In the previous edition of the Wheel, fellow staff writer Ross Fogg penned an editorial discussing the benefits of the United States' drone program.
This is an issue about which I feel very strongly, having written a column about Anwar al-Awlaki's assassination several weeks ago.
I am glad that Fogg has continued the discussion because it is certainly an important one to have. As such, I would like to take this opportunity to address the points Fogg makes while offering more clearly my own take on the matter.
It is true that there has recently been significant media coverage about President Obama's drone policy – it appears to be one of the few things upon which Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly can agree on, at least to some extent. With Rand Paul's almost 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's nomination as director of the CIA came revived conversations and new questions from the media due to Brennan's oversight of the drone program.
Unfortunately, Fogg works under the false assumption that the U.S. must be at war: either U.S. troops are fighting on the ground or U.S. drones are flying through the air. He fails to take into account that the objection to the use of drones in foreign countries may be an objection to U.S. intervention more broadly.
While I cannot speak for all opponents of drones, I am of the belief that neither U.S. troops nor U.S. drones ought to be carrying out military actions in countries like Afghanistan. Furthermore, there are several countries with which we are not at war, like Pakistan and Yemen, in which drones target people. Here, Fogg's proposed troop/drone dichotomy falls short.
Rather, drones make war (and warlike actions) easier for politicians to justify: not only are we eliminating our enemies, but we are doing so without putting any troops in harm's way.
It is for this reason that drones are so sinister. Combine this with the fact that drones are not 100-percent effective at targeting terrorists – some reports put the percentage as low as 2 percent – and we are left with a lethal cocktail of civilian casualties and a shattered reputation across the globe.
Going to war should never be an easy decision to make. The Just War Theory stipulates that war always ought to be a last resort, only to be considered after steps like sanctions and diplomacy have failed.
War is so undesirable in part because it causes the deaths of unpredictable numbers of people. Fogg himself mentions how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been less publicly renounced than the Second World War or Vietnam.
However, if the U.S. had a disposable army of unmanned robots with which to fight, as Fogg seems to advocate, there would be almost no ostensible reason for a war hawk to reconsider deploying squadron after squadron of drones anywhere in the world.
The related objection to Obama's drone policy, then, is one of precedent. While what Obama is doing may not be prima facie objectionable for some people, a more belligerent president may justify future drone strikes in other countries which could have more dangerous consequences.
Fogg also defends Obama's policy of targeting American citizens with drone strikes, arguing that an American citizen like Anwar al-Awlaki deserved to die because of his involvement with al-Qaeda. Even if this were so, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution ensures American citizens due process.
While I am certainly no lawyer, being killed by a drone without being informed of the crime with which you are charged does not seem like due process to me.
Fogg concludes that drones are the lesser of two evils.
I fundamentally disagree with his assessment based on this logic of limitations.
Given a choice between U.S. troops and U.S. drones, I will instead argue for peace. After all, last week marked the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, reminding us all of just how long we have been trying to establish peace in the region.
It is time we start leading by example.
William Hupp is a College sophomore from Little Rock, Ark.
Read More
