The drone dilemma
When does efficiency cost too much?
The U.S. military and intelligence services have been using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or “drones”) since the Gulf War for surveillance, transportation, and combat. Drones are usually launched and landed by specialists on the ground, but they are often controlled by civilian contractors on American bases, thousands of miles away from conflict. Originally used only for gathering intelligence, drones are now used widely for what some call “targeted killing” - secretive attacks on enemies often carried out by the CIA, which runs its own drone program.
As Jane Mayer suggests in The New Yorker (I highly recommend this article), the use of unmanned technology to execute combat operations is quite controversial. There seem to be two large problems with drones: (1) We’re waging war with “machines” instead of soldiers; and (2) we’re using these machines in what many are calling assassinations, which are in violation of U.S. and international law.
What’s wrong with having drones do the fighting for us? It largely eliminates the human cost of war, and by extension, it makes the engagement seem costless and painless. Without the sense that our sons and daughters are sacrificing their lives in our defense, a declaration of war is checked only by its financial cost and strategic value.
Sending drones on bombing runs is said to be bad PR as well. Militants in Pakistan have used American drone attacks, and Pakistani government’s approval of them, as propaganda against the Zardari government and as a recruiting tool. Critics see drone attacks as a “have your cake and eat it too” approach to warfare in which American forces can kill hundreds with no widespread mobilization and little accountability.
But if technology that makes killing easier is the key factor here, is it fair to single out drones for criticism? There seems to be a “fair fight” ethic in place that isn’t usually there in our discussions about battle tactics: critics of drones seem to see combat as a kind of mutual gamble in which both sides are wagering an agreed-upon amount - in this case, human lives. Using drones, then, is cheating. However, combat is hardly ever fair. If a battalion of tanks with air support and heavily armed troops takes on a group of Al Qaeda operatives equipped only with a few Russian assault rifles and some rocket launchers, should we call the conflict unfair and thus unethical?
Perhaps it doesn’t matter whether the fight is fair, and what really matters is whether it is just. That brings us to problem (2), which is that the drones are increasingly used for targeted killing. Before 9/11, defense officials insisted that both the use of drones for combat and targeted killing were off the ethical table. Now, targeted drone attacks have become a lynchpin of U.S. military strategy. Critics warn that this approach legitimizes assassination, not only infringing on international regulations but endangering American officials as well.
Controversies surrounding new technologies often have a way of sending us back to more basic ethical questions, and unmanned warfare is no different. Our distaste for drones and their use may have more to do with debates about wartime authority, collateral damage, and cultural relations than with the mechanization of battle. The invention of pistols probably created a similar stir.
-Colin
UPDATE: Roger Cohen was similarly inspired by Mayer’s piece (or perhaps my post, heh) and tackled drones in his NYT column today.
Photo by Flickr user kbaird under a Creative Commons license.
Related posts:
- Privatizing war
- TNR’s morality tease
- Fighting on a virtual battlefield
- Was Fort Hood terrorism?
- Neutrality on sex education
Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Follow us on Twitter
