In the 21st
century, armed drones are increasingly being used by many countries around the
world in military conflicts and in matters of national security. After careful
consideration of the viewpoints presented in the readings from the past couple
of days, I have to admit that there are merits to both sides of the drone
debate; both sides have certainly made some valid and convincing arguments. I
am of the opinion that the appropriate use of drones has the capacity to limit battlefield
atrocities and U.S casualties of war as well. It is also important that the U.S
should take steps toward more transparency surrounding counterterrorist
policies and practices, and there should be more accountability in regards to
the agencies and people who are in charge of conducting drone airstrikes (this,
I believe, should apply to other types of targeted killing and paramilitary
maneuvers also).
Civilians, write
Carpenter and Shaikhouni, “do die in drone attacks, as they do in other types
of combat”. I believe that while this is
true, drone strikes have the potential to reduce those numbers. What stands out
most in my mind from the readings is the section titled “Human Failing on the
Battlefield” from R.C Arkin’s article “The Case for Ethical Autonomy in
Unmanned Systems”. In the section, Arkin goes on to describe some extremely
disturbing findings from a report by the Surgeon General’s Office about
battlefield atrocities. One of the notable findings of the study is that when
soldiers are angry, they are twice as likely to “engage in unethical behavior
in the battlefield” and that “combat experience, particularly losing a team
member, was related to an increase in ethical violations”. These findings were profoundly
shocking.
From all of this it
appears a drone, operated remotely by an individual who is not in any immediate
danger, could make more informed and less emotional decisions than soldiers on
the ground. If there are no soldiers on the ground, no one can perpetrate any
atrocities against civilians. Also, no soldiers should die needlessly as a
result of poorly-informed or rash choices made in the midst of battle; no
soldiers shall return home suffering from PTSD and other psychological issues. In
addition, steps can be taken by the U.S government and military in order to
minimize or prevent collateral damage.
According an article
published in The Atlantic and written by Michael Lewis, in 2009 General Stanley
McChrystal tasked a team of civilians and military personnel to develop recommendations
and protocols for the reduction of civilian deaths. Lewis writes that “one of the most significant [recommendations]
was switching the preferred method of targeting from compounds to vehicles”. The
rationale behind this was that targeting a compound would increase the
likelihood that children or family members would be injured or killed as well,
and that vehicle strikes could “be conducted on isolated roads [so] the
likelihood of other civilian bystanders being harmed was minimized”. Moreover, when it comes to accountability and
transparency, the drone strikes could be carefully monitored by various
intelligence analysts, military officials and lawyers in real time, something
that would be nearly impossible to do in regards to the actions of soldiers on
the ground.
The fact of the matter
is that war is never clean or pretty. While wrong or unethical decisions cannot
be completely eliminated, they can be reduced; drones, I believe, are a step in
the right direction.
While I completely agree with the use of drones and am more then 100% for it, professor wants us to present some questions to eachother that can engage in conversation. When i was reading your blog looking at some of your different arguements i began to think about the human element vs. a machine. For arguement sake i'm just going to bounce some anti-drone questions. In a situation where a drone is going to strike they shoot a missle a few seconds or minutes in advance at a target, **boom explosion happens** people are dead. However, when a soldier is about to shoot his gun at a house or is walking through an enemy hall way and a kid or wife runs out, he can hold back fire, and stop his attack reducing casualties. To what extent, do you think that even though the use of humans and factors such the ability to stop an attack should be weighed over drone usage. Do you think there should be different standards of human casualty based off the level of importance of the enemy figure. For example, someone equivalent to a Sadam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden vs. a man of less rank, nonetheless still a terrorist?
ReplyDeleteHi Alexei,
DeleteTo address your point about soldiers being able to hold back fire upon noticing civilians are in the area: yes, I am sure that there have been cases similar to what you describe. However, if you take a look at the statistics presented by Arkin on pg.335 regarding battlefield atrocities, this information does not paint a very convincing picture in the soldiers' defense. Who is to say the soldier will indeed hold back fire? Who is to say he will not mistake civilians for combatants in the heat of battle? It is inevitable that mistakes have happened and probably will happen for some time to come; as drone technology becomes more advanced and legal policy evolves with it, I do think that mistakes will become more rare. It is my belief that drone activity/strikes can be monitored in ways the actions of individual soldiers on the ground cannot.
In response to your question about the "enemy figure", I'm not quite sure I grasp what you are trying to say. What do you mean by "different standards of human casualty"? Also, Saddam Hussein was not in fact a terrorist, but an Iraqi dictator.
Alisa,
ReplyDeleteYou mention the report commissioned by Gen Stanley McChrystal. I wonder if a report like that doesn't come with a viewpoint already embedded into it. Most likely this is a viewpoint from the military and from those with a lot of military experience. I don't want to degrade military experience or anything but do you think that such a viewpoint might preordain particular answers? I lot of drone critics come from outside of government and the military for a reason (and yes, they too have a viewpoint that might preordain particular answers).
DeleteHi Professor,
Yes, I think in matters of politics most players (if not all) have an agenda. I looked into General McChrystal, and he has in fact questioned the Obama administration's use of drones on a number of occasions(it is true that the reasons as to why he did it are probably not totally altruistic). Foreign Affairs conducted an interview with him in 2013. To the question "So what do you do with places like Mali and Yemen?" McChrystal replied: "Well, you can't solve all of them. You certainly don't want to put Western forces in all of these countries. The initial reaction that says, "We will simply operate by drone strikes" is also problematic, because the inhabitants of that area and the world have significant problems watching Western forces, particularly Americans, conduct drone strikes inside the terrain of another country. So that's got to be done very carefully, on occasion. It's not a strategy in itself; it's a short-term tactic."
I agree with Gen. McChrysal that drones are a short-term solution, and would actually venture to add that in general any type of strike against the terrorists using military and violent force is probably a short-term solution, since terrorist networks appear to resemble Hydra, a Greek mythological monster: if you remove the leader, another will come to take his place, and the cycle will continue. To identify long-term solutions to the problem of terrorism (I realize total elimination is not likely), one would have to look toward the state of the societies from which terrorists emerge: my guess is that it is social and economic issues which are at the heart of the problem.
Hi Alisa,
ReplyDeleteAs someone who doesn't quite agree with the use of drones, I definitely see what you mean as it being beneficial in terms of less emotion being involved. But I see that as sort of bittersweet. It is great that people and their emotions/stress won't get involved with warfare or another person's life. But on the other hand, people can become desensitized to killing. I've thought about becoming a family lawyer but I am kind of reluctant because I don't want to become desensitized (or dehumanized) to things such domestic violence, or serious family issues. When you do things all the time or not directly, it can allow you to lose that emotion. I don't think this is a good thing, especially when we feel very enraged when there is an attack on American soil. I am NOT saying that these people or terrorists shouldn't be pursued and killed, I am just not so sure drones or autonomous warfare is the right direction to go in.
Alsia I disagree with your viewpoint on the military aspect of the issue to some degree. There is no possiblity of a drone being emotionally capable of avoiding an attack. Drones do not have that split second capability of finding out whther someone is a civilian or not which is why many civilians are killed during drone strikes. The use of drones are increasing and we need more safety practices implemented. As technology progresses I hope we become more aware of our targets and kill less civilians. The growing number of innocent individuals killed will make it more difficult for us to establish peaceful overseas interactions.
ReplyDelete