Tulsi Gabbard opposes "regime change wars" but is a proud "hawk" regarding War on Terror
Being against "regime change wars" but a "hawk" for the War on Terror isn't enough to carry around the mantle of being a peace candidate.
Ever since Tulsi Gabbard announced she was running for president in the 2020 election, I have been immensely skeptical of her "anti-war" credentials.
What’s particularly concerning about Gabbard is her fixation with the phrase "regime change wars", which has been picked up and echoed by her various supporters. This phrase has seemingly hijacked the narrative in anti-war circles; now it's not so much about ending "the wars" but instead, about ending "regime change wars". This distinction has raised some questions in my mind, specifically regarding whether Tulsi only strictly opposes "regime change wars" or if she opposes both regime change wars along with various aspects of the post-9/11 War on Terror.
Enter Glenn Greenwald, and his May 2019 interview with Tulsi Gabbard.
At long last, the sweet relief of clarification:
Greenwald: Tell me if you could please the sense in which you describe yourself as a hawk. Do you support the prongs of the War on Terror that haven't been about regime change but have been things about drone assassination, even of American citizens, about Guantanamo - what is your hawkishness when it comes to the War on Terror?
Gabbard: Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, killing thousands of Americans. We have continued to see that threat posed by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. This is not a war that we chose, but it is a threat that continues and we cannot just turn our backs and pretend as though it doesn't exist. So when I say that I'm a hawk on fighting against terrorism, it is against these terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. Our national security is important; keeping the American people safe is the number one job that the president has.
First, to answer Glenn's question about Tulsi's position on drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay, since Tulsi didn't bother:
On drones, yes, she supports "limited" drone strikes against terror groups inside other countries. By her definition, this wouldn't count as a "regime change war" but it could still very possibly be a violation of another country's sovereignty, along with a major recruiting tool for terror groups. (More on that later)
In 2012, Tulsi said she opposes drone strikes against US citizens domestically, and while she has a negative view of civilian casualties abroad from drone strikes, she believes the "use of drones in certain scenarios has saved lives [... and] when strategically placed and properly used, [drones] are an asset to national security."
In 2013, she released a carefully worded statement outlining her opposition to drone strikes against American citizens, as long as it's not on US soil: "I applaud the [Obama] administration for clarifying that drone strikes on non-combatant American citizens on US soil are not and will not be authorized." (This does nothing to address the fact that American citizens have been killed at least three times between Obama and Trump off US soil)
On Guantanamo, Tulsi's record is very clear: she supports keeping it open, and keeping those imprisoned at the camp there indefinitely.
When the Obama administration released five high-ranking members of the Taliban from Guantanamo in 2014 (who had been held without charges), Tulsi issued a statement referring to them as "terrorist leaders". She claimed that "recent events" in the Middle East make it "painfully clear" that our "war with Muslim extremists" is far from over, adding that they are supposedly "more powerful and dangerous today than ever" and that "the freeing of five high-level Muslim extremists was short-sighted and further evidence that our leaders have forgotten that we are at war and who the enemy is." (In 2019, the New York Times reported that the "Taliban Five" have been instrumental in peace talks with the US)
That same year, Tulsi voted in support of a bill that would authorize funds to be used for operations at Guantanamo Bay.
In 2018, she voted in support of HR 6157, a defense appropriations bill that, aside from stuffing obscene amounts of money into the pockets of the military-industrial complex, prohibited any funds from being used to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and also prohibited funds from being used to close the camp.
The irony of Tulsi Gabbard being supportive of both drone strikes and keeping Guantanamo Bay open is that these are literally two of the biggest drivers of anti-American terrorism across the world.
For example, the perpetrator of the failed 2010 Times Square car bomb attack, Faisal Shahzad, was asked what his motives were for trying to kill innocent people, including children. "When the drones [in Pakistan] hit, they don't see children," he replied. "I am part of the answer to the US killing the Muslim people." Children in Pakistan are so terrified of drones that they would rather stay home than risk going out into the streets to make the trip to school, as mentioned in a landmark, must-read report by researchers at Stanford and NYU called Living Under Drones. Large gatherings for celebrations, funerals, and weddings in Pakistan have also become a thing of the past, since these types of events can be prime targets for aerial strikes. Between January 2012 and February 2013, US special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people, and of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.
In 2015, four ex-US air force service members with more than 20 years of experience between them operating military drones wrote an open letter to then-President Obama warning of the drone program creating more - not less - terrorism. The killing of innocent civilians in drone airstrikes has acted as one of the most "devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization" around the world: "We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone program has overseas and at home." Drones strikes, they said, are fueling "the feelings of hatred" that ignited groups like ISIS, while also serving as a "fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay."
And speaking of Guantanamo Bay, it hasn't been much of a secret that the camp is a den of jackals with a fetish for torturing inmates - many of them completely cleared of charges yet still stuck in limbo. The American Civil Liberties Union once called Guantanamo a "perverse laboratory" for brutal interrogation methods, where prisoners have been subjected to "beatings, sleep deprivation, stress positions, extreme temperatures and prolonged isolation." Guantanamo Bay also once housed a separate compound known as "Camp Iguana", which was initially designed to hold detainees aged 16 and under.
Given Guantanamo's record, it should come as little surprise that the camp has been a huge motivator for terrorism against the US. In 2010, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released the first issue of Inspire, their English language recruitment magazine, and Guantanamo Bay has been featured prominently in several issues.
Even high-ranking US officials know that Gitmo is creating more terrorists. US Air Force Officer Matthew Alexander said that the longer Guantanamo stays open, the "more cost it will have" in US lives. John Brennan, former CIA Director, said that the US will be "more secure" the day the prison is finally closed. Colin Powel once pointed out that Guantanamo gives "radicals an opportunity to say, you see, this is what America is all about. They're all about torture and detention centers." Joe Biden once called Guantanamo Bay the "greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists" around the world.
In light of the aforementioned, here we have Tulsi Gabbard, a self-proclaimed "hawk" when it comes to the War on Terror, ironically supporting drone strikes and keeping Gitmo open - two of the very things that are fueling anti-US terrorism. Adding to this, Tulsi has also supported Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel, another generator of terrorism against the US given its routine atrocities in Palestine. Moreover, on the issue of torture, yet another major driver of terrorism, Tulsi said in 2014 that her opinion was "conflicted" regarding the CIA torture report, which detailed US actions against detainees such as beatings, mock executions, use of insects, sleep deprivation, hours of forced standing, music torture, rectal rehydration, waterboarding, diaper wearing, threats of violence against family members, and so on.
Being against "regime change wars" isn't enough to carry around the mantle of being a peace candidate. What I would like to see Tulsi Gabbard do is explain how she expects to successfully fight the War on Terror while either supporting - or being "conflicted" on - US policies that are directly involved in creating more terrorism.