Focusing the lens a bit tighter after the broad topics of the last blog, there are many options for analysis. One that stands out for the combination of strategic, operational and ethical questions it raises can be summed up with the word "drones." Let's take them up each in turn, that is, the strategic, the operational, and the ethical.
In the two hours or so since I wrote that first paragraph, I became informed of a new development. On November 7th, the day after the U.S. presidential election, drone strikes killed al Qaeda operatives (names) in Yemen, X miles from the capital. Here is Bill Roggio from Long War Journal:
The strike was certainly carried out by the US-operated Predators or
Reapers. US military and intelligence officials have repeatedly told The Long War Journal that
the Yemeni air force does not have the ability to hit moving targets in
a nighttime strike. And in early October, Yemeni President Abdu Rabbu
Mansour Hadi admitted that the nighttime strikes were carried out by the
US "because the Yemeni Air Force cannot carry out missions at night."
Adnan al Qadhi, an al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula commander who
operates in Sana'a, and two of his bodyguards, Rabiee Lahib and Radwan
al Hashidi, were confirmed to have been killed in the strike, Yemeni
officials said. Al Qadhi's family told Abdul Razzaq al Jamal, a Yemeni
journalist who is closely linked to AQAP, that Qadhi and the two
bodyguards were killed in the airstrike.
Al Qadhi is "a former jihadist fighter in Afghanistan and al Qaeda
member" who is wanted for the Sept. 17, 2008 complex attack on the US
Embassy in Sana'a, according to AFP. More than 16 people were
killed after terrorists detonated multiple bombs and then launched a
ground attack in an attempt to breach the compound. Al Qaeda also
deployed snipers dressed in Yemeni military uniforms during the attack.
Last night's strike is the first recorded in Sana'a since the US
stepped up air and missile attacks against terrorist operatives in 2009.
The US is expanding its use of drones against AQAP in Yemen; prior
strikes have focused on the network in southern Yemen. But the previous
strike, on Oct. 28, took place in Saada in northern Yemen. Four AQAP fighters, including two Saudis, were killed in the attack that targeted a compound of a wanted al Qaeda commander."
There is no doubt that drones are more effective than the mafia in getting rid of undesirable persons. I'm sure Castro would not be alive if drones had been around 50 years ago. In fact its effectiveness is what makes it so tempting but also morally dangerous.
ReplyDeleteLet me fall back on Kant's categorical imperative and postulate that any and all had the same capabilities. Suppose for example Spain took the same line against ETA terrorists as we do against Al Qaida and could justify attacks against them anywhere any time. An ETA leader is holed up somewhere in Brooklyn and you can kill him, although there may be some 'collateral damage' but these potential victims are not Spanish, so they do it, killing a few unfortunate Brooklynites. What would our governments reaction be?
Of course we do it because we know the governments in Pakistan and Yemen not only don't really mind, in fact secretly welcome it, since they feel threatened by the terrorists.
My question is whether America is breaking some international law with these drones, not that we recognize international law.
The other issue is that 'eye for an eye, tooth for tooth' is very alive in that part of the world (in US too) and does this all not beget more violence?
Looking at America from the outside I think there are few things that irk foreigners about us more than our 'exceptionalism.' In that regard we are like Israel, the difference is that they think they are God's chosen people and we think we are history's chosen people.
For some reason this is listed as Helen's comment and I can't change it. Oh well, if the thought police viewed the above statements as anti-American, they will spy on her and I'll be safe.
The United States does recognize international law, everyday, far more frequently than we violate it. The problem is that the areas of violation are the areas in which people suffer and die as a consequence. I think technology does drive this somewhat, shifting the question from whether the damage done by drones is acceptable to whether the damage done by drones is more acceptable than a ground invasion or extensive strategic bombing. Terrorism is transnational; sovereign state boundaries mean no more than a logistical obstacle. Countering terrorism must then by necessity also be transnational, unhampered by reliance on lesser states' bureaucracies to approve operations. And, besides, as you point out we have tacit approval from the host governments, or ways to secure post hoc approval.
ReplyDeleteThat leaves the effectiveness question. Is the drone policy accomplishing goals, and if so, at what cost? Do the long term costs outweigh the short term gains? Do the answers to these questions vary from Pakistan to Yemen to Africa?
As for your hypothetical, drone technology is proliferating rapidly around the world. We may get an answer.
Frank, I believe this essay says a great deal of what you're getting at. http://jurist.org/hotline/2012/11/samar-warsi-drone-policy.php
ReplyDelete