It’s Not About the Drones.
Drones were back in the news this past week. First, the UN is poised to publicly criticize the US for allowing CIA operators to conduct lethal attacks with drones, in a report to be released later this week. Then, the US military released a report sharply criticizing operational failures that led to the deaths of 23 civilians in a convoy in February. And Newsweek has a big lead article about the extent to which drone strikes, regardless of their legality or side-effects, are fueling homegrown terror.
I would like to posit that to some extent, the issues at stake in all of these debates are much broader than the issue of drones and it may be problematic to focus on drones, as if altering our “drone policy” will resolve the broader issues. Bear in mind that drone themselves are simply remotely piloted aerial vehicles. They’re not robots and they’re not making decisions on their own, Star Wars-like. (Though they might in the near future which would raise entirely different ethical questions.) Except for the fact that the pilots are operating remotely from the safety of a military base (or CIA facility), these weapons are little different than other forms of air power. Of course, as Peter Singer has documented there are those who are troubled by the dislocation of the warrior from his targets, but this argument is as old as the long-bow and doesn’t necessarily pose legal issues. It should also be pointed out that drones have many extremely useful non-lethal applications: reconnaissance that helps ground troops avoid civilians, for example. And drones are not simply being used to hunt terrorists in Pakistan. They have civilian and law enforcement uses as well: to monitor the drug trade in South America or population flows across borders. (Not that these surveillance functionalities don’t also involve pressing trade-offs with respect to rights and civil liberties.)
Speaking just in terms of using drones as attack weapons here, I would argue the important issue here is not whether we use drones. The issues are a) whether it is right to use any weapon in such a manner as to risk more casualties among civilians than we are willing to accept among our own troops (as both manned and unmanned forms of aerial bombing do) b) whether we are willing to use any weapon to summarily execute individuals we have associated with criminal organizations whether or not they are engaged in what might be considered combat operations against us and c) whether it is either right or effective to outsource the deployment of lethal violence – by drones or by other means – from our military to our civilian agencies?
These aren’t the drones you’re looking for.
The argument for drone-based attacks is that it reduces casualties, both for the attackers as well as amongst those targeted. However, the number of people killed in misguided drone attacks might belie that point of view. It might also lessen damage to international relations, since there are no US personnel on the ground.
A. Is always a calculation. However, so much effort is expended on force protection and so many noncombatants are regularly killed that this does not seem to be a major concern in operations. Killing of innocents is, however, an excellent way to galvanize a population against a foreign military.
B. Use of drones is analogous to sniping in a military context. Individuals are targeted and killed without being provided an opportunity for self defense. Not very sporting, but well within the laws of war. So drones should be a legitimate military tool in a theatre of war.
Summary execution in a civil context is prohibited. Civil process requires indictment and arrest prior to trial. Someone killed by a drone has been afforded none of these. Some countries permit trial in absentia, some where penalties are imposed without the presence of the defendant. In that circumstance a drone-based killing might be defensible. Is there a Supreme Court ruling that I’m unaware of?
We are not at war with Pakistan, and Pakistan has not invited the US to conduct military operations on its soil. Troop presence, military operations and drone attacks not permitted by a status of forces agreement are illegal. It is the responsibility of Pakistan to lodge the complaint. We are behaving towards our ally Pakistan rather as we previously bombed Laos and Cambodia, if on a smaller, more precise scale. Until Pakistan makes a complaint to the UN, the US or to the World Court, injured Pakistanis might find redress in the US civil courts, but I rather doubt that would be successful.
C. Military force is lawfully the province of uniformed, commanded troops of a nation, operating after declaration of hostilities and under the country’s flag. There are many instances of the use of mercenaries, partisans, and resistances being part of wars. Mercenaries used to be uniformed troops of foreign nationals on loan to a belligerant. When captured, non-uniformed combatants tend to be declared spies and summarily executed. The US has certainly employed spies during wartime, and when caught, those spies have received fewer rights and greater punishment than uniformed troops. Thee expectation of harsher treatment indicates acknowledgement that use of spies and non-uniformed forces is illegal.
Governments do not always follow the law. This is why we have spy agencies. There is an expectation that if uncovered and apprehended, spies will not receive aid from their government. This permits nations to continue to assert that they are law-abiding. For a nation to identify and publicly support persons engaged in illegal activity on their behalf makes the nation a party to those crimes, before and after the fact.
Jon’s points all make sense to me.
Mercenary contractors are (I think) sometimes used to provide security details for government officials. Are they uniformed or do they have a special dispensation from the U.S. when used in that capacity?
Also, isn’t the ideal warfare which is carried out with no loss of human life? I think we need to send our drone technology over to Pakistan, so we’re having purely robot v. robot confrontations. We could air it on Fox and pay for the war.
Also, terminators.
I’m looking for
Sarah ConnorOsama bin Laden.Drones do confuse the theatre of operations.
Is a drone operator while on duty a legitimate target of war?
I think yes.
Now, what happens when the operator goes off duty? Still yes? What happens if she goes to pick up her kid at day care?
What happens if the operator telecommutes sometimes? Is her house a legitimate target?
These are very good points.
The US has gotten used to commuting to war, even in Iraq. The counterculture in the Sixties talked about ‘bringing the war home’. Someone may just do that, and in fact it’s one of the premises behind the 9/11 attacks – asserting that the society and power structure that supports the warrior are also combatants.
Interesting point, but by that logic is US CENTRAL COMMAND a target becasue they control the current wars in Iraq/AF? Is a drone operator different because they’re issuing orders to a machine as opposed to troops?