Senator Wonders Why We Care About Foreign Casualties
The Hill reports Senator Markwayne Mullin defended U.S. strikes in the Caribbean by dismissing concerns over foreign casualties: 'Why do we care' if the U.S. takes out alleged narco-terrorists? This remarkable level of geopolitical nonchalance conveniently sidesteps decades of U.S. foreign policy failures and the consistent blowback from 'alleged' targets turning very real. One might recall
similar justifications for 'surgical strikes' from Panama's Noriega to Iraq's Saddam, often leaving behind a trail of destabilized regions and generations of anti-U.S. sentiment. It appears humanitarian concern is only activated when it serves a domestic political agenda, or when the 'narco-terrorists' happen to be in a politically convenient geography. The idea that the U.S. can simply decide who
is an 'alleged' threat and eliminate them without consequence seems less like foreign policy and more like an audition for global strongman. How many 'alleged' threats must generate future 'actual' threats before we reconsider the efficacy of this approach?