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.