1st paper- 1.3.13
Rich Russell
GVPT309E
I come into this class torn by the arguments laid
out by advocates and opponents of drone warfare. I think it is despicable that
non-combatants get caught in the cross fire of two armed forces. Many of these
people are the most vulnerable members of society and are primarily made up of
women and children which are traditionally “off
limit” targets. I would like to think that our society is sophisticated
enough to protect the lives of the innocent while pursuing our enemies.
However, I also recognize the fact that our national government’s number one
goal should be the protection of American citizen’s lives both at domestically
and abroad. If a terrorist group identifies us as their enemy and strikes out
against us then they should deal with the greatest military force compiled by
mankind.
The arguments laid out by the authors point to an
absence of a black and white issue. The discussion is a grey one where
arguments often have multitudes of different scholars supporting varied and
different viewpoints. I was struck particularly by the difficulty in drawing a
line between the U.S. military actions and terrorism. Dr. Rodin struck a chord
with how he analyzes the collateral damage of military action. I believe it is
an essential question that needs to be answered is whether the U.S. has been participating
in activities that constitute terrorism. Are we any better than the terrorists
who want to bomb our homeland? I attended Dr. Ron Paul’s speech last year where
he talked about future implications of continuing such a robust drone program.
His argument is that the bombing and killing of terrorists causes animosity in
those countries and breeds new terrorists to take their place.
Rodin unfortunately did not address the issue of how
the U.S. can fight terrorism. I think a strategy to “Win Hearts, Win Minds” is
one that needs to be explored more by our military and by our government.
I think this is exactly why I currently see drone warfare as it is being used as a negative. As mentioned in the Mullins article, it produces more and more anger and potentially more future "terrorists." So while maybe it isn't terrorism itself, it creates a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with drones being a negative aspect of warfare currently. In my comment paper I talked about how I believe that it breeds hatred and brutality and perpetuates random violence. Although the government claims that no violence is caused to civilians, it has been found to be untrue. Part of Rodin's definition of terrorism is that it is when force has been brought upon those who do not seek it. Drones are deemed as one of the most significant and precise gadgets of the technological era, yet they destroy towns and villages and often do not just take out the sole target(s).
ReplyDeleteThough Rodin does not present new ideas of how to aptly fight terrorism, he does seem to critique the very idea of fighting something like terrorism. He compared fighting terrorism to targeting other things like fighting a war on torture. In general, Rodin says the idea of such a war is fruitless. I believe that Rodin presented the idea in his paper that the main problem with the war on terror is not the actions that result from the war (though that definitely is an issue), but is that the very idea of a war setting such an impossible goal is altogether pointless.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you in that the atmosphere that drones create within the international system creates a hotbed for terrorists organizations to gain support. Although I do not agree that it perpetuates random violence, I do thing that it dehumanizes violence and makes is very easy for one nation to ravage a war on a group of people where they do not ave the capability to fight back. There is something odd about a nation that believes the future of warfare is where humans are not in combat, but their targets are humans.
ReplyDeleteTo Jordan Rich- I agree completely with the dehumanization of violence and that is a very important thing to point out. It almost seems that the drone program is a video game. It is far harder to order kill or kill someone when you can see them physically. I apply the same view to most bombings.
ReplyDelete