There has been considerable talk about drones in the media lately, and most of it is absolutely absurd. Republicans are trying to paint President Obama as someone who is ruthlessly and unconstitutionally attacking individuals. They have sought to use the drone program, much like they did with the attack on the Benghazi consulate, to tarnish the Obama’s presidency by creating a scandal equivalent to Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair.
Democrats are likewise critical because they feel a betrayal from a president who was supposed to embrace a vastly different approach to foreign policy than that of his predecessor.
What many have failed to consider is the alternative to the use of drones. And much of the criticism against their use fails the logic test.
Unmanned drones help remove American soldiers from battle while still killing America’s enemies who wish to cause as much death and destruction to the country as possible. It is a far better alternative to sending out forces on the ground to do the job.
Thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives in recent wars, and many more have endured separation from their families, loss of physical abilities and mental trauma, to name only a few other sacrifices. If the opportunity to defeat our enemies without risking American life presents itself, it is not only favorable, but ideal, given the context of war.
The other alternative of not using drones is allowing these individuals to keep pursuing American lives.
Another grievance against the use of drones is that they have targeted and killed American citizens. The most notable of which was Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in the United States and remained a citizen until he was killed in Yemen in September of 2011. Al-Awlaki was Al Qaeda’s top recruiter and one of the United States’ most important targets. However, because he was a citizen, people have been outraged by his death.
If anyone actively seeks to kill American citizens and is a member of a terrorist organization, he has lost the rights of being a citizen. It is as simple as that. It is important to respect the human rights of those who are detained by American forces, but it is ludicrous to think that the United States does not have a right to bring such individuals to justice.
This type of thinking ignores two realities, the first of which is that the Unites States government does in fact kill its citizens on a regular basis. Many people, especially the republicans who oppose the use of drones, seem to have forgotten about the death penalty, which they are the first to support. While the death penalty should indeed be abolished, citizens are killed for less serious reasons than for advancing the interests of terrorist organizations. Many are even killed for crimes they never committed.
The second part of the problem is one many would rather overlook: the United States is still at war. Imagine how differently the war in Afghanistan would have looked if the military would have targeted certain operational bases and individuals rather than commit a presence of American troops. Death and destruction are inherent in war, and until more conflict can be peacefully resolved, this will continue to constitute the nature of war.
The media’s coverage of drones simply reminds people of what they try to forget. Unlike in World War II when there were rationings, or the Vietnam War when the draft could call upon young men to serve, there has been little public involvement in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
With the exception of military families, there have been few sacrifices that the civilian population has been forced to make as a whole. Many are able to see news coverage, or choose to ignore it, and proceed with their lives. The root of the debate about drones is that it reminds Americans of the brutal realities of war. Of course that is upsetting.
While it is imperative that there are limits to the use of drones, in the unfortunate reality of war, drones offer an irreplaceable solution.
Ross Fogg is a College junior from Fayetteville, Ga.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
Right. Because the death penalty has so much to do with indiscriminately killing civilians (who were never US citizens in the first place) using machines that do not accept surrender and do not discriminate between targets once the coordinates are plugged in.
This article reads like it was written by a 14 year old trying to impress his Republican dad.
In spite of thesour grapes from the above comment, as one old sage put it” War is Hell”. and unfortunately there will be civilian casualties. However, If you leave your country to join the terrorists, in my opinion, you forfeit your rights as a US citizen and suffer the consequences.
Right. Because you can excuse all manner of sins by shrugging your shoulders and proclaiming, “war is hell.”
Also, there is absolutely nothing in the article about leaving one’s country.
Hey Ross, a few points:
1) Drones may increase the threshold for sending ground troops to an area, but they also decrease the threshold for military operations in an area to basically nothing. As a result we’re drone striking eight countries at once, generally without a declaration of war. If the alternative were a full scale ground invasion of each of these countries, of course drones would be preferable – but that’s not the actually existing alternative.
2) It’s not mentioned here that drone strikes kill innocent people. Many of those innocent people are children. Even the people we’re targeting may or may not be guilty of anything – we target people without knowing their names, people who provide medical aid to people we’ve previously targeted, and any military-age male within a strike zone is assumed to be an enemy combatant. This is abhorrent, and also raises the question of –
3) Effectiveness. A superpower a thousand miles away that kills your children with drones is unlikely to be popular. Many people may believe that the appropriate response to such American violence is to inflict violence on America, and many people do.
4) You draw an analogy between the death penalty and drone strikes of American citizens. The problem with drone strikes is not (necessarily) that they kill people, but that they kill people without a trial – or even, according to the Obama administration, without after-the-fact legal review. If it were as simple as “the government only gets to kill people without a trial if they’re REALLY guilty,” that might be fine, but it’s not – governments abuse the absolute power to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, and due process rights should not be given up without a fight. One pretty damning piece of evidence for this is the fact that two weeks after we killed al-Aulaqi, we also killed his sixteen year old son – again, without a trial, without due process, and this time without any sort of consensus that he was “really” guilty of anything. When Robert Gibbs was asked why this happened, he said that the son “should have had a more responsible father.”
5) You’re right that Americans have had to make few (obvious) sacrifices for our current wars. That’s part of the problem – when we can go to war without any sacrifice, we go to war constantly, and the rest of the world bears the sacrifice for us. That’s one reason why drones are so dangerous.
How about the 200+ children killed my American drones? Seems like it’s not a big deal as long as it’s against the enemy. They’re not people either.
Take a writing class before you graduate.
This article completely bypassed huge reasons people are against the drone strikes like some of the commenters included above.
There was a study that recently came out claiming “50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist” …. no decent response about that in this article…