collateral deaths.  In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama's trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes." 

Facebook encourages snap judgments and opinions in the structure of it “thumbs up” likes and it limited space for comments.  After reading the Times article I had strong feelings about it which included a gut or intuitive sense that the policy was sexist.  I believe intuitive reactions are of real value,  especially when alerting us to problems.  At the same time they may prove mistaken or misleading when subject to careful analysis.  So let me attempt some of the latter.


Is Obama's practice in approving remote attack targets sexist (probably unconsciously)?


Let's start with the Miriam Webster definition of sexism: 


1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women;

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

The applicable definition in this case is #1 “discrimination based on sex”, but in this case it is discrimination against males.  How so? 

As I said above, my response was triggered by the “counting of all military-age males in the strike zone as combatants.”  This is the radical presumption on the part of the White House that made me feel it was sexist.  While a reasonable presumption might be that many, even a majority, of the military-age males in the strike zone might in some relevant sense be combatants allied with the targeted al Qaeda member, some significant portion will certainly not be.  This is especially true when the target is a residential compound in contrast to a truck believed to be carrying armed combatants.

I had immediately thought that there but for the grace of God am I a seventeen year-old produce delivery boy in the kitchen of an apparently prosperous man (who I have likely never met and nor would I know anything of his political affiliations) when the compound I am standing in is blown to pieces and my life suddenly ended.  By what possible course of moral logic is it permissible that the White House many thousands of miles away takes my life because of a presumption that male equals combatant? 

Then by the logic of “shoot first and ask questions later” some White House official pronounces that if it proven posthumously that I am “innocent” I will be added to a category named “regrettable collateral victims of a necessary counter-terrorist operation,”  but only if some powerful voice in the media or elsewhere is discourteous enough to make a stink about it.

So let’s review this in regards to sexism.  In the case of the hypothetical boy I am identifying with above, he is subject to discrimination by virtue of his sex and the happenstance of his proximity to targeted combatants.  In other words, his social role (combatant) is assigned according to his sex.  That is precisely sexism.

In further regards to sexism I note, that while this was not addressed in the article,  any women (and their children) who are killed in the bombing, when their unfortunate presence is acknowledged, will be categorized as regretted, but necessary, collateral victims by virtue of their co-habitation with the male targets.  This seems all too close to the late U.S. and English law of coverture in which "by marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage." [William Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-115.htm].  


Once the White House passes the threshold of deciding that it is permissible to bomb residences in the targeting of al Qaeda members, women and children are in effect thrown back into coverture status, even if sometimes there is posthumous regret for their demise proffered by the attacker.

Yes, this White House policy is sexist.  And no, it doesn’t matter that White House sexism mirrors that of al Qaeda.  It may be true that those who make war often follow their enemies to hell, but we should resist that temptation with all due fortitude.

Defense Chiefs Signal Job Cuts

Nathan Hodge
Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—U.S. defense contractors are preparing to disclose mass job cutbacks ahead of November elections if Congress fails to reach a deficit-reduction deal by then, industry officials said.

Firms including Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. may idle thousands of workers at the beginning of the year, they said, when more than $50 billion in new defense cuts could take effect—along with similar reductions across federal agencies.

The layoff threat promises to put a spotlight back on the federal budget impasse and signals the start of a campaign by contractors to get Congress to rescind the requirement for mandatory cuts. It also comes as U.S. job gains have slowed, pushing up the unemployment rate.

"It is quite possible that we will need to notify employees in the September and October time frame that they may or may not have a job in January, depending upon whether sequestration does or doesn't take effect," Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's biggest supplier with operations in California, Georgia and Texas, said last week. He said the industry plans a "full-throated voice" to draw attention to the possible cuts.

U.S. defense contractors are preparing to disclose mass job cutbacks ahead of November elections if Congress fails to reach a deficit-reduction deal by then, industry officials said. Nathan Hodge has details on The News Hub. Photo: Reuters.

Defense manufacturers and their suppliers employ around 1 million workers combined, and their facilities are found in congressional districts around the country. Adding to the political impact, some of the industry's biggest employers have facilities in election battleground states. Ohio, for instance, is home to a General Dynamics Corp. tank-manufacturing plant while BAE Systems PLC makes armored vehicles in York, Pa.

Defense industry officials said that they will have to notify employees of potential layoffs 60 or 90 days ahead of time, in line with state and federal plant-closing laws.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining and Notification Act, a federal law also known as the WARN act, requires companies to notify employees in advance of mass layoffs and plant closings. Requirements vary, but the shutdown must affect 50 or more employees, or more than a third of the employer's active workforce at a facility.

Lockheed's Mr. Stevens said the across-the-board cuts would also hit suppliers, which may have to be notified in advance that they may not have subcontracts early next year.

An industry representative said "hundreds of thousands of notices" could go out to employees, unless there is clear guidance from the government about what specific jobs and programs might be affected.

As part of last year's Budget Control Act, the defense industry is already planning for an initial round of defense cuts that reduce defense outlays by around $487 billion over the next decade.
But the failure last year of a special congressional panel to hash out a deficit-reduction deal triggers a provision in the law that calls for the defense budget to be cut by more than $50 billion a year, or roughly 10% of the agency's $531 billion base budget, over 10 years.

Unless Congress changes the law, those cuts take effect at the beginning of January.

"Sequestration is already here," said an industry official, noting a recent slowdown in military spending with military services delaying the award of new contracts or reducing the quantity of orders in anticipation of deeper spending cuts.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has urged Congress to reverse the cuts, but industry observers say they don't expect lawmakers to begin serious discussions over how to avoid the defense cuts until after the November elections. Restoring defense funding would require cuts to other government programs or a tax increase.

"I think most people agree that it is unlikely that sequestration or the tax cuts get dealt with prior to the election," said Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush. "The window isn't that long between the 6th of November and the end of the year."

Republican lawmakers have proposed alternatives to the sweeping military cuts, including partially offsetting defense cuts with increases in domestic-spending reductions. Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has countered that he would prefer sequestration unless Republicans agree to include tax increases in any deal.

Adding to the uncertainty over the budget cuts is how, exactly, the Pentagon will impose the cuts. Most in the industry believe that the cuts will affect all programs across-the-board, meaning that military services will have less discretion to spare higher-priority programs from the budget ax.

"The Department of Defense is not currently planning for sequestration," said Lt. Col. Elizabeth Robbins, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "The Office of Management and Budget has not directed agencies, including DoD, to initiate any plans for sequestration."

Automatic cuts may hit separate wartime spending accounts, once believed to be exempt from sequestration. Congress funds the war in Afghanistan and other military operations through an account called "overseas contingency operations," which is separate from the Pentagon's base budget. The administration requested $88 billion in fiscal 2013 to cover wartime costs.

In a May 25 letter to Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House budget committee, acting White House budget director Jeffrey Zients said the war funding would be "subject to sequester," although the president could exempt military personnel costs.

Rep. Howard McKeon (R., Calif.) the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was disappointed in the administration's interpretation of the law. "Of course now more than ever, it is the troops on the front lines in Afghanistan who will bear the brunt of sequestration," he said.