Published on Monday, December 10, 2012 by The Washington Post
The Threat of Drones Ushering in ‘Invisible Wars’
by Rahiel Tesfamariam
Obama’s end to the war in Iraq and promises to withdraw all troops
from Afghanistan have prevented him from seeming war-hungry. But the
increased use of drone strikes during his presidency raises the
question among critics that Obama has sidestepped congressional
approval for declaration of war.
This criticism also points to what some see as an overreliance on
technology, which Obama has admitted is tempting. “There’s a
remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can,
without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,” Obama
has stated.
The NY Times recently reported that over 300 drone strikes have taken
place since he first took office, leading to 2,500 deaths, the
creation of “kill lists” and mass displacement of civilians in
targeted regions. But the administration is not backing off. Its goal
is to “institutionalize” the drone program to ensure that there is
protocol in place for future successors.
No American wants to return to the fear that Sept. 11th instilled in
us all. But as we set rules that govern our use of drones, we must
also consider other factors.
Is this administration’s increased use of drones unique to Obama’s
outlook on how to best fight “the War on Terror”? Do these unmanned
strikes reflect growing ethical dilemmas posed by technological
advancement? Is it time that we reevaluate the price that is being
paid globally for keeping Americans safe? What happens when the
technology is adopted by other nations? And is it ethical to use
overwhelming force without engaging in combat?
Vijay Prashad, a professor of international studies at Trinity College
in Hartford, Conn., argues that this type of technology is likely to
produce outrage, fuel retaliation and increase terrorist operations.
“You can’t bomb a country into giving up certain ideas,” he said in an
interview. “Internal struggles have to take place to marginalize
certain ideas. You harden ideas this way. Why does the U.S. feel the
need to enter other people’s conflicts versus allowing them to sort
through it on their own?”
It’s highly unlikely that any other president would have made
radically different decisions given our country’s experiences with
warfare and loss of human casualties in the last decade. But that
doesn’t mean that we should stop holding this government accountable
to transparency – even in relation to what may be deemed “a work in
progress.”
We must be cautious about being enthusiastic about the establishment
of protocol, Prashad argues. He believes that who gets to set the
rules is as important as what the rules are — challenging the idea
that internal regulations by agencies such as the C.I.A. will offer
the level of accountability and due process that the American public
needs.
Prashad rightfully believes that we can’t ignore who is using the
technology and who is being victimized by it. According to the NY
Times article, “In Yemen, some strikes apparently launched by the
United States killed militants who were preparing to attack Yemeni
military forces.”
What’s the implication if these strikes are being used to serve the
U.S. government’s special interests in foreign conflicts rather than
responding to an imminent threat to this country?
“The history of industrial advantage is that the West will always use
this advantage against the rest,” Prashad said. “They will use the
fruits of industry in military fashion. The history of colonialism
coincides with the history of modern industrial warfare.”
A leading argument in support of drone strikes is that they diminish
the weight that American families have to personally carry for
warfare. The unmanned strikes eliminate the fear of a loved one
returning home in a flag-draped casket. They remove the element of
psychological trauma experienced by soldiers on the ground. In the
words of our president, drone strikes allow us to be engaged in
never-ending wars “without any mess on our hands.” But war is always
messy.
Although Americans protested militarism during the Bush years, that
hasn’t been as common during Obama’s presidency. Perhaps Occupy Wall
Street’s heavy emphasis on economic justice turned the attention of
progressives primarily to domestic affairs. Public outcry doesn’t seem
as strong on foreign matters, such as U.S. drone strikes and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
No matter how good-intentioned a Commander-in-Chief may be, the onus
is still on Americans to know the trail of death, displacement and
hopelessness that our government is leaving behind in other parts of
the world.
