Throughout her
article, Mullins addresses the morality of the “War on Terror” and its
consequences that result in the killing of innocent men, women, and
children. She brings about the
unarguable point that killing non-combatants is immoral. She even takes her argument a step further
and argues that killing innocents is terrorism itself. However, she leaves out critical elements in
her argument that are fundamental in understanding warfare, international
relations, and drone strikes themselves.
Warfare is one of the most disturbing
actions that humans commit. Singer
addresses that even most major religions denounce war. Since warfare entails large-scale violence,
non-combatants have been killed in almost every major conflict throughout human
history. It would be foolish to believe
that war could be waged without collateral damage. However, in order to maintain a semblance of
morality when committing these acts of violence, it should be the responsibility
of the belligerents to limit civilian deaths as much as possible.
Drones are weapons of war. To suggest that they could prevent loss of
innocent life while simultaneously taking life from combatants would be
foolish. While innocents are killed in
their usage, drone usage results in much fewer deaths compared to aerial
cluster bombing or ground occupation in afflicted areas. Ground occupations would be an even more
egregious encroachment upon sovereignty of foreign states and could potentially
escalate and expand a conflict.
Mullins
discusses how the U.S. has used drones in Pakistan, specifically in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The FATA
is along the border of Afghanistan and is one of the most violent regions in
the world. Taliban fighters, who attack ISAF
and Afghan security forces and civilians, frequently cross over the border in
to Pakistan in to the tribal areas. The
Pakistani military and government have not been able to successfully quell the
violence in the tribal areas and as a result, Taliban fighters are able to gain
asylum. In the tribal areas, the Taliban
are just one of many violent non-state groups that target civilians, government,
and military. Therefore, groups like the
Taliban who specifically target non-combatants to attain their political goals
would be considered “terrorists” based on many definitions. However, the U.S.
is maintaining a delicate balance while trying to maintain a shaky alliance
with Pakistan and to successfully fight an insurgency that threatens the Afghan
people and their government. The U.S.
military has only operated in a clandestine way in Pakistan in an attempt to
respect international law, Pakistani sovereignty, and to pursue its own
military and diplomatic objectives.
Mullins’
accusation that the U.S.’s actions are in accordance with terror tactics of
groups like the Taliban is brash and refuses to acknowledge one of the most
common elements in definitions of terrorism; the specific targeting of
non-combatants to attain an end. While drone strikes may result in the deaths
of civilians, the U.S. is targeting individuals who are a threat to civilians
in the United States, Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. If the threat posed by the U.S.’s opponents could
be eliminated through diplomatic means, then these actions would most likely be
taken. However, negotiating with these
violent groups could result in a continuance of security issues in the
respective societies that they seek to influence.
I disagree with diplomatic actions always being the route traveled. It seems the me that the perception within the US government is that the Taliban is a force that cannot and should not be negotiated with. There is the sense that they do not listen to negotiation and any concessions made would be abused so I am not sure if diplomacy is even taken. If that were the case it seems that the United States would have felt with Afghanistan and Iraq in a similar way that they interact with Pakistan currently.
ReplyDeleteAs Singer mentioned most major world religions denounce the act of war. Unfortunately I believe that most world leaders would say that there is always a moral conflict that is acceptable to participate in ex. World War II. However, the enemies that we face in the twenty first century are completely different and are most often use guerrilla tactics. Do you think that a drone program can be used in a moral way to combat these guerrilla tactics?
ReplyDeleteEfficiently combating guerrilla tactics is a complicated and frequently controversial task. Drones have been efficient in disrupting the functionality of insurgent groups but at what cost? We are able to count the civilian casualties from our use of drones but it is impossible to count the number of IED's or suicide bombs that were never detonated. As a military action in a combat zone, I believe they are a moral way to combat guerrilla warfare. They keep our troops from having to conduct dangerous operations that do not always succeed in capturing or killing a target. However, downplaying our inability to prevent civilian casualties is an immoral way to go about conducting drone operations.
Delete