We’ve discussed drones on this blog before, generally agreeing that killing enemy combatants with unmanned drones can be morally legitimate but leery about their seemingly indiscriminate use.
A new report called “Living Under Drones” serves as further proof that our leeriness is justified. According to the report, in addition to killing and harming far more civilians than the government admits, drones may be strategically unwise because they are often inaccurate, serve as a recruiting tool for militants, undermine the rule of law, and set dangerous precedents for other countries.
These facts aren’t exactly news, but this report, which was produced by human rights experts at Stanford and NYU, gives a voice to the people actually affected by drone strikes in Pakistan. A couple excerpts from their interviews:
We did not know that America existed. We did not know what its geographical location was, how its government operated, what its government was like, until America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . We didn’t know how they treated a common man. Now we know how they treat a common man, what they’re doing to us.
We know that the consequences of drone strikes are extremely harsh. Our children, our wives know that our breadwinners, when they go out to earn a livelihood, they might not come back, and life may become very miserable for them in the years to come. . . . Now we are always awaiting a drone attack and we know it’s certain and it’s eventual and it will strike us, and we’re just waiting to hear whose house it will strike, our relatives’, our neighbors’, or us. We do not know. We’re just always in fear.
And:
These attacks have been on schools, on maliks, on elders, and on different buildings. . . . Sometimes when people are moving in cars, they are hit. Sometimes when they are gathering with friends, they are hit. . . . My own relatives, close family relatives, have been killed. Elders of the villages, the maliks, the children of the schools, other children, all have been victims of strikes.
[In one case,] there was a drone attack on a religious teacher while he was coming in a car with some other people, after which he was brought to the village. A lot of people were gathering, the small children and families were gathered, and another drone attack happened, killing the small children. Two drone attacks in a single day.
Here’s hoping that the report, available in full online, will lead the administration to rethink, or at least more publicly account for, its reckless use of drones.
September 26th, 2012 | 4:59 pm
I agree that these attacks need further consideration. Though I do not find any reason to single out the drones. Had the attacks been done with precision munitions launched from an A-10 on a target laser-designated by specops on the ground, the question is the same.
September 26th, 2012 | 6:14 pm
It might have been helpful if you pointed out that these so-called innocent victims of our ‘reckless’ drone strikes live in villages that harbor people who kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.
The notion that retaliating militarily only “serve(s) as a recruiting tool for militants” has been an argument that’s been with us since the United States first started responding to al Qaeda’s attacks — going back at least to 1998 when two US embassies were bombed, and on to the bombing of the USS Cole, not to mention our response to 9/11. When President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the embassy bombings, he was criticized for providing a “recruiting tool” for Osama bin Laden. So, is the alternative that we should stand by while our own people are slaughtered so as to avoid providing these murderers with a “recruiting tool”?
September 27th, 2012 | 1:04 am
[...] The Many Victims of Drones – Anna Williams, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
September 27th, 2012 | 8:19 am
“It might have been helpful if you pointed out that these so-called innocent victims of our ‘reckless’ drone strikes live in villages that harbor people who kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.”
So, let’s forget ‘just war’ and just wipe out these nefarious village people.
Heaven knows we’ve forgotten the the original Christian response to war.
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=pd_rhf_ee_p_t_2
September 27th, 2012 | 8:34 am
Yes, children are notorious harborers. (You did note that “so-called innocent” children had been killed in the strikes, right?)
Well, there’s two responses there. First off, the question of whether having our people there is actually serving our strategic interests there or not. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, and had instead invested a trillion dollars or so into building infrastructure and otherwise modernizing Afghanistan, we might be better off. But we didn’t, and now the question is, what good is being done by our forces being there?
The second point is – the one which was made by the article, if you choose to read it – that if we are in fact trying to wage war morally, then our retaliatory strikes need to be better aimed.
September 27th, 2012 | 8:44 am
So, Publius, are you a shill for Obama? People who live in the same village as a terrorist get what they deserve? It’s been his practice to elevate everyone in the blast radius of a drone strike to the status of terrorist. As for the “recruiting tool” argument, yes, the indiscriminate use of weaponry will do that. There is a huge difference between a conventional military response to a specific act, and a campaign of assassination by drone bomb. The administration likes to describe these as ‘surgical strikes’. They are not.
September 27th, 2012 | 8:46 am
@publius, You’re a little behind. We’ve also used drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia. There’s also Pakistan but the question is less problematic there.
As to harboring the people who kill Americans, that is sometimes true but often not. Those people frequently do not give the villagers a choice. My son, a Marine who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, put it this way, “Imagine the Crips and the Bloods fighting it out for an entire country, terrorizing neighborhoods to get what they want.”
Try this one on. Imagine that instead of sending in a part of Seal Team Six to get Osama Bin Laden, we hit the compound with several precision munitions but a few missed and hit the houses next door.
September 27th, 2012 | 8:48 am
It was widely reported that Bush’s “surge” policy in Iraq was “successful” (to the degree that it can be called that with a straight face), because it was a three-legged policy — not only (1) were troops increased and concentrated (the only leg the administration really admitted to), but, crucially, (2) a portion of our former Sunni enemies were widely bribed and (3) some new form of high-tech weapon, almost surely involving drones, was deployed. So the present administration, though fully culpable for its drone strikes since then, was probably merely continuing existing policy. I recall FT as being generally supportive of the war and the “surge”. (Conservative Christians are generally remarkably blase about aerial warfare and its civilian casualties, unless the perpetrator is a Democrat.)
September 27th, 2012 | 10:48 am
Ray, “So, let’s forget ‘just war’ and just wipe out these nefarious village people.”
Actually, as someone who has a relative fighting in Afghanistan, I’m more concerned about his life than about some villager whose community provides aid and comfort to Taliban and al Qaeda fighters who kill Americans. Your devotion to human rights is precious, but you are clearly speaking as someone who has no personal connection to this war. Talk to me when someone you know is serving in combat.
“Our retaliatory strikes need to be better aimed.” Yes, perfect targeting would be great. Only someone who doesn’t know the process employed in authorizing one of these strikes would write something like that. Nevertheless, it is true that innocent people are frequently killed in a war. That’s hardly a revelation. But no government goes to greater lengths to try and prevent that than the US Government. For example, we could have hit Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan (those poor innocent Pakistani’s were hiding bin Laden — I’m sure no one in Paksitan knew this)) with drones but we put American lives on the line so as to avoid killing innocent people.
Michael Walsh: “So, Publius, are you a shill for Obama?” The drone war started under George W. Bush, but nice attempt to make this a partisan issue. I’m actually a “shill” for the American soldiers (who are, by the way, your fellow citizens) fighting in Afghanistan.
Michael P. Walsh: “It’s been his {Obama’s} practice to elevate everyone in the blast radius of a drone strike to the status of terrorist.” Wow. When did Obama say that? What’s your source for that? Are you reading his mind? Your hatred of the President seems to know no bounds….
“As for the “recruiting tool” argument, yes, the indiscriminate use of weaponry will do that.” It’s not indiscriminate bombing, but regardless of that, your broader point is attacking those who are trying to kill Americans helps them recruit. It probably does, since the bombing of Nazi Germany served as a recruiting tool for the Nazis. So under the Walsh theory, apparently we should not have done harm to the Nazis because it helped them recurit. Pacifism is all well and good sitting in front of a computer in your comfortable study, but try explaining the merits of pacifism to a Holocaust survivor or a 9/11 victim’s family…
Mike: “You’re a little behind. We’ve also used drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia. There’s also Pakistan but the question is less problematic there.” The report focuses on the drone war in Pakistan. But beyond that, the targets in Yemen included Anwar al Awlaki, the mentor of the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 of your fellow citizens, and recruited the guy who attempted to bring down a Northwest airlines flight over Detroit. Again, I grieve more for my fellow citizens than I do for mass murderers, or those who provide them aid and comfort..
September 27th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
Dear HT:
I’m not sure I understand your point. Is it that, given that the Iraq war “surge” strategy involved some kind of drone operation, and FT and “conservative Christians” supported this strategy, they therefore are intellectually inconsistent in being “leery” of the use of drone attacks in the future?
September 27th, 2012 | 12:39 pm
There is a fallacy here and that is decrying the use of a new weapon because it is new. That spirit is not the spirit of the lawful soldier bearing arms in his countries defense but of the pagan warrior fighting for pride and making a fetish of his particular technique.
If we did not have drones causing collateral damage we would have artillery doing so. If we relied solely on infantry they would have done such things as wrecking houses to get at enemies hiding inside. All methods of war hurt innocent people. But condemning drones specifically for this is illogical and comes from technical prejudice rather then moral judgement.
September 27th, 2012 | 1:46 pm
HT
“It’s Bush’s fault”. Really? That’s your idea of a response to this concern? The facts on the ground are these: this administration has drastically ramped up drone strikes. Of the nearly three hundred and fifty admitted strikes 294 have occurred under the current administration — that’s 85%. Under the Bush administration there was a drone strike (on average) once every six weeks. Under the Obama administration that number is about once a week. In 2009-2010 it was one every 4 days.
“Johnny started it and you right wing fundies thought it was fine” may be enjoyable as a point scoring exercise but it completely fails to address the moral concerns raised here. If drone strikes are evil or immoral or unjust (as I assume you think they are based on your blaming the genesis on the Bush administration) then how is the vast increase in the use of drones defensible? The playground tactic of saying the other guy started it gets us nowhere.
September 28th, 2012 | 8:50 am
Publius – I know it’s tough when you’re responding to many people, but I didn’t bring up “just war”. That was Michael Snow.
September 28th, 2012 | 10:23 am
@Ray,
“I thought you were a Christian? Surely the logic resonates?” — Nice touch. I thought the Inquisition ended centuries ago.
“Remember that whole ‘torture’ thing (that hasn’t gone away)?” — meaning what, that the U.S. is still engaged in torturing al Qaeda suspects? Or that you’re still upset that three members of al Qaeda were waterboarded and thus we shouldn’t use drones? Your sympathy for Khalid Sheik Muhammed et. al., might be better directed toward the 3000 innocent Americans killed on 9/11. Or is it just “innocent” Pakistani’s who merit our moral outrage.
“I pointed out then that being ‘better than a Soviet gulag’ and ‘better than Saddam Hussein’s prisons’ isn’t much to brag about.” Anyone who even remotely equates a Sovet Gulag to American conduct in the war on terror is either consumed by hate for the United States, or totally unaware of the history of Gulag. The two events are not even remotely morally equivalent.
September 28th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Lyndon Johnson selected bombing targets from the security –and insulation– of the White House. He’s got nothing on Obama. As for documenting administration statements about terrorists defined as those caught by the blast: do your own homework. The sick casuistry of his supporters beggars description.
September 28th, 2012 | 12:30 pm
Publius –
You’re going to have to unpack that. I wasn’t questioning your doctrinal purity.
I was referring to the fact that in Christianity, even a really good person isn’t good enough to earn their way into heaven. The standard isn’t ‘better than average’ or even ‘better than anyone else’; there’s a different standard entirely.
The idea is that there can be differences in kind, and not merely degree. Again, I’d think a Christian would agree with that.
Not just that. Also that there’s been no attempt to hold those who tortured innocent Afghanis to death, or Iraquis, accountable.
Read the links above. I’ll agree they’re not equivalent in degree – but as I said, that’s not much to brag about. They’re supposed to be different in kind.
Anyway, I repeat my question for you, which you apparently forgot to answer: Is being sure only important when going after bin Laden?
September 28th, 2012 | 2:21 pm
Michael Walsh: Again, despite your best attempts, I’m not defending Obama. My concern, which you apparently do not share, is for your fellow citizens in Afghanistan who are killed by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters sheltered by the innocent ‘villagers’ in Pakistan. I don’t call that a “sickness” but rather a concern for my fellow citizens. It may make you feel all good inside to hold what you think is some high moral ground, but I’d like to see you hold that ground while attending a funeral for an American soldier killed in Afghanistan by a terrorist sheltered in Pakistan. If being concerned about the killings of my fellow Americans is a “sickness” then I’m guilty.
“As for documenting administration statements about terrorists defined as those caught by the blast: do your own homework.” OK, no such administration statement exists.
Ray: Why are your comments devoid of any reference to the Americans killed on 9/11 or in the fighting in Afghanistan? Are you above it all? Do you owe anything to these victims? Or is it simply that the poor downtrodden villagers of Pakistan are only worthy of your concern?
In answer to your question, the United States has weapons in its arsenal that could solve the terrorist incursion problem from Pakistan in a matter of hours. Yet we don’t. Could you say the same for your friends in Pakistan?
September 28th, 2012 | 8:53 pm
“Lyndon Johnson selected bombing targets from the security –and insulation– of the White House.”
Factually that is true and he was deeply involved in other aspects of running the war in Vietnam…but only to protect himself politically and in a way that ultimately undercut American military strategy and set the stage for our political failure. His reluctance to allow the military to bomb certain types of targets and his decisions not to cut off North Vietnam from access to the south through Laos and Cambodia resulted a prolonged war we could not win.
September 30th, 2012 | 12:53 am
The problem with the use of drones is that it emboldens our president, to believe that he is the final arbiter of life and death. This president has no respect for human life.
His indiscriminate use of drones in the middle east could easily be followed by their migration to use in the United States.
Narcissistic, self-indulgent man.
September 30th, 2012 | 9:09 am
Publius –
Because I don’t care about them.
That’s what you’re trying to imply, right? It’s not true, of course, but you seem to value rhetoric over the actual issues.
Here’s the thing – I think killing lots of innocents in retaliation for innocents being killed is profoundly immoral as well as profoundly stupid. The moron who shot all those people in the Aurora theater, for example – once convicted, he could face the death penalty. Despite killing many people, we can only kill him once. When people kill innocents and then kill themselves, we can’t even do that.
The hijackers of 9/11 are dead. Al Qaeda being decentralized, there weren’t a heck of a lot of others involved in the planning or financing of it, and most of them are dead already.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan alone, several times as many civilians have died in the last three years as died in 9/11. That’s civilians, not combatants.
If you wanted revenge for 9/11 – well, if you don’t have it by now, I think it’s pretty clear you’ll never be satisfied.
More rhetoric. They don’t have to be my friends – I don’t even have to like them – for me to recognize non-combatants as fellow human beings.
BTW, I really think you might find this video – and it’s relevance to suicide terrorism like 9/11. If you watch it, you’ll be able to answer the question: What is the indisputable, actual motivator for suicide terrorism? If you don’t want more 9/11′s, I’d think you’d want to know that.
September 30th, 2012 | 8:51 pm
Ray,
Yes, you love humanity so much, it is unfair to love your fellow Americans more than anyone else. How fitting, on the weekend when the American death toll in Afghanistan crossed the 2000 mark. I understand — a dead American soldier is worth no more a jihadi “freedom fighter.” Got it.
Oh, and tell Ambassador Chris Stevens’ family and the families of three other Americans murdered in Libya that al Qaeda is no longer a threat.
October 1st, 2012 | 8:57 am
Publius –
I love our fellow Americans enough to want them out of places where they are targets and provide no strategic benefit, sure.
At this point, I have to assume you’re deliberately lying. You must be consciously ignoring my actual words: “civilians, not combatants.”
Why bother lying, when it’s so obvious? I mean, seriously – who do you expect to convince? Do you even convince yourself?
Y’know, if we weren’t fighting two pointless wars, we might be able to spare some Marines for embassy and consulate security…
October 1st, 2012 | 11:00 am
Ray,
“I love our fellow Americans enough to want them out of places where they are targets and provide no strategic benefit, sure.” — Does that include the American consulate in Benghazi?
“Y’know, if we weren’t fighting two pointless wars, we might be able to spare some Marines for embassy and consulate security” – Y’know, the fact that there weren’t any Marines at the consulate had nothing to do with fighting “two” wars. We’re only fighting one war at the moment (Afghanistan, the one where our solidiers are being killed by Al Qaeda/Taliban sheltered by your innocent Pakistani ‘civilians’). Americans are no longer fighting in Iraq, in case you missed that.
And if you read a little more, you’ll discover that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters do not wear military uniforms and live and fight amidst the “civilians” of Pakistan and Afghanistan, knowing full well the “moral outrage” generated by “civilian” casulaties. Perhaps you may want to direct your indignation toward those who deliberately target civilians and then seek shelter in their midst.
October 1st, 2012 | 11:48 am
Publius –
This is like a merry-go-round. As I noted in the my very first comment in this thread, “Yes, children are notorious harborers. (You did note that “so-called innocent” children had been killed in the strikes, right?)”
Somehow you never responded to that point. Odd.
And the other question you haven’t gotten around to answering: “what good is being done by our forces being there?”
That’s the relevant issue. If we’re fighting people who target civilians, and then hide among civilians… we might have to figure out different strategies than bombing them from the air.
(Did you watch that video yet? Can you explain why having troops on the ground there is an aspect of the problem?)
October 1st, 2012 | 12:35 pm
Ray, “so-called innocent children” — those were your words, not mine.
Re unanswered questions — you do realize that American forces are no longer in Iraq, right? And that Chris Stevens was not a member of the military? Also, can you bring yourself to put in a good word for the 3,000 innocent Americans killed on 9/11? Or are they not worthy of expending your moral capital?
You do realize that the United States could solve the problem of terrorist incursions from Pakistan this afternoon if it chose to do so. That kind of puts a dent in your mocking the idea that the US attempts to limit civilian casualties. You may remember what you said “Riiiight. Protecting innocent people was the only motive for going in with troops. Pull the other one.” I know it’s hard dealing with facts on the ground when you have decided to devote yourself to the love of humanity. Living life in the abstract is so much easier than facing reality, riiiight?
October 1st, 2012 | 3:47 pm
Publius –
True. Your words were, “so-called innocent victims“. (Emphasis added.)
Of course, the article you were responding to specifically and explicitly stated that “the children of the schools, other children, all have been victims of strikes… another drone attack happened, killing the small children.”
So… hmm. Either you’re stating that the children weren’t innocent victims, or you didn’t actually read the article you were responding to. (If there’s a third option, I’d be interested to hear it.)
17,000 personnel in our embassy in Baghdad alone. Not all military of course… but your point has been that the opposition doesn’t make such fine distinctions, right?
Since you’re not going to watch the video, I’ll spill the secret of the key point: Suicide terrorism is used exclusively by forces resisting perceived occupation of their native lands. It simply doesn’t happen otherwise. (Go ahead. Check.)
The thing is, we do – or at least, are supposed to – make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Are you arguing that we shouldn’t anymore? I’d appreciate a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ on that one.
I already called them “innocents” that were “killed”. If I don’t agree with you about how to respond to that, that doesn’t mean I think 9/11 was any less of a tragedy.
I already spoke of differences in kind rather than degree. Yet another point that seems to have slipped by you. Just to be clear – are you suggesting that we should nuke Pakistan? Just checking. (A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ there would be most helpful, too.)
You want to know what I think we should have done? Fine.
1. Devote the ~1 trillion we spent on the Iraq war to reducing or eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Do like Kennedy did with the moon, and set a goal of eliminating oil imports by the end of the decade.
This would attack our opponents in several ways. Especially under Wahabbi Islam, their countries can’t compete in science and technology, and they sure can’t beat us militarily. The only reason they have more than a third-world economy is because of oil money. Right now, we’re paying to support them. If we cut off that money – and in developing alternatives, we’d cut off money flow from everywhere else, too – they’d collapse.
Secondly, the only reason we have to care about that area is because we need the oil. Cut that dependence and we can pull out our troops – whose presence, as I noted above, is a perceived provocation leading to terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the first place.
Militarily, we should have chosen one of two tracks – either a focused, limited engagement of al Qaeda and any Taliban forces that opposed us, or a full invasion plus a full-on Marshall Plan-style followup.
The populace was already weary of the Taliban, had some lingering memories of us as assisting them against the Soviet Union (an enemy-of-my-enemy thing, but still a plus), and the place was a wreck already. Any improvement we could provide at all would have been a plus. We couldn’t change the place overnight, but set up a decent cell phone system and make sure everybody had electricity and TVs, and the culture would change by itself over a generation.
Instead, you know how much money the Bush administration put in its 2004 budget for Afghan reconstruction?
Nothing.
Zip. Nada. They completely forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse.
At this point, Afghanistan is a complete waste. Our people there are not serving any strategic purpose at all. If we’re not going to follow through – and it’s surely clear by now that we won’t – then we should get out. That would save a lot more American lives than drone strikes.
October 2nd, 2012 | 10:51 pm
“The only reason we have to care about that area is because we need the oil” — right, all that oil in Israel, the largest recipient of our foreign aid and our closest ally in the region. It’s all about the oil.
October 3rd, 2012 | 8:51 am
Publius –
You mean the region where there’s a lot of oil?
Yes, I’ll happily contend that our alliance with Israel is pretty much entirely about securing a logistics and staging point in the Middle East. (There’s some religious sentiment there, too, but I rather doubt it’d sway much of anything if Israel weren’t located where it is.)
(BTW: two yes-or-no questions, zero answers…)
October 3rd, 2012 | 10:30 am
Israel provides no oil to the U.S.; our alliance with Israel hurts the U.S. with the oil producing Arab nations. You need to rethink your statement that the only reason we care about the area is because of the oil. If that were true, we would abandon Israel.
October 4th, 2012 | 10:15 am
Publius – We’ve certainly gone far afield from the targeting of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, no?
I’m quite aware that Israel doesn’t export oil (no matter how much some want it to). I never claimed that. I said… well, here’s what I said: …our alliance with Israel is pretty much entirely about securing a logistics and staging point in the Middle East.
To what purposes are logistics and staging points put?
(There’s also the utility of having a disavowable separate military around.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact