Drones are here to stay. There is no going back, now that they have proven so tactically effective in foreign combat. The U.S. government estimates that 75 percent of al Qaeda leadership has been decimated by lethal aerial strikes in the last five years. Drones are now being built, tested and deployed to potential combat areas by nations all over the world. The New York Times reported earlier this month that China is currently in the midst of pursuing the largest campaign in drone technology advancement ever seen. Regardless of the legal and moral implications, states’ investments in drone technology have made the future clear. A spy-assassin that requires no risk of human life is simply too seductive for governments to pass up.
We are commencing an entirely new generation of warfare. To assume these machines will be retired in the near future for any reason, technological or ethical, is naive. That being said, current methods of drone warfare are morally dubious to say the least. Historically, there’s been far too much room for error when conducting lethal strikes. In a war of ideology, non-crucial civilian casualties are unacceptable. There is a dearth of transparency from the government regarding both the criteria for lethal strikes and the number and type of casualties. This in turn raises a question: How can the government ensure this new kill-and-run warfare is conducted in a way that minimizes civilian deaths?
The first step is greater transparency. Last May, President Obama released the policy guidelines for deploying lethal strikes. But those guidelines overlooked the practice of “signature strikes” — when the United States kills people whose identities aren’t confirmed. These strikes, which have never been publicly addressed by the administration, are based on certain behavioral patterns that are deemed characteristic of terrorist activity. This precedent is vague, and the policy surrounding it opaque. There is also a significant lack of clarity regarding the number of civilians killed surrounding these strikes.
Reports on the number killed vary wildly, and even the military cannot know with certainty just how many innocents have been shot down. When a U.S. predator drone fires hellfire missiles, it is doing so in the name of the American people. Americans have a right to know who is being killed and why — especially considering the effects drone strikes have had on opinions of the United States among populations near heavily targeted areas. If our government is determined to commit acts as serious as assassinations, those acts need to be subject to public scrutiny.
The next imperative is to ensure intelligence gathered before a strike is rock solid. The United States has been notoriously inept at conducting foreign covert operations involving terrorist organizations, and the blunders show — particularly in the death tolls of innocents. Drone surveillance alone cannot determine who is a civilian and who is not. This deficit of essential information is due partly to streamlining issues in the intelligence community. It is the classic case of multiple agencies doing the same work with poor communication.
Joshua Foust, a former contractor with the Defense Intelligence agency, wrote in a column published by PBS that, “there is simply not enough granular, local-level intelligence being generated, either for the kill missions or even more generally for the broad knowledge required for appropriate analysis and advice to policymakers”. The information provided to the kill-or-don’t-kill decisionmakers is largely based on the work of human intelligence. This means that we cannot afford to be generating anything but the most thorough, accurate information possible.
The United States has tried to make up for this intelligence gap through technology, but those efforts have boasted only limited success. Reports are emerging of technological intelligence endeavors being compromised by Edward Snowden’s leaks of national security information. Terrorist organizations are responding to the leaked information by devising new means of communication or reverting to old-fashioned methods like couriers. Other nations are adopting new strategies to combat drone strikes and surveillance. These events underscore the importance of on-the-ground intelligence gathered by humans. The United States needs to emphasize this not only for tactical advantage, but also to ensure no more extraneous lives are wasted.
This is a familiar argument. We have been demanding efficiency and transparency from our government for centuries. It is true that issues of national security often must remain largely classified and that the American public can never be completely informed. But maximizing the efficacy of our foreign engagements is most definitely a public concern. Here, the stakes are exceptionally high. When drones are involved, international reputation, security and innocent lives are all on the line.
The military predicts it is only in the early stages of realizing the potential of unmanned aerial vehicles, known as UAVs. The Air Force estimates a third of its attack and fighter planes will be UAVs within the decade. Some military strategists posit that with the right surveillance and intelligence, drones could actually prove to be the most humane form of warfare ever. We must do everything we can in order to ensure we embark on this uncharted territory with the lives of innocents as our highest priority.
Robyn Sundlee ’16 is very scared of drones.
ADVERTISEMENT
