Thanks for this. I think Namibia's plans in both solar and nuclear have to be understood in the context of the regions increasing economic integration. South Africa is the giant energy consumer there, as it puts more and more formerly excluded poor people on the grid to cut down on pollution and as industrial energy consumption rises. In recent years, SA has experienced rolling blackouts as demand exceeds supply.
It is perfectly conceivable that Namibia can enrich its own uranium assuming this is a joint effort between Namibia and South Africa, which has extensive experience in nuclear energy (and nuclear weaponry until that system was dismantled). South Africa, however, has scaled back its nuclear power ambitions because of concerns with security -- its power plants were attacked by ANC guerrillas during apartheid and by criminal gangs in the post apartheid era. My guess is that South Africa still wants to expand nuclear power, but it just doesn't want those power plants in South Africa, and if Namibia is on the same grid, it might as well put those plants there. Namibia looks like it is planning to be a subcontinental energy exporter -- solar, nuclear and uranium. Tiny mountainous Lesotho's highlands water project will export hydro electric power to South Africa and export fresh water to the Johannesburg-Pretoria area, while also supplying 100% of Lesotho's energy needs. With Angolan petroleum, South African and Botswanan coal, Lesotho hydro electric and Namibian solar and nuclear, the region, which increasingly looks like a super state, will have a secure energy future, but it will struggle to have a carbon neutral one.
If citizenship isn't the issue, why did you provide qualified support on this blog for the killing of Osama bin Laden? What's the difference between him and al-Awlaqi other than the latter's citizenship? Both were "officers" of a foreign military organization at war with the United States.
As for your assertion that the US doesn't blow away pirates, the US Navy just recently summarily shot and killed Somali pirates. I suppose you could make the distinction that there was a hostage situation. But I really don't think that it is correct to say that the US Navy no longer can fire upon pirate ships. In the case of al-Awlaqi, the US military fired on an AQ convoy, something that happens regularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Here is where your argument ran off the rails; you wrote:
"The idea that, legally speaking, the US could be at war with small terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda strikes me as a non-starter. A rhetorical flourish such as the “war on terror” is not a legal statute or article in the constitution...
If people want the United States to be able to declare war on non-governmental organizations that maintain private armies and so are para-statal, we need new statutes or perhaps a constitutional amendment."
This simply isn't true. Since you're an historian, I assume you would agree that Patton and Bradley had no obligation to halt their assaults on German military formations because there were German Americans who had left the US and joined the German armed forces. I assume we can agree on that -- which is to say, the law of war, not criminal law, applied to any German US citizen in the German army wearing a German uniform. It wouldn't matter whether that US citizen in the German army was carrying a rifle or was a propaganda officer writing the official newsletter of a Panzer division.
So the only question is the one the quoted language raises -- whether a US citizen who joins a non-state military terrorist organization is subject to the same rules, and whether the US can be at war with such an organization. That's the only "interesting" or "difficult" question about this killing. But there is no question whatsoever that this organization declared war on the US in an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor in scale. There is no question that the US has authorized war against that organization. There is no question that the UN Security Council has authorized this war by the US on AQ. There is no question that Anwar al-`Awlaqi was a member of this organization because of his writings and videos. So the only questions are: does it matter that the organization was non-state military organization, and that al-`Awlaqi wasn't in uniform?
Well, when the founding fathers were still running this country in the late 18th century there were equivalents of AQ -- small, non-state, military organizations not in uniforms. They were called pirates. Some of them were US citizens. The US Navy fired upon said pirates' ships without trial or due process. I'm puzzled by the idea that because military organization is non-state and not in uniform it somehow falls outside the law of war -- especially when that organization declared war with a spectacular attack on the US mainland.
Thanks for this. I think Namibia's plans in both solar and nuclear have to be understood in the context of the regions increasing economic integration. South Africa is the giant energy consumer there, as it puts more and more formerly excluded poor people on the grid to cut down on pollution and as industrial energy consumption rises. In recent years, SA has experienced rolling blackouts as demand exceeds supply.
It is perfectly conceivable that Namibia can enrich its own uranium assuming this is a joint effort between Namibia and South Africa, which has extensive experience in nuclear energy (and nuclear weaponry until that system was dismantled). South Africa, however, has scaled back its nuclear power ambitions because of concerns with security -- its power plants were attacked by ANC guerrillas during apartheid and by criminal gangs in the post apartheid era. My guess is that South Africa still wants to expand nuclear power, but it just doesn't want those power plants in South Africa, and if Namibia is on the same grid, it might as well put those plants there. Namibia looks like it is planning to be a subcontinental energy exporter -- solar, nuclear and uranium. Tiny mountainous Lesotho's highlands water project will export hydro electric power to South Africa and export fresh water to the Johannesburg-Pretoria area, while also supplying 100% of Lesotho's energy needs. With Angolan petroleum, South African and Botswanan coal, Lesotho hydro electric and Namibian solar and nuclear, the region, which increasingly looks like a super state, will have a secure energy future, but it will struggle to have a carbon neutral one.
If citizenship isn't the issue, why did you provide qualified support on this blog for the killing of Osama bin Laden? What's the difference between him and al-Awlaqi other than the latter's citizenship? Both were "officers" of a foreign military organization at war with the United States.
As for your assertion that the US doesn't blow away pirates, the US Navy just recently summarily shot and killed Somali pirates. I suppose you could make the distinction that there was a hostage situation. But I really don't think that it is correct to say that the US Navy no longer can fire upon pirate ships. In the case of al-Awlaqi, the US military fired on an AQ convoy, something that happens regularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Here is where your argument ran off the rails; you wrote:
"The idea that, legally speaking, the US could be at war with small terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda strikes me as a non-starter. A rhetorical flourish such as the “war on terror” is not a legal statute or article in the constitution...
If people want the United States to be able to declare war on non-governmental organizations that maintain private armies and so are para-statal, we need new statutes or perhaps a constitutional amendment."
This simply isn't true. Since you're an historian, I assume you would agree that Patton and Bradley had no obligation to halt their assaults on German military formations because there were German Americans who had left the US and joined the German armed forces. I assume we can agree on that -- which is to say, the law of war, not criminal law, applied to any German US citizen in the German army wearing a German uniform. It wouldn't matter whether that US citizen in the German army was carrying a rifle or was a propaganda officer writing the official newsletter of a Panzer division.
So the only question is the one the quoted language raises -- whether a US citizen who joins a non-state military terrorist organization is subject to the same rules, and whether the US can be at war with such an organization. That's the only "interesting" or "difficult" question about this killing. But there is no question whatsoever that this organization declared war on the US in an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor in scale. There is no question that the US has authorized war against that organization. There is no question that the UN Security Council has authorized this war by the US on AQ. There is no question that Anwar al-`Awlaqi was a member of this organization because of his writings and videos. So the only questions are: does it matter that the organization was non-state military organization, and that al-`Awlaqi wasn't in uniform?
Well, when the founding fathers were still running this country in the late 18th century there were equivalents of AQ -- small, non-state, military organizations not in uniforms. They were called pirates. Some of them were US citizens. The US Navy fired upon said pirates' ships without trial or due process. I'm puzzled by the idea that because military organization is non-state and not in uniform it somehow falls outside the law of war -- especially when that organization declared war with a spectacular attack on the US mainland.