On all things drone:

Here follows my opinion on the current drone war.[1]

“And so it goes.”

















All I’ve seen on the news and the Internet's main sites and their comments sections is the yelling of two tribes. What two tribes? For the most part they fall into the for and against categories. I mentioned the comments section. Though full of vitriol, these people tend to echo what’s being argued in the public sphere.



A public official will say: X was killed today. X was a known member of the Y organization. Y= a horrendous terrorist outfit. Y approaching 0 = increased safety of Americans. If only the world were this simple. Meanwhile people in this tribe will say: good, a terrorist is dead & what else do you expect when they want to harm us and Muslims in their area? [2] The way this argument is framed, anyone against drone strikes is against killing terrorists. And easy slogans are created around this—such as we bomb them there rather than here—none of which are backed up with any facts. [3]





Now for the other side. The main line of argument here seems to ask for some level of legal transparency, as well as the claim that in the long term these strikes won't do any good since they will cause more terrorists to arise and destabilize the countries in which they're being carried out. The former view takes a strict legalese route and seems to be making some headway. While the latter view bases much of what it claims on history and facts. I'll concede that these two views of the against side are harder to explain, and don't make for easy bumper stickers, making them a harder sell to the busy American people. They are also easier to demonize since all someone has to say is: "you're defending terrorists" or "you want every terrorist to have a trial, something these terrorists would never allow you."





Collateral damage is also an important part of this discussion. Some say that this is war [4] and that one only has to compare the miniscule collateral damage in the drone wars to the wars of the past. Take the bombing conducted by the Allies before the they liberated France where thousands more civilians died. War is war, these people say, and this one’s ending up better than most because of an efficient weapon. [5] Right...





will say that drones are indeed a say that drones are indeed a very efficient weapon with regards to collateral damage. That it’s the way of the future is hard to argue against. Nevertheless, when I think of drones, and their effects, I am immediately reminded of the 1990s and the tomahawk missiles that were launched with some regularity (taking about 2 hours to hit a target, thus increasing collateral damage). Before that it was a bomb from a plane, or ship. Indeed, when viewed from a military standpoint, a drone is an amazing improvement. Now drones can hover (in cycles) over an area of known terrorist activity and, with minimal delay, hit a target. This will inevitably mean better use of intelligence (in theory, and given some numbers, in fact as well [5]) and thus less collateral damage than before.





will make it easier for them to recruit. But that doesn’t refute the main point: that conducting this war (without oversight, mind you) in various areas only creates more enemies , and doesn't exactly solve the problem. There are few people in these areas of drones attacks who are on our side. And I’m not talking about Al Qaeda (AQ) members, though thismake it easier for them to recruit.





We are also destabilizing the nations where we conduct this. In someplace like Somalia this doesn’t appear a strong argument. In Yemen it should be considered important. And what of Pakistan and its nukes? Is destabilizing Pakistan wise?



For each country, it appears as if some agreement, secret or otherwise, has been reached between the US and either the government or the military or the intelligence agency in that country. If it is the latter two and not the first, we should ask if we are doing more harm than good. [6] Such things, when the people are obviously against it, don’t end well. As they shouldn’t. We would only be usurping democracy (or the hope for it) for short term goals. [7]





Again, history and most experts on the matter (not monetarily tied to the need for more drone strikes) claim that we are only making the situation worse. The people we are targeting do not like what’s happening in their tribal areas. Indeed, our strikes are only exacerbating the situation, giving the militants the upper hand, morally. The tribal systems are falling apart (elders being attacked by a lack of moral power resulting from the drone strikes, as well as from the militants themselves). [8] So far, it seems that the only thing that matters for politicians is the added benefit of seeming to kill our enemies. Again, the easy political solution.





obfuscation. The issue of collateral damage ( That brings me to another point:. The issue of collateral damage ( civilian deaths ) itself is too fraught with lies and obfuscation to make a definitive statement (and who's hand does that play into?), but it does go to show the level to which the US government is willing to lie to its people to cover up what it’s doing in these drone attacks. This should raise red flags for all but the most hawkish of citizens. Why is it so necessary to white wash the results of the drone war? Shouldn't they speak for themselves? [9]





US to lose even more moral standing in the eyes of the world. [10] When it comes to the legal question , there are several takes. No time should be spared for those who would claim that people worried about the legalities of these attacks are hoping for a trial for every terrorist in the world. These people are popping smoke (this tactic, of labeling those of us who do care for the nation and want to prevent future attacks defenders or aiders of AQ, is simply nonsense). Either laws matter or they don’t. To claim some moral superiority for dismissing laws, then telling other nations to abide by these laws will only cause the[10]





Imminent danger to the US, as the President sees fit... That’s the only thing that’s stopping an out of control executive from expanding its assassination program. How most people cannot see that this is a horrendous time to dismiss the checks and balances that have made our nation so great, is beyond me. But people are working (mainly by asking for justice for the Americans killed) to bring this all into light. Not since Magna Carta has such open killing been allowed . [11]





This brings me to a question: what then is the endgame for this drone warfare? I mentioned before the comparisons to previous wars. Yet for the successful ones, they had a specific purpose. The drone war doesn’t appear to have an end to it. Not when the process itself creates many more people willing to take up such a label as terrorist. [12]





This in the end, highlights my stance. I know what happens when the government starts to lie about things like national security. Let us not mince words , more likely than not, these drone attacks are terrorism. We need to make sure that we are indeed safe. Don’t fall for the false dichotomy of bomb here or there. The politicians and the industries that benefit from this care not for that. Otherwise they would listen to the experts on the matter. [13]





In the end, like most issues, this is not an easy one to ‘solve’. But being a citizen of a republic with a great history of democratic discourse, I think that a discussion should be opened up on the matter. Some aspects of the drone war are cloaked behind the excuse of national security [14]. Nevertheless, that there is no oversight to a system to see if the process is in line with our own and international laws is inexplicable. Right now we conduct most of the drone warfare that goes on out there. But what about in the future, when multiple countries have this capability? Surely our leaders are not short-sighted enough to allow this to become another free for all?





Be wary wherever it is raised. But they are, and we must hold them accountable. Every time they cry out national security, and tell us we can’t be told, understand that this is a lie. Chomsky has mentioned in-depth studies conducted on what governments have withheld from their people in the past. It ends up being that the information is withheld because the government wants to protect itself [15] from its people. The claim of national security (not the act, but the need to hide things from the public, or even judicial oversight) is usually a bogus claim.





The Far Future:

And the final question of what we do when drones become something more than a remote controlled toy? Already it’s a way to do war with which Congress doesn’t seem too concerned about. After all, it’s merely a toy that’s lost if something goes wrong (or innocents not of our nation that die if the intel is wrong). It doesn’t seem to be an issue for most lawmakers, or citizens, to be fair. But when the capabilities to run a full on war (to include robotic on land capabilities, that means we’ll be able to hold ground without risking troops) without risking lives becomes a reality, the political costs of wrong wars (short term, at least for now, such paradigms can and will change) will become close to nil. What then? Another time and place for that question.