Recently, Robert P. George offered on these pages a much needed warning against the indiscriminate drone use that that has become characteristic of U.S. foreign policy. Yet what are Christians and others who believe in aboslute moral norms to make of the morality of drone use itself? Writing in the Guardian, philosopher Bradley Strawser offers a view that strikes me as quite sensible:
My view is this: drones can be a morally preferable weapon of war if they are capable of being more discriminate than other weapons that are less precise and expose their operators to greater risk. Of course, killing is lamentable at any time or place, be it in war or any context. But if a military action is morally justified, we are also morally bound to ensure that it is carried out with as little harm to innocent people as possible.
The best empirical evidence suggests that drones are more precise, result in fewer unintended deaths of civilian bystanders, and better protect their operators from risk than other weapons, such as manned aircraft, carrying out similar missions. Other things being equal, then, drones should be used in place of other less accurate and riskier weapons. But they should be used only for morally justified missions, in pursuit of a just cause.
More here. I’d welcome links to opposing views in the comments.
Via Lee M.
August 6th, 2012 | 1:21 pm
For me, one of the difficulties in thinking about the use of drones is that we’ve got a set of principles in the just war tradition that were developed to limit the use of force in an age with different technologies.
I’m no specialist in the use of the just war criteria, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But my understanding is that, for instance, the proportionality criteria that once cautioned against the use of force could now, with new technology become a factor that actually leads to a greater use of force.
Traditionally the proportionality criteria was one that tended to put the brakes on war: it was only justified if one could say that the destructiveness entailed in war was proportionate to the dangers and harms that one was trying to defeat. In other words, WWII is generally held to be justified because all the destructiveness entailed in defeating Hitler is relatively justified by the harm that would be done by not opposing him.
Now when we look at the use of drones, the ledger seems to be drifting away from putting the brakes on the use of deadly force, precisely because they are more pin-point and accurate. So because they present less risk and danger to non-combatants and less risk of our own troops being killed in an operation, they seem to be justified in more and more circumstances that would have been ruled out using other traditional forms of warfare.
That seems problematic to me, because we all know that human beings have blinders about believing we are “on the side of the angels” and therefore that our cause is righteous. Now that the use of drones makes the proportionality equation easier to meet, one would think this would lead to an increase in the use of war powers by our government, and eventually other governments as well.
August 6th, 2012 | 3:16 pm
I think the contention that drones can be a morally preferable weapon of war is uncontroversial. Professor George acknowledges as much in his article (“The use of drones is not, in my opinion, inherently immoral in otherwise justifiable military operations…”)
When using drones (a term that is frequently misused–Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are frequently unarmed–once images showing a military target are received from the UAV, a commander can launch weapons from numerous sources including the same UAV, aircraft, or ground-based missiles), the commander must use the same analysis as when decided whether any target is appropriate:
1. Is there a military necessity?
2. Is there distinction/discrimination between military targets and non-combatants?
3. Is the advantage gained proportionate to the non-combatants at risk?
4. Will the attack cause undue suffering?
5. Will the attack violate any other rules of engagement?
August 6th, 2012 | 4:04 pm
NYTimes: “How Drones Help al-Qaeda”: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html?_r=3
the Atlantic: “Can We Wage a Just Drone War?” http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/can-we-wage-a-just-drone-war/260055/
and more generally on the policy, the Guardian: “America’s Murderous Drone Campaign is Fuelling Terror” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/29/americas-drone-campaign-terror
August 6th, 2012 | 4:14 pm
Jeff – thank you for the list of considerations used in analyzing the decision whether to use weapons targetted by drones. The second and third ones on your list – discrimination and proportionality – are both subsumed in the one crieteria I was discussing. I suppose the fourth one is also a similar balancing test because it suggests “undue suffering” is also not an absolute, but rather a relative term.
So if we can say that items 2, 3, and 4 are always likely to be easier criteria to satisfy when using these kind of precision weapons controlled at a distance, would you agree that these weapons tend to make the case for the use of force easier to meet than they were in the past?
If so, then the only other two criteria – military necessity and other rules of engagement – are the main limitations on the use of force. I’m not familiar with “other rules of engagement”, but “military necessity” seems like a rather malleable concept as well. If we can minimize all the “collateral damage” from an old-style military assault, then things that might have once seemed to be simply desirable or helpful might slide over into the “necessity” category. Such a change could happen not because of ill will, but because of the greater capabilities of our armaments.
Does that seem problematic to you?
August 6th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
Sally,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree that items 2 and 3 are easier to satisfy with precision munitions (whether or not launched remotely). Item 4 usually has to do with the type of weapon and its use rather than how it is delivered (weapons that create microscopic shrapnel may cause undue suffering; intentionally shooting someone in the knee may cause due suffering). Because remote deployment of weapons puts fewer U.S. personnel at risk doesn’t change the analysis of the targeting decision, but it raises hosts of other issues.
Shane Harris presents some really interests statistics in his article Out of the Loop here: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Harris.pdf
Notably, he states, “In World War II, it took a fleet of 1,000 B-17 bombers—flown, navigated, and manned by a crew of 10,000 men—to destroy one Axis ground target. American bombs were so imprecise that, on average, only one in five fell within 1,000 feet of where they were aimed…
In the Vietnam War, it took thirty F-4 fighter-bombers, each flown and navigated by only two men, to destroy a target. That was a 99.4 percent reduction in manpower. The precision of attack was also greatly enhanced by the first widespread use of laser-guided munitions…
In the Gulf War, one pilot flying one plane could hit two targets…A single “smart bomb” could do the work of 1,000 planes dropping more than 9,000 bombs in World War II. By the time the United States went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, one pilot in one plane could destroy six targets. Their weapons were guided by global positioning satellites orbiting thousands of miles above the surface of the earth. And increasingly, the pilots weren’t actually inside their planes anymore.”
For the most part, this is excellent news. It means far, far fewer non-combatant deaths, less destruction of non-military property, and less risk to U.S. service members.
But, as you suggest, there is a risk that it makes armed conflict too painless for the user of precision drone-based munitions.
The answer must lie in the proper application of jus ad bellum (determining the whether war is properly entered into) and jus in bello (which I discussed in my first post).
August 6th, 2012 | 6:27 pm
I responded to Robert George last month in this RealClearPolitics piece: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/12/time_for_a_just_drone_theory.html
August 6th, 2012 | 9:29 pm
“ According to a New America Foundation report assessing reliable press accounts of the strikes, the 123 reported drone attacks in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to March 29, 2010 have killed between 871 and 1,285 individuals, about a third of whom were civilians. The Long War Journal, a blog that tracks terrorist groups, calculates a much lower civilian casualty rate, with 1,114 militants and 94 civilians killed in Pakistan since 2006….As Mayer noted in The New Yorker, it “appears to have taken sixteen missile strikes, and fourteen months, before the CIA succeeded” in killing Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud. “During this hunt, between 207 and 321 additional people were killed” — many of whom were innocent, according to Pakistani and international news stories. Death by Hellfire missile, which can burn its victims alive, is no gentle way to leave this world…Before 9/11, the United States routinely denounced Israel’s use of targeted killing against Palestinian terrorists. In July 2001, Martin Indyk, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said, “The United States government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassinations…. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”…Amos Guiora, a University of Utah law professor who was personally involved in targeted-killing decisions during service in the Israel Defense Forces, argues that “there is a fundamental difference between drone attacks as presently conducted and targeted killing, for the latter is person-specific whereas the former seems to result in not insignificant collateral damage” — a factor of immense moral import…”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-tortured-logic-of-obamas-drone-war
August 6th, 2012 | 10:18 pm
Shooting from the hip here so to speak, Isn’t there something unjust about killing an enemy who shows up like a target on a video game? The enemy of the drone is thousands of miles away. His attacker never sets foot on his soil, never has to face him, or hear his language. Isn’t that the ultimate dehumanization? Far from being “more just” it strikes me that drone use increases the dehumanizing elements of war beyond anything yet invented. Even the fighter pilot can see the smoke from the bombs. This is not just war, but cowardice to the ‘nth degree. It is one thing to honor your enemy by facing them on the battle field, quite another to spend your day job firing potshots from halfway around the globe.
The paradoxical end or goal of just war is not ultimate victory over of all enemies but peace. And the end goal of peace is hindered by the dehumanization of the enemy that takes place in war. Increasing this dehumanization of the enemy through the use of drones, will not bring about peace, but only more bitterness and endless war.
August 7th, 2012 | 10:25 am
@Nate, that’s a curious criterion for war. Killing a person face-to-face is dehumanizing as well. I suggest you take a long step back and read about the damage a weapon like a pike could do. Or better, read up on the Thirty Years War, where armed bands roamed the Germanies living off the land, all face-to-face.
I see no problems with weaponized UAVs that do not also apply to any weapons of war. For me, the issue has always been how the weapons are used. Does killing terrorists in Yemen with whom we are not at war make moral sense? How about legal sense? What about if the terrorist is an American citizen? Those are the questions needing answers.
August 7th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
Jeff pretty much nails it. I would only add a potentially complicating factor. It could be argued that if the risk to noncombatants in a UAV strike could be mitigated through an alternative means of striking the target (e.g., a direct action mission) that would place non-combatants at a lower degree of risk, EVEN THOUGH THE ATTACKER’S OWN FORCES ARE PUT AT GREATER RISK, then the attacker, it may be argued, has an obligation to use that other means.
I’m not convinced, however, that the attacker has a strong obligation to do so (per Michael Walzer) and he certainly does not have to assume an infinite degree of risk. In any case, I tried to address this issue within the context of COIN, here:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/proportionality-in-warfare
August 8th, 2012 | 8:05 am
Sally Rogers is right, when she suggests that discrimination and proportionality are two aspects of the same criterion, as can be seen in Article 51 of the First Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention
1. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
a. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
b. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
c. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
2. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
a. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
b. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
A drone attack would appear to meet the criteria
Nate
Clausewitz’s classic definition of war says nothing about its object being peace, rather “War is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfil our will.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact