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.
Read More
