Blog Post 3: Democracy and Drones

            The proliferation of UAVs, namely drones, in the U.S campaign against terror has sparked much debate from various critics. Eric Blanchard, in his work “Feminism and International Relations”, writes that “revolution in networked technology has transformed the way advanced societies conduct war and make peace”. Many supporters and opponents of drones have zeroed in on the way that the use of drones has been handled by the current administration, Congress, and the CIA.  Peter Singer, author of the article “Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”, has argued that with the changes in the nature of military technologies, a change in our democracy has taken place as well.

            Congress, the branch of government given the power to declare war, has not officially done so since World War II; instead, power has become concentrated in the hands of the President, who has authorized drone strikes without informing Congress. In Pakistan, moreover, the drone strikes have not been conducted by the U.S military, but rather by the CIA. As a result, this transition has affected “everything from the strategy that guides it to the individuals who oversee it (civilian political appointees) and the lawyers who advise them (civilians rather than military officers)” (Singer). Since there has been no need to place boots on the ground, the President has not had to seek approval for actions which have not placed any U.S soldiers’ lives at risk. Citizens who historically have borne the brunt of the "economic and human costs" inherent to the traditional ways of waging wars and military operations, have now been practically removed from the equation. From a physical cost perspective, this appears to me to be a positive development. On the other hand, it seems that these covert actions have flown mostly under the radar of the public; furthermore, in the seven years since the operation in Pakistan has been going on, it  “has never been debated in Congress…there has not even been a single vote for or against it” (Singer).

            Yet, I do not think that it is drones, as in the actual weapons, that lie at the root of the issue. As Joshua Foust points out, drones in themselves are not "good" or bad"-rather, they are a tool, a piece of technology. What matters is the way that they are used by the U.S, as well as the processes surrounding their use.  This idea is succinctly summarized by Charli Carpenter, who writes that "'drones' are not problems in themselves but have become a synecdoche for a broader tension between the current security environment and the legal frameworks through which we’re accustomed to thinking about and legitimizing war".  Based on current trends, I am quite certain that drones are here to stay. It is time to reevaluate the overwhelming authority that has been given (or rather, taken by?) to certain agencies and political figures in our society.  It is time to invite public debate, and to work toward greater transparency in our system and a legal structure which adequately addresses the new advances in technology and warfare. Sandra Harding, a proponent of Feminist Critical Theory, writes, “our cultures make assumptions and have agendas that we as individuals cannot easily detect”. This quote serves as a reminder that our role as citizens should be to remain involved in the debate, to analyze and question, and to be aware of  the political biases and propaganda which have existed around the national security issue in our society and which have been used to the advantage of those in power.