President Biden signed a new covert directive, the Presidential Policy Memorandum, which he sent to the Pentagon and the CIA as their governing mandates for combatting terrorism. The New York Times was the first to publish a report describing its most significant points on October 7, based on statements by administration officials, some of whom were not named. The new policy is reported to limit strikes by US special forces outside conventional war zones and gives greater priority to protecting civilian lives when military attacks are carried out.
It is noteworthy that the Pentagon had recently, on August 26, announced a plan designed to help reduce the number of civilian casualties caused by US military operations, particularly drone strikes. President Biden’s new directives will require presidential approval to add suspected terrorists to the “kill list”, and to target them using drones, as well as to carry out raids by US special forces. The new rules for the use of drones and raids by US special forces against terrorist elements will impact the US anti-terrorism strategy in the Middle East in several ways, the most prominent of which are the following:
Less drone strikes: The new covert policy reveals that amid more important national security priorities confronting the US administration- including the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons, the simmering US rivalry with China, and the US focus on undermining China’s rise, cybersecurity, climate change- the Biden administration intends to launch fewer drone and special forces attacks outside conventional war zones. After achieving tangible successes in undermining ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and assassinating many of their leaders, these new rules will limit US operations with drones in many countries, including Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and the mountainous regions of Pakistan.
There has already been a decline in the rate of US attacks using drones against terrorist organizations in these countries in recent years. The last US drone strike in Pakistan was in 2018. In Somalia, the rate of US drone strikes has fallen dramatically since President Biden took office in 2021. However, there has been some prominent strikes such as on July 31st, when a US drone strike assassinated the leader of “Al-Qaeda”, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Afghanistan.
Systemising constraints: The new directives by President Biden provide an institutionalized framework for the temporary restrictions his administration put in place during its first days in the White House. The administration sought to reduce risks to civilians as a consequence of attacks by US forces on terrorist targets. This came as a departure from the policies implemented under President Trump, which gave leaders in the field greater autonomy to decide on targets. The policy allowed the army and the CIA to carry out strikes against terrorists without referring to the White House, when the situation on the ground met certain conditions, and the attack was deemed justified. The new policy marks a return to a higher degree of control by the president over operations, as he has to personally approve the addition of suspects to the “Kill list”, and the act of carrying out “targeted killings”, which was a hallmark of President Obama’s second term.
Higher bars for operations: President Biden’s homeland security adviser, Liz Sherwood, pointed out that the new directions issued by the US administration require that counterterrorism operations carried out by US forces meet the strictest standards of proving the target is a member of a terrorist organization, poses a continuing and imminent threat to the US, and that the strike will not cause civilian casualties. The new rules require the army and the CIA to assess the feasibility of arresting the targets instead of attacking them with drone strikes, as well as obtaining in-advance approval of the head of the US diplomatic mission in the country in which the operation is to be carried out.
Exempts for Iraq and Syria: The new rules are meant to be applied to strikes in areas where states fail to control active terrorist groups, and which the US does not regard as “areas of active hostilities.” This definition does not however, apply to Iraq and Syria, where US forces are battling remnants of ISIS, and which are currently considered conventional war zones. US field commanders in the two countries will remain free to order airstrikes or counterterrorism strikes without the need for White House approval.
Expanding use of “collective self-defence”: The new rules do not require White House approval for strikes carried out in self-defence, including defense of partner forces. This justification was used in Somalia, where the US military carried out strikes, arguing that aiding Somali government forces, which the US assisted in establishing, to combat “Al Shabab” and repel their attacks, falls within the framework of the “collective self-defence” of partner forces. This included the September 18th attacks where 27 fighters from “Al Shabab” were killed.
Criticism of the new policy
This new policy was faced with criticism from many experts for a number of reasons. The secret nature of the directives, which have not been made public knowledge, is considered as undermining the principals of democratic government, as it does not allow American citizens to be familiar with the rules governing the use of lethal force by the US abroad. Moreover, there are objections to the classification of Iraq as a “war zone”, since US forces there are supposed to be undertaking non-combat missions and providing advice and training to Iraqi forces.
There were objections as well to the exemption of strikes in self-defence, either of US troops or partner forces, from these rules, as this serves to expand the scope of the 2001 military mandate, the main legislative basis for the US war on terror, whereas US lawmakers are seeking to further restrict it, and restore Congress’s power over declaring war and approving foreign military operations.
Many critics have also observed that these new directives are of a political not legal nature, which means that future administrations can easily reverse them. This is what the Trump Administration did, when it reversed the directives governing anti-terrorism action abroad imposed by the Obama Administration.
In conclusion, it can be argued that such a change in the rules governing Special Forces operations and drone strikes against terrorist targets was to be expected, in view of rising concerns regarding the civilian casualties that have resulted from these operations. Moreover, foreign policy priorities of the Biden Administration have moved on from counterterrorism, to focus on the challenges posed by Russia and China. However, these new rules need to be enshrined in a legal format, to ensure that future administrations, as well as US allies, will adhere to them in the efforts to combatt terrorism around the globe.