The American The New York Times through the courts achieved the disclosure of the rules for striking foreign strikes outside the combat zones, which were secretly published by the previous head of state Donald Trump for “direct action” counter-terrorism operations.
As reported by RBC with reference to the American publication, the rules of 2017, in particular, refer to the actions of special forces and strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles.
It is also indicated that priority is given not to the elimination of terrorists, but to their capture for further receipt of intelligence information.
According to the authors of the publication, the need for such operations arose due to the ability of large terrorist groups to strike from poorly managed territories or unrecognized states, where there are few or no American troops, and local law enforcement agencies are weak or none at all. For example, in some areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.
– Everything is clear here. The fact is that the directive itself was secret, and its disclosure was the result of a lawsuit, which was satisfied, – explains Doctor of Political Science, Professor of Moscow State University Andrey Manoilo.
– Bidenon the one hand, he wants to show that he does not intend to follow the rules set by Trump. It shows that, yes, there is a tool, but the new administration will use it more restrainedly, considering it as a kind of extreme measure.
And it is no coincidence that the position is voiced Obama, which for each out-of-court liquidation first required a number of departments to justify that civilians would not be harmed, that the person who was planned to liquidate really poses a threat to the United States.
Obama avoided making personal decisions, always hiding behind the public, experts, officials, and heralded it as a kind of collegial decision. Apparently for fear of responsibility in the future.
Trump, under the same conditions, not only made decisions himself – suffice it to recall the liquidation Kassema Suleimani, but on his instructions, they developed instructions according to which the leaders of the groups in the regions received the right to make such decisions. And this instruction turned the law into a very fast-acting political instrument.
And Biden decided to declassify this instruction.
Indeed, during the entire existence of the Fredom Act and its predecessor, the patriotic act, about 3 thousand people were killed without trial or investigation. So Biden wants to present Trump as the person who eliminated people left and right, not really caring about the evidence that these people are terrorists and pose a threat to the United States.
As for the question of the actions of drones outside the combat zone, there is nothing unusual here either, the Americans have been doing this before. But the fact is that the delivery of drone strikes and the actions of army special forces – that is, combat operations outside the combat zone, actually means a declaration of war on the country on whose territory these actions are being carried out. This is an act of aggression.
Surely Biden is trying to show that Trump, thanks to this instruction, put the United States on the brink of war many times with those countries with which the American people did not want to spoil relations at all. And this is a grave offense, which could initiate another investigation in Congress.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that priority is given to the capture of terrorists in order to obtain information, since it is better to interrogate and convict a criminal than simply liquidate. But the instructions presented say otherwise.
It says that it is better to kidnap, capture and capture criminals because they can still be somehow used in the interests of the United States. As, for example, used Al Baghdadi, who later became the head of ISIS * banned in Russia, spent a long time in a secret CIA prison in Iraq and, most likely, was recruited.
The same can be said about the banned in the Russian Federation “Al Qaeda” **, which the Americans initially supplied weapons with finances until it became independent, and Bin Laden from an American intelligence agent did not turn into a “terrorist number 1”. I think here Biden will point out that for Trump the main thing is not justice and justice, not to punish the terrorists, but to get some benefit from them.
“SP”: – Will Biden cancel this document now?
– As far as I understand, these rules have not yet been adopted. Trump formed this document, but he did not have time to pass approval – Trump lost the election. At the same time, it is likely that even without being approved by Congress, it was used as a guiding document by those units that were involved in the elimination of terrorists. Therefore, there is nothing to undo. This is a temporary instruction that can be reversed with words. Therefore, the Biden administration so easily parted with this secret document.
“SP”: – Will they apply this practice?
– And it has always been used. The only question is, to what extent. If this is not a fake at all, then Trump was going to eliminate everyone left and right. How “Petrov and Boshirov” hounded everyone, blew up
The new team in the matter of extrajudicial liquidations is unlikely to act otherwise. It is possible that this practice will not only not decrease, but will expand.
– American national interests exist both under Trump and under Biden, the conversation continues. Associate Professor of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Gevorg Mirzayan… – It’s called American exceptionalism.
“SP”: – Can this tactic be used openly now? In the same Syria? Or even in the Donbass?
– Yes maybe. But only where the Americans will not receive a serious response for this. For example, in Syria, they can strike at the Syrian and Iranian units, kill the military. Syria and Iran are hard to answer. Simply because Damascus and Tehran do not have sufficient forces. But in the Donbass, the Americans will not be allowed to eliminate the military leaders of the people’s republics. American drones will suddenly start falling on their own.
“SP”: – Trump, unlike his predecessors, did not start a single war. There is a lot of aggressive rhetoric from Biden, but what to expect in reality?
– There are people in the Biden administration who want war. The problem, however, is that America does not have the resources for this war. Neither economic, nor military, nor moral, nor political. And Washington understands this. Biden needs neither his own Afghanistan, nor his own Iraq, nor his own Syria. It is much better and more effective not to fight, but to threaten war, receiving any bonuses for a temporary refusal to start it.
*, ** – terrorist organizations banned in Russia.