I believe that the neutrality
principle concept that was explained in the Targeted Killings reading for this
week caught my interest more than any of the other ideas presented. This
concept echoed what I have speculated about in previous comments—usually regarding
what dangers the US may face if other countries begin using drone warfare. If the
world begins to operate on the US’ principle for targeted killings, what may
become accepted as “just warfare” could become quite frightening. While
removing drone warfare from the unstable confines of “whatever the US sees fit”
and placing a solid principle that every country can use to justify such
actions, we might actually be placing ourselves at risk—even though this is
practically the same principle that we are currently using for our drone warfare.
Not only should we anticipate the inevitable mainstream use of drones in warfare, but we also must brace ourselves for a principle that does not only bend to our view of the world—but bends towards the views of other countries also. If this principle includes an allowance for the targeted killings of terrorists, how will we know that what our society qualifies as terrorism will also match other countries’ definition? As we have learned during the first week in this class, it is not a stretch to say that some of the acts of the US could be considered terrorism. For this very reason, it is also not unforeseeable that the US could be the victim of targeted killings if this principle was set in place.
This does not necessarily mean that these hypothetical attacks would be justified—whether the current attacks by the US or future hypothetical attacks by other countries are “right” or not does not come into play when analyzing this principle. However, it is apparent that a neutrality principle under which all countries would operate could be an extremely risky endeavor. While redefining or loosening the terms of murder, we would also be putting ourselves more at risk. We must understand that while continuing our own targeted killings, we are also continuing our commitment to a global principle which could later put us at risk—even once the war on terrorism is complete. It is crucial for us to determine if supporting a principle that contains such a large redefinition of murder and could inevitably be misinterpreted and used at our disadvantage really is worth the immediate benefit of targeted killing in our current war.
Not only should we anticipate the inevitable mainstream use of drones in warfare, but we also must brace ourselves for a principle that does not only bend to our view of the world—but bends towards the views of other countries also. If this principle includes an allowance for the targeted killings of terrorists, how will we know that what our society qualifies as terrorism will also match other countries’ definition? As we have learned during the first week in this class, it is not a stretch to say that some of the acts of the US could be considered terrorism. For this very reason, it is also not unforeseeable that the US could be the victim of targeted killings if this principle was set in place.
This does not necessarily mean that these hypothetical attacks would be justified—whether the current attacks by the US or future hypothetical attacks by other countries are “right” or not does not come into play when analyzing this principle. However, it is apparent that a neutrality principle under which all countries would operate could be an extremely risky endeavor. While redefining or loosening the terms of murder, we would also be putting ourselves more at risk. We must understand that while continuing our own targeted killings, we are also continuing our commitment to a global principle which could later put us at risk—even once the war on terrorism is complete. It is crucial for us to determine if supporting a principle that contains such a large redefinition of murder and could inevitably be misinterpreted and used at our disadvantage really is worth the immediate benefit of targeted killing in our current war.
I think your point about the U.S. becoming a target due to purported terrorist attacks is really interesting, but I can't help but think that the world would most certainly include a condition in its new JWT that the targeted must be a sub-national group in order to avoid such attacks between countries. Perhaps international courts might be more effective for bringing U.S. actions to justice?
ReplyDeleteI understand that the use of drones on the United States is frightening, but I think that every nation should be willing to accept the fact that the weapons that they use on another nation may become the same weapons that may be use on them. We must be comfortable with the weapons that we use and feel that they are ethical enough to be used against us. If the weapons that we use do not fit under this category than we need to reconsider the weapons that we use.
ReplyDelete"We must be comfortable with the weapons that we use and feel that they are ethical enough to be used against us." - I think this is a great point and helps explain why the U.S. was an advocate for international non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but only after it had obtained enough to maintain military dominance. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. pushes for a similar international non-proliferation treaty for unmanned weapons once other potentially hostile countries begin catching up to us.
DeleteThis is an interesting point, that we are only willing to disarm once we have the upper hand. Almost as if we are only willing to agree if we can strong arm others. But I do agree, it takes experimentation to show flaws, but I don't think, like with nuclear bombs, it should get to the point that we incinerate a city before we step back and say "maybe we shouldn't use these"
DeleteI agree that counties must be comfortable with the idea that they are opening themselves to have the same weapons used in their counties. However, I don't think the US *is* comfortable with the idea--the idea is frightening. I hardly believe that our country would be comfortable with a weapon being used that risks the lives of their citizens as much as drones do.
Delete