Strange story last week in the New York Times about how, each Tuesday, President Obama shuffles "baseball cards" with the pictures and bios of suspected terrorists from around the world and chooses who shall die by drone strike. He even reserves for himself the decision of whether to proceed when the probability of killing family members or bystanders is significant.
The article could have been titled "Barack Obama: Drone Warrior." Great detail on how he personally runs the assassination campaign. On-the-record quotes from the highest officials. No leak -- this was a White House press release.
Why? To portray Obama as tough guy. And why now? Because in crisis after recent crisis, he has looked particularly weak: standing helplessly by as thousands are massacred in Syria; being played by Iran in nuclear negotiations, reeling with the collapse of the latest round in Baghdad; being treated with contempt by Vladimir Putin.
The Obama camp thought that any political problem with foreign policy would be cured by the Osama bin Laden operation. But the administration's attempt to politically exploit the raid's one-year anniversary backfired, earning ridicule and condemnation for its crude appropriation of the heroic acts of others.
A campaign ad had Bill Clinton praising Obama for the courage of ordering the raid because, had it failed and Americans been killed, "the downside would have been horrible for him." Outraged veterans released a response ad pointing out that it would have been considerably more horrible for the dead SEALs.
The Osama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed, what to do? A new card: Obama, drone warrior, steely and solitary, delivering death with cool dispatch to the rest of the Al-Qaida depth chart.
So the peacemaker, Nobel laureate, nuclear disarmer, apologizer to the world for America having lost its moral way when it harshly interrogated the very people Obama now kills, has become -- just in time for the 2012 campaign -- Zeus the Avenger, smiting by lightning strike.
This is not to argue against drone attacks. In principle, they are fully justified. No quarter need be given to terrorists who wear civilian clothes, hide among civilians and target civilians indiscriminately. But there is an acute military problem. Dead terrorists can't talk.
One capture could make us safer than 10 killings. But because of the moral incoherence of Obama's war on terror, there are practically no captures anymore. What would be the point? There's nowhere for the CIA to interrogate. And what would they learn even if they did, Obama having decreed a new regime of kid-gloves, name-rank-and-serial-number interrogation?
This administration came out opposing military tribunals, wanting to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York, reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and trying mightily (and unsuccessfully, there being -- surprise! -- no plausible alternative) to close Guantanamo. Yet alongside this exquisite delicacy about the rights of terrorists is the campaign to kill them in their beds.
The morality is perverse. Which is why the results are so mixed.
Poll: Do you agree with baseball's plan to ban collisions at home plate?