The Great Debate: Drones
LaRosa vs. Haney
PROS
By Alex LaRosa
The 21st century seems to be a time of endless warfare. For the United States, ever since the September 11th attacks on New York City, American troops have been active all around the world as part of the “war on terror.” Needless to say, this war, being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, and unofficially several other nations, has cost thousands of lives. What if there was a way to keep America safe, while at the same time reducing the number of soldiers killed overseas?
Thankfully, there is a way. Like it or not, drones are the best method to reduce the number of American deaths overseas while pressing the attack on those who threaten our national security.
Just a few days ago, on February 17th, the United States announced plans to allow the sale of military-grade drones to other nations. As is typical with any news about drones, this ignited new concerns over the legality and morality of such weapons. The White House recognizes those concerns, as the new amendment that allows for drone sales also calls for buyer nations to sign an end-use agreement, promising not to use the drones for illegal purposes (“US to Allow Export of Armed Military Drones”).
According to the new regulations, every purchase would be reviewed individually, and the buyers would be monitored to ensure compliance with the end-use agreement. Nonetheless, America’s allies will now be able to buy one of the most deadly weapons of our time.
It is a combination of the deadliness and the impartiality of drones that scares many. Hardly a week goes by where there has not been a drone strike in a faraway land, carried out by a “cubicle warrior,” operating the craft from the comfort of the United States. The military is so committed to this new type of impersonal warfare that drone pilots are now being recruited in higher numbers than traditional jet fighter pilots (“5 Things You Need to Know About Drones”).
As the military invests more into drone warfare, it shows on the battlefield. During the entire Bush administration, a mere 48 drone strikes were carried out in Pakistan alone. Current President Barack Obama, on the other hand, has seen 347 strikes in his two terms. That’s three hundred more strikes, with many more sure to come over the final chapters of his presidency (“Drone Wars Pakistan: Analysis”).
With this comes the concern about who is dying in these attacks. If one listened to only the American government, one would think things are perfectly fine. In 2011, counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan stated that there had not been a single civilian casualty in US drone strikes, due to the incredible precision such a strike can bring. Of course, Interior Minister of Pakistan Rehman Malik said in 2012 that 80% of the people killed in drone strikes were civilians (“New View of Drone Death Toll”). However, the reality seems to lie somewhere in between those claims.
According to estimates by New America’s International Security database, the Obama administration has seen the deaths of somewhere between 1844-3048 people. This is a fairly wide range, but then again, given the explosive nature of a drone strike, as well as the difficulty of getting accurate information in a war zone, it can be difficult to tell how many people died in each strike. Of these, roughly 1560-2614 were militants, about 150 or so were civilians, and the rest were unknown. Neither Malik, nor Brennan, are even remotely close to being accurate based on these stats, but this set of data points more towards Brennan, as only a fraction of the dead are confirmed civilians (“Drone Wars Pakistan: Analysis”).
Taking a look at nearby Yemen, we see a similar picture. Of 120 total air and drone strikes in Yemen, approximately 830-1093 people were killed. Of these casualties, a mere 81-87 were civilians. The highest estimate for militant deaths is placed at 955, which, if true, would be very close to Brennan’s assertion. So far in 2015, there have been 11 confirmed kills in Yemen, 10 of which were militants and one of which is unknown (“Drone Wars Yemen: Analysis”). As a side note: these strikes are incredibly efficient, which means approximately 10 targets die per mission, with exactly zero US military deaths.
So with the raw data in hand, one can make a Spock-like analysis of drone warfare. It is not perfect, but it is much better than sending American troops onto the battlefield. Remember that in every drone strike, all the Americans involved—our friends, neighbors, heroes—are safe, while those who want us dead are sent running at the sound of an approaching craft. Taking even the lower-end estimate for militant deaths in Yemen, the score is still America 717, Militants 0.
But of course it is not as simple as Mister Spock would make it. There is a significant moral debate going on as well. Clearly drones are the most efficient way to eliminate our enemies while keeping our sons and daughters safe. But that doesn’t make it right, does it? Well, that’s a difficult question. According to the theory of “Whiplash transition,” a drone pilot spends the day killing people who are thousands of miles away, and then goes home to their family; however, being a drone pilot is more psychologically exhausting than being a fighter pilot (“5 Things You Need to Know About Drones”). There is plenty of guilt involved with using a joystick and a computer to kill a man who doesn’t even see it coming. At the same time, militants across the world accuse Americans of being “cowards,” because the US wages war with robots rather than people.
I would argue that, in the spirit of Machiavelli, the ends justify the means. During the September 11th attacks, thousands of Americans died. As a nation, we vowed never to allow that to happen again, and since then, we have been battling militants all around the globe. These drone strikes not only prevent future attacks on American soil, but they also cause no physical harm to our own soldiers. Emotionally, we can take pride in knowing that we can defend this nation while keeping our people and our military safe. Statistically, we can marvel at how efficient drones are in destroying the groups that seek to destroy us first. Thus, from this point of view, it seems clear: drones are the best way to fight our faraway wars while keeping everybody at home safe and sound.
Works Cited:
Bergen, Peter and Jennifer Rowland. New view of drone death toll. 26 July 2013. 19 February 2015 <http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/opinion/bergen-pakistan-drone-debate/index.html>.
Lee, Brianna. 5 Things You Need to Know About Drones. 13 September 2012. 19 February 2015 <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/drones/12659/>.
Lee, Matthew and Lolita C Baldor. US to Allow Export of Armed Military Drones. 17 February 2015. 19 February 2015 <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-export-armed-military-drones-29029322>.
New America. Drone War Pakistan: Analysis. 29 January 2015. 19 February 2015 <http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis>.
—. Drone War Yemen: Analysis. 2 February 2015. 19 February 2015 <http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/yemen/analysis>.
CONS
By Kendall Haney
Attack of the Drones: Now an American Movie Tragic
“Until we have met the monsters in ourselves, we keep trying to slay them in the outer world. And we find that we cannot. For all darkness in the world stems from darkness in the heart. And it is there that we must do our work.”
― Marianne Williamson
I’m not against drones, per se. According to one report, they are an interesting tool that can be used to impress unimpressed girls at parties…assuming it doesn’t wind up on the White House lawn.
Oh, but it DID wind up on the White House lawn.
Recently, an unfortunate male party-goer with an eye for female beauty accidently crashed his friend’s flying-fast drone on the lawn of the White House from a nearby high-rise apartment. His reason? According to The Atlantic, “Early in the morning of Monday, January 26, a small, recreational, helicopter-type drone crashed on White House grounds. It was an accident—an employee of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency had been drinking at a friend’s apartment nearby. According to CNN, “he was demonstrating the drone to a woman who was also in the apartment.”
Poor guy. No report could be found after the incident on his future employment with the government agency with which he worked, but one can guess that he is one of the few employees to get the t-shirt “I Met the Secret Service!” More seriously, his situation highlights the question that if a drone can land on the highly secure White House lawn, just how secure are you from privacy invasions and potential unintentional injury while you are on your own property?
I could easily argue that you’re probably not very secure. These flying machines buzz from out of the blue when you are least expecting them. You would think these sort of uninvited drone visits are preventable at least by our own military on American soil by foreign invaders, but drones don’t show up on radar. As proof, the Tijuana Border Patrol recently spotted a crashed drone not far from the U.S. border. The cargo? Drugs. The newest unstoppable use for drones hit headlines suddenly and questionably unexpectedly as the new potential drug transport carrier of choice (TIME).
And, if the border patrol and U.S. military can’t stop invading drones, what are we supposed to do? Shoot at it with a backyard home-made cannon? Drones are small—some are reported to be as small as a hummingbird—and no doubt hard to hit.
Makers of drones, who sell their wares on the internet for $58.68 on Amazon.com (just click http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=drone and tell your parents you want one!) claim that they can be known to ‘flyaway,’ but it is rare and unlikely (CNN). Meanwhile, the poor intoxicated soul just trying to (for once?) get the girl with his friend’s drone faces up to a year in jail and fines. In Washington D.C. it is a crime to fly a drone inside its city limits (CNN).
Oh, well. At least the guy has his own country song written after him now (Meyer). However, the fallout from his drone accident has had legal ramifications for all Americans. U.S. President Barack Obama came out publicly and called for stricter regulations on the use of drones. The timing of his remarks suggests his regulations center against the use of drones as a chick magnet. After all, before this incident, very little came out of the Oval office asking for drone regulations which in some ways makes sense. Who needs government to protect the people from each other in a society anyway, or from foreign invaders? Oh wait, didn’t at least one of the founding fathers state that as important when he penned the Constitution of the United States of America?
Darn technicalities.
The U.S. Constitution…so not meeting our ideals of 21st century liberty. I know. Keep the drones….ditch the Bill of Rights and its love of privacy, its outlaw of illegal searches, and its guarantee of equal protection for all under the law. How about that for a t-shirt? I mean come on…are we really enforcing the law of the land anymore anyway?
…and Now for the Not So Funny Reality of Drone Warfare
Like a movie unfolding its opening sequences in the lab of a well-meaning scientist, one can see that there are a number of useful applications for drones that have nothing to do with warfare. For example, drones can be used successfully in the fields of journalism, photography, search and rescue operations, and even atmospheric research (Lalanilla.) But then, on the screen we see the military shows up at the lab, tempts the scientist with a big pay day if he can successfully make drone applications useful to the Air Force and other U.S. agency operations. Without warning, the screen screams to white and the camera turns on us. We find ourselves to be the main characters in the artful script left only with blank pages for our real life America to write with every mission abroad. The truth is, drones are a highly effective tool at searching out the enemy. Unfortunately, anyone standing too close at the time of impact…well, he or she is going to die right along with said ‘target.’
In 2013, the New York Times reported that Pakistani residents, who had experienced more than their fair share of drone strikes, “paint a portrait of extended terror and strain within a tribal society caught between vicious militants and the American drones hunting them.”
“The drones are like the angels of death,” said Nazeer Gul, a shopkeeper in Miram Shah (of Pakistan). “Only they know when and where they will strike.”
The article goes on to say that, “While the strike rate has dropped drastically in recent months, the constant presence of circling drones — and accompanying tension over when, or whom, they will strike — is a crushing psychological burden for many residents. Sales of sleeping tablets, antidepressants and medicine to treat anxiety have soared, said Hajji Gulab Jan Dawar, a pharmacist in the town bazaar. Women were particularly troubled, he said (Taylor).”
After reading about the poor citizens of Pakistan who have nothing to do with promoting terror, it got me thinking about…me. I live happily in Nowhere, Minnesota. My house is on 40 acres. My attic in Minnesota is my happy safe zone. I have four almost five brothers and sisters. I have two parents. I do my school work, I go to karate, and I like my space. But what if the Canadians across the border decided that the neighbors a couple of acres away from my happy safe haven were a terrorist threat?
How would I respond to the constant buzzing of armed drones overhead? Would I still feel safe, or would I feel threatened? What if the Canadians decided that my elderly neighbor was a terrorist who had to be ‘eliminated’ for the safety of their own country?
What if they made a mistake, and they shot my house instead? What if they killed my family, but somehow I survived my injuries?
What would I become?
What else can I say?
This is the reality that the people in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and other places are dealing with today. Does that radicalize some of them to search for a government that protects them better from a mechanical enemy they can’t fight (Welsh)?
I’m not saying yes or no to the question. I’m just asking us to consider if it is possible that some people are not fighting for their religious expression so much anymore as maybe some of them actually feel unsafe and don’t know what to do about it.
Let me be clear here and say that I don’t even know if that is the truth. But when I put their shoes on my feet, I would be very afraid of something I couldn’t stop, but I could hear, and I knew what it meant.
Someone, potentially, was going to die.
“Across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in the five years since the first attack that injured Qureshi, Pakistan – eight times as many as were launched in the entire Bush presidency. These strikes have killed more than 2,400 people, at least 273 of them reportedly civilians (Walsh).”
The fact that we use weaponized drones for killing enemies isn’t a reason in and of itself to say they are bad or good. The biggest problem I see is how current drone owners/manufacturers have modeled behavior for their use, and we can expect other countries to follow their lead. It begs the question then, which countries have an active drone program? If they all use them like the United States is using them currently, what are the potential consequences? I looked it up, and this graphic can give you an idea of who has them now. Then, use your own imagination of what can happen between some of these countries who have been sworn enemies with their neighbors for a while. How would they use drones (Welsh)?
Last thoughts…
As I conclude this article, the last thoughts I have on this topic is this: is it possible that militarized drone technology is equally as dangerous as the nuclear weapon? Can you imagine a Russian Premier beating his shoe on the table to disrupt an otherwise peaceful UN meeting? It happened in the mid-20th century. What heated things up between the United States and Soviet Union in the 1950s-1960s was an American spy plane flying over the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Premier Khrushchev didn’t like it. He apparently wanted the spying to stop, and he said as much. The American response was to let him know that it would do whatever it felt it needed to do. Is it really so difficult to speculate that drones could be seen in the future by other nations as just as threatening as spy planes? Consider the following video, and then you decide.
The Cold War of the 20th century—a war fought with words as a sick appetizer to a Hot War—only ended in the late 1980s. We could easily have another one simply because people don’t feel safe. I can imagine a lot of mini-cold wars in regions throughout the planet.
In the words of the History channel, peace is not found in the shaking of fists, but in the shaking of hands. But when I heard that quote found at the end of the History channel video above, it made me think shaking hands could mean a lot of different things. The speaker probably meant to build the image of two men shaking hands in peace…but I wonder if I am the only one of my generation who saw a man whose hands were shaking in fear at the buzz of a killer machine he couldn’t fight. And if I’m not alone in visualizing that, what does that really mean the future holds for us all?
Sources:
Meyer, Robinson. "'The Night I Hit Rock Bottom, My Drone Hit the White House Lawn'" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"Man Claims Responsibility for Drone Crash at White House, Says Was an Accident." Fox News. FOX News Network, 26 Jan. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"Drone Maker Says It's 'highly Unlikely' White House Drone Malfunctioned - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"Drones May Soon Have a New Customer: Drug Cartels." Time. Time, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"How U.S. Torture Led to the Rise of ISIS." Washingtons Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"Torture Creates Enemies and Radicalizes People." Ian Welsh RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Lallanilla, By Marc. "9 Totally Cool Uses for Drones." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Shane, Scott. "The Moral Case for Drones." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 July 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Walsh, Declan, and Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud. "Civilian Deaths in Drone Strikes Cited in Report." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Taylor, Guy. "U.S. Intelligence Warily Watches for Threats to U.S. Now That 87 Nations Possess Drones." Washington Times. The Washington Times, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Image credit:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720196/15-funsettling-facts-about-drones
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/every-country-will-have-armed-drones-within-ten-years/83878/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm0yQg1hS_w&spfreload=10