Mark Russell
GVPT 200
Professor Shirk
December 2, 2013
Blog 5: Just War
Theory and Drone Strikes
In
listening to Lecture 24, professor addressed the validity of the use of drones
as a preventive method in fighting terrorism in the United States. This essentially
means that we are firing missiles at suggested terrorists or other high value
targets without knowing what else they are attacking. In this blog I will
address the flaws on drone targeting, specifically the ongoing war occurring in
the tribal areas in Northern Pakistan.
Since the Bush
Administration the US military has targeted terrorist groups and jihadists in
this hotbed area striking down hundreds of potential terrorists. However, the issue that I would like to
address is commonly pushed under the rug and looked at an externality of war by
the United States Government. The issue at hand is that of civilian casualties.
These constant drone attacks have killed a roughly estimated 200 to 800
civilians. These are often unarmed shop owners and in one case an all boys’
school, all swept under the rug before traditional media outlets could pick up
on the stories.[1]
While I am
open to attacking bunkers and compounds of Taliban fighters, I believe that
these attacks on “terrorists” have resulted in the death of civilians. Does
this put our government on the same level of those who attacked us on 9/11? Not
necessarily, however many of these attacks could be considered war crimes and
occur in a country we aren’t at war with. We are killing innocent members of a
different society, but claim that they are terrorists, slain in the “War on
Terror.”
I believe
we must counteract these somewhat reckless attacks seeing as they have become
detrimental to our relationships in the Middle East. These attacks must be more
precise, eliminating the risk of civilian casualties if we hope to repair our
relationships overseas.
The Obama
administration has launched approximately 364 drone strikes in the Peshawar
region of Pakistan alone. This number is extremely excessive and I believe that
it could easily be cut down by strictly targeting high value targets, rather
than every minor leader in the Taliban. Additionally, I believe that United
State military leaders must reduce the number of follow up strikes. These
strikes have hit funerals, and killed civilians who have started to clear the
rubble to look for survivors.
To the big
picture; The United States have far too many resources to be operating on such
terms. They should only target high value targets to ensure the success of such
preventive attacks, otherwise wait until the opportunity presents itself.
This brings
me to the difference between preemptive and preventive, which I believe the US
government now overlooks or disregards. I believe that they must make an effort
to reduce the number of civilian casualties by making the decision to be more
selective in their targeting. They must focus on the more imminent threats
(preemptive) and take them down, rather than take down what could be a plan for
an attack. With the amount of intelligence gathered by the CIA and other
intelligence agencies, there should be little to no civilian casualties. While
preventive striking may save American lives, the killing of innocent Pakistanis
and Afghanis is no better and should be condemned globally, regardless of who
does it.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-drone-hits-islamic-seminary-in-pakistan/2013/11/21/c8cd26d6-5285-11e3-9ee6-2580086d8254_story.html
I would even go farther and say that drone strikes that the US authorized, that weren't specifically targeted at the organization's headquarters or such are considered terrorist attacks. Not saying that the US is a terrorist, but those acts, in my opinion constitutes as terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI agree that that the US is not and should not be considered a terrorist country, however authorizing the launching of over 300 drones that have resulted in the killing of so many innocent civilians is an act of terrorism. I believe that at this point the country should have the necessary resources and intelligence to figure out where the drones could be sent that would cause little to no harm to innocent civilians.
DeleteI definitely agree that the Obama administration's use of drones violates just war theory because it is preemptive and not preventative and because of the mass number of civilian casualties. Furthermore, many of these civilians who live in areas that have been struck by drones build a great deal of anti american sentiment which could ultimately worsen relations between the region and the US. Daniella I completely agree that the drones' impact on innocent civilians constitutes terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this since innocent civilians should not be killed in war. It is even worse when they are killed in mass numbers since war does not involve noncombatants. If the US was under attack, we would definitely view it as a terrorist attack, which makes it interesting that the Obama Administration supports these attacks.
DeleteI agree with you that civilian casualties are an issue that needs to be dealt with. I still though agree with drone strikes as they protect American troops while also getting rid of targets. I do not believe that only high value targets though should be targeted. the problem I see with this is that after one high value target is rid of, another one comes up. to fix civilian casualties I believe that targets should be engaged when they are in more rural areas with no civilians around. Also, there should be more assurance before attacks.
ReplyDeleteI agree that drone strikes are an incredible asset to protecting American troops however the inability to guarantee who the target is puts me off. Also this topic must be very difficult for the military because they must either risk losing a high value target or accidentally hitting the wrong person. As for striking when the targets are in depopulated areas is part of the problem. Many of these terrorist look just like any other person and even if they're alone it can be very hard to tell if that is the correct target. In my opinion it is a lose lose situation because we are either prioritizing ourselves or prioritizing the civilians of another country.
Delete