Comment Paper 6: The Other Side of Drone Warfare

The Princeton PhD student Omar Bashir brings up an excellent point in his article, “How to Improve the Drones Debate.” One of his six suggestions to improve the debate on drone warfare is that participants must clarify and organize their ethical objections. Prior to my participation in this course, I considered myself to be against drone warfare. However, I never thought to consider the reasoning behind my opposition. As an American citizen, I want to trust that the U.S. government is making the right decision by using drones to target terrorists. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is warranted to kill innocent civilians in order to achieve this goal. If drones are so accurate and have the ability to watch over an area for days, why are there so many unnecessary casualties? The United States will create more enemies from targeted killing with drones as the death toll of civilians in Pakistan continues to rise.

The lack of accurate statistics and biased media sources doesn’t help to persuade me of the importance of using drone strikes. According to Charli Carpenter, it is very difficult to find accurate reports on civilian casualties. Even though the information comes from the same resources in Pakistan, the number of civilian casualties varies depending on the media source. In her article, Carpenter cites the statistic that the Pakistan Body Count reported 88 percent of all drone strike casualties to be civilians, yet the New America Foundation claimed that the rate of civilian casualties was only at 20 percent. How is it possible for these two organizations to report different percentages of civilian casualties given the same information? In his article, “Media, Drones and Rank Propaganda” Glenn Greenwald discusses how American journalists choose to defend government action, with little news coverage in opposition of governmental actions. The majority of Americans choose to support the use of drone warfare for the War on Terror as a result of the mainstream media’s one-sided perspective.

Other than my distrust with the information provided on the number of civilian casualties, I am also concerned about the psychological impact of drones on the civilians who are living in Pakistan. My roommate who I lived with while studying abroad in London this past semester was from Pakistan. One night we had a conversation about her experience with drone strikes. While she was fortunate to not have personally lost any of her close family or friends, she knew of people whose villages had been completely destroyed from drone warfare. I cannot imagine living in fear every single day that I could be attacked at any moment. There must be some other way to utilize drones without wrecking havoc on the daily lives of ordinary civilians. I propose that drones only be used for surveillance in order to pinpoint the specific location of the terrorist. Drones should only be used as a method of killing if the target could be killed without risk to innocent civilians’ lives. In my opinion, the negative impact of drone warfare to society is not worth the apparent benefit to fighting the War on Terror.

Comment Paper #6: The Role of Imminence in Self-Defense

The article, Imminence in Justified Targeted Killing, by Russell Christopher in our Targeted Killings book brings up some interesting points about the concept of imminence and the imminence requirement for the justification of self-defense.  Christopher is able to punch some serious holes in this theory that self-defense must come when attack is imminent. One of the more convincing arguments that I saw was that the imminence requirement favors those parties that have the ability to move and act swiftly, while disadvantaging actors who either don’t have the resources or time to react quickly and, therefore, effectively defend themselves. This is a criticism that Christopher uses in his assessment of conflicts between states and non-state entities, such as Al Queda. The problem with the imminence standard is because of the fact that these non-state entities are unpredictable in their actions and are hard to survey. They could, therefore, strike at any moment.

This line of thought brings up the idea that perhaps the idea of defending oneself from an “imminent threat” as the only justifiable case of self-defense should be rethought. Christopher brings up the notion of measuring imminence based on both a temporal and action component. However, doesn’t the action component also make it hard to effectively defend oneself? After all, if you are waiting for an action that can serve as an “objective manifestation”, then is it not also too late to demonstrate an effective self-defense. This is something that also presents itself in our use of drones to target terrorists, both in the temporal and action sense. When we target terrorists, it is usually when they are doing something that is completely mundane. Let us take the famous raid of Seal Team Six on Osama bin Laden’s compound on May 1, 2011 (although this example may not be one of a drone taking out the target, drones did play a part in the initial surveillance). At the time, bin Laden wasn’t engaging in anything sinister. He was sleeping. There may have been evidence that he was planning another attack, but to my knowledge, it was not likely to occur soon or at least immediately. One could say that bin Laden’s status as a terrorist would be enough to label him as a perpetual or ongoing threat. However, I believe that another, albeit, very related explanation is in order.

In my opinion, imminence, at least in the sense that we are discussing it here, should be removed from the temporal mindset and be redefined. This redefinition isn’t something that needs to be completely drastic in terms of regular thought, just a simple paradigm shift. It is my belief that, in describing what we would label as “imminent”, we shouldn’t think of when this would occur, but instead, if it is to occur at all. The “ongoing threat” status that many terrorists receive in justifying their being targeted, while related to the assessment I pose, is too limited in its temporal scope, pertaining strictly to immediate events, instead of the long-term potentiality of the risk. In essence, I am criticizing idea that a threat is only open to self-defense when it is immediate and upon you as being both too “procrastinative” (if that’s a word) and too urgent. It is too "procrastinative" in the sense that it has not taken into account that the immediate threat could have been circumvented if something had been done sooner and it is too urgent in that it is tries to couch everything in this sense that an attack could happen at any moment, which could lead to rushed action and could also cause them to overlook certain measures that would ensure the target's guilt (instead of retroactively realizing we may have killed the wrong individual).

Instead of thinking of it like a time bomb that will go off in seconds if nothing is done, think of it as you would a reformed alcoholic. There is no guarantee that the reformed alcoholic would ever drink again, even in the presence of alcohol, but are you willing to take the chance of him falling off the wagon, even if him eventually turning to drinking again would take place years down the line? Another and probably clearer example would be the Norman case, where a woman killed her abusive husband in his sleep because she felt he would eventually kill her. In his sleep, the man posed no threat to her. There was also the consideration that it would be years before he could actually kill her or that she could live under his abuse for the rest of his life and she would never die from it (although such a life would also be incredibly tragic). Hell, there was even the possibility that he could wake up and decide that he was never going to hit her again. However, it was her judgment, based on his past behavior, that the likelihood of her being killed by him was too high to take the risk of living under his abuse for one more day. I believe that a similar mindset should be used to justify targeted killings of terrorist combatants.

I realize that such a perspective is also problematic in its own right and, to be clear, this is not my own definite position. This is simply based on thoughts I had while reading the article.

Comment Paper 6

The media is a powerful tool that can ultimately control masses of people. Over the past few years, media coverage on the War on Terror has sky rocketed significantly. However, media sources are only conveying information that they see fit. Many of the American people believe that the Obama Administration is justified with their attacks on Pakistan. But, how can we fully support a cause if we do not have all of the information? We have to be mindful that the media and the Obama Administration have released limited information on what is actually going on in Pakistan and Afghanistan. With that being said the Obama administration is using the media coverage to his advantage by gaining supporters. What would be the consequence if the American people knew the truth? The President would lose his support, his intentions would be exposed and questioned, and drone usage would probably come to a halt. The US government needs to release the critical information about the drone strikes policies. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “From June 2004 through mid September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.” These numbers are alarming, especially for the children, because the media reports a much lower number of causalities. Another alarming fact that the media does not share is that drones surveillance innocent civilians all day long; this of course, causes anxiety, psychological trauma, and frustration among the community. So far we have killed innocent civilians, increased the anti-American community, and have had little success with targeted killings. It is clear why the Obama Administration has withheld critical information from the public. We have the right to know how our leaders are handling foreign affairs and must demand answers.  

On Improving the Drone Debate

            There is a clear need to establish the legality of the drone warfare campaign, which has been more or less able to conduct operations under the shroud of secrecy with no resistance from government or legislative actions.  In order to work towards regulations, I believe that those opposed to drone warfare must reorganize and develop their case against unrestricted use via the many recommendations laid out by Princeton PhD student Omar Bashir in his post titled “How to Improve the Drone Debate”.  Bashir cites several flaws surrounding the ill-fated approaches of drone warfare opponents’ arguments against its use, including the lack of clarity in ethical objection to drones, the characterizations of people affected by drones, and misdirected rhetoric among other factors that have limited their ability to effectively go up against drone warfare.  I believe Bashir has accurately pointed out what is wrong with the drone conversation: the lack of a concrete counter-effort or work towards creating alternative solutions has rendered the opposition to drone warfare’s use essentially obsolete. 

            I agree with Bashir’s recommendation that an independent review for terrorism legislation would allow for an objective determination of whether the United States is acting legally and can justify the strikes that have thus far been carried out.  There are obvious ethical concerns about whether civilians are being targeted, if at all, but until a non-affiliated institution can weigh in on drone warfare, each side goes without some credibility.  The Obama administration is clearly adamant about continuing surgical operations, meanwhile opponents have lambasted its use without full consideration of what other options the United States has at its disposal.

            The comment Bashir made that most resonated with me was when he discussed the absence of accurate precedent, calling into question whether state sovereignty is actually in danger of being eroded by targeted killings.  Because the use of drones is relatively new, there is still much left to be determined as to whether there are any legal justifications.  Still, the question that begs to be answered is when he asked “I wonder how I would feel if my own village in Scotland were overrun by the Taliban – would I want rulers in London to ‘give peace a chance,’ for the British Army to shell us with artillery, or American drones to kill the Taliban leadership?”  I believe the correct answer remains to be seen, but if there is an organized effort to address the ethics of how we are to act in such a situation, perhaps then we will respond accordingly.

Comment Paper 6: Politics and Deceit

I found Glenn Green’s article extremely interesting because he discusses the fact that many media sources are no longer objective when conveying the news. One can no longer watch fox, cnn, or virtually any other news channel without realizing that each of these channels have their own political agenda.

Within the article Glenn discusses how Chris Hedges was forced out of the New York Times for opposing the war in Iraq and John Burns was promoted for his pro-war views. This is clearly an issue, because like many other Americans I want to learn the truth, and not be subjected (maybe even brainwashed) by a company that is only showing one side or skewing numbers to fulfill their agenda. In a perfect world we would only learn the facts of situations, and not be guided to feel one way or another about a certain situation. It is obvious that Glenn is furious with this Newsweek video because he feels that it omits key information, and minimizes certain facts about the effects of drone warfare. I can certainly see where he is coming from, because the video is very simplistic, and seems to contain propagandist elements in support of the Obama administration.

What personally bothered me most was reading that the Obama administration considers any male that is around military service age to be a militant. This to me seems like a dirty way of minimizing civilian casualty statistics, and tricking us into thinking that drones cause less damage than they truly do. I’m not sure if there is an answer that will solve the media problem or Obama’s administration policies, but after reading this article it is clear to me that there is a correlation between politics and deceit. 

Media control in Pakistan

“Crunching Drone Death Numbers,” by Charli Carpenter, outlines a post by Christine Fair on the drone casualty debate and, more specifically, the corruption of the media in Pakistan. For my final comment paper, I’ve decided to dig into my own area of expertise as a journalism major at Maryland and speak on just how misleading the media could be in the country, and how this could persuade the Pakistani citizens to become more anti-American. To start, Fair shows prime examples of at least one third of the Pakistani media to be on the payroll of either the ISI (the intelligence agency for the country) or the Taliban. Planting stories or suggesting what to publish is clearly an ethical dilemma. In the United States, that would be a violation of our constitutional rights. Perhaps this ethical gray area could be solved if there were more structure in the nation’s government. As someone mentioned in a comment earlier, our partnership with Pakistan seems to be more and more convoluted. If the government is controlling the media in creating an anti-American stance, I don’t see how this partnership can continue. The second troubling detail of Fair’s post has to do with the skewing of innocent casualty numbers. The media’s control of the government means the casualty numbers for innocent victims of drone strikes are inflated. This, once again, creates an anti-American feeling amongst the country. Further, when the United States wishes to collect these same numbers, and they come from the same place, the discrepancy between the two country’s counts also could shed some doubt on the attacking nation. If there’s ever a difference in these counts, it seems natural to assume the attacking nation is under-counting. Overall, Christine Fair’s post does not change my opinion of drones. I’ve always been a supporter of drones, while also being a proponent of more regulations. What Fair’s comments have done for me is make me much more wary of Pakistan as a whole. Their harboring of terrorists, their skewing of casualty numbers, their control of the media and their overall intentions of creating anti-American thoughts for its citizens makes me uneasy about continuing a relationship with them.

Warfare isn't pretty, but it must be done.

“Drones are becoming the preferred instruments of vengeance, and their core purpose is analogous to the changing relationship between civil society and warfare, in which the latter is conducted remotely and at a safe distance so that implementing death and murder becomes increasingly palatable”. James Jeffrey says this in his article Drone Warfare’s Deadly Civilian Toll: A Very Personal View. I disagree with what he says here. This quote makes the United States seem like the ‘bad guy.’ Yes, drones are becoming much more popular, however, it is because they are effective and keep pilots out of the combat zone. Implementing death and murder? America is at war with an enemy who could care less about killing our military personnel and our noncombatant civilians. Yet, we debate about whether or not the terrorists that are trying to kill us are being targeted fairly. It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth knowing that people defend the rights of terrorists. Maybe i'm just heartless, but I don't care how the enemy is targeted, as long as the job gets done safely.

            Jeffrey also talks about how it is easy to kill if you do not view the target as a person. I hear this a lot, “They’re people too.” Yes, the enemy are people too, however, most of the people arguing this have never been in contact with the enemy, and do not know what they are like. They are savages; women use their own children as human shields and suicide bombers, they put IEDs under dead dogs or weapon magazines. A soldier is going to listen to the order to kill the enemy whether they are referred to as a person or a target, the job will be done regardless.

            A senior administration official said, “We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us,” which is true. However, I do believe that everyone who has directly contributed in the harming or killing of American lives does deserve to die. Maybe that is why more names are being added to kill lists. The U.S. is gathering more intelligence on terrorists that have participated in the killing of Americans. Do High Value Targets (HVTs), like Osama Bin Laden, deserve to live just because the war is slowing down? I think not.