Several articles from our reading address how the
use of drones in warfare could potentially undermine America’s democracy and
argue that the drone program needs to be kept in check. While it seems to be a stretch in stating
that the use of drones is a threat to our democratic structure, the way in which the president has used the technology
has been relatively undemocratic . The
theoretical problems presented by the President’s use of drone warfare are not necessarily
new, but rather potential consequences of the previously existing issue of
presidents broadly interpreting their roles as commander-in-chief of the armed
forces. The covert yet extensive way in
which drones have been used should be seen as a signal that the president’s
powers should be critically examined and potentially curtailed.
Since
the war in Vietnam, Presidents have struggled to maintain autonomous control of
the military. When troops have been put
in harm’s way, the American people and Congress typically question the
President’s decision to use force and have had the ability to influence the
President. However, the Authorized Use
of Military Force issued by Congress in the days following 9/11 gave the president
Congressional approval to use the military in any way to combat terrorism. This approval undermined the objective of the
War Powers Act and would eventually lead to the creation of a drone campaign
that crosses multiple international borders and lacks oversight. In order to prevent the president’s powers
from becoming too expansive, Congress must reevaluate the AUMF and eventually become
involved in the policymaking process in how and where the U.S. conducts drone
operations.
While
Congressional involvement is necessary in order to prevent the president from
becoming too trigger-happy, there are also significant risks with Congressional
approval as well. If cross-border drone
operations in Pakistan cease, American troops in Afghanistan are at an
increased risk because the Taliban have a safe-haven reestablished in the
tribal regions. Therefore, while there
must be a check to prevent an overly liberal use of military force, it may not
be the time for Congress to get involved.
Once American troops withdraw from Afghanistan, the AUMF should then be
reevaluated and Congress should discuss the use of drones in foreign countries.
Further question, "Should a congressional law passed between GW Bush and his congress still hold for the Obama/Congress relationship?
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the Obama administration inherited military conflicts that were created in the wake of the AUMF from the Bush administration, the law should still hold. If the law was reevaluated by Congress with the risk of ceasing drone strikes in Pakistan, our military and diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan could be seriously undermined. Although President Obama has significantly increased drone strikes in Pakistan, it is in accordance with his commitment to refocus our military efforts in Afghanistan to permit a 'responsible' troop withdrawal.
DeleteOnce our troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan, then the AUMF should be reevaluated because the major military efforts (OIF/OEF)that resulted from the creation of the AUMF will have ceased. However, if Obama had significantly expanded our military presence on the ground in other countries once he took office, then I would argue that the AUMF should have been reevaluated earlier.
It is difficult to evaluate when a president is using force effectively without overstepping their boundaries. In the case of the Obama administration,I believe that there has been a sense of a winding down of military operations rather than a continuation or increase. Allowing the AUMF to still stand during this deescalation will allow continuity in the way the wars have been fought and help bring about an end to operations that we can deem acceptable.
Although it seems like a good idea to allow Congress to have input into the drone program, I feel that is would allow for more bureaucracy on a matter that is time sensitive. When looking at how congress operates currently with matters such as the national debt and gun rights, they are ineffective at coming to a consensus on far easier matters. In the case of congressional oversight on drone warfare, it seems that is would result into some compromise that would allow some drone strikes and not others. This results in policies that are ineffective because they require full support or no support to be seemed a success. I would much rather see congress act on if drones should be used in warfare then when they should be used.
ReplyDeleteAllowing for some drone strikes and not others is exactly what I am hoping for. The question should not be "should we use drones?" The question should be the same question that is asked when considering any other sort of military intervention, which is "how and where should we use force?"I think it is much too soon and that there is too little evidence to fully develop an argument to take drones out of the military's arsenal. As of now, the hard evidence, that drones keep American troops out of harm's way and that they can effectively hit targets, provides more of a reason to keep drones.
DeleteI agree with you that Congressional involvement will likely be a long process. However, how else will the President's use of drones be curtailed? The Supreme Court could be involved, but the Court rarely involves itself in matters of foreign policy and the judicial process could be just as long, if not longer, than the legislative process. Once we withdraw from Afghanistan, it would be wise to reconsider how we use our drones.
Until there are significant indications that the use of drones compared to other forms of military weaponry is having an adverse effect on our national security objectives, drones should still be used. Keep in mind that when a civilian turns radical against the U.S. after a drone strike, they are not angry that a pilot-less aircraft bombed their house, they're angry because a bomb was dropped on their house. Therefore, we must carefully weigh how we use our drones. It would be much more productive to have a debate on how and when to use these weapons (and the answer could be never) rather than to just have the polarized argument of pro-drone and anti-drone usage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThough I understand your point, I wonder if continuing to accept the AUMF could make it harder to repeal. The AUMF is already over a decade old, and I think it is a reasonable concern to think the longer that it stays in use, the harder it will be for Congress to strike down. I think it is dangerous reasoning to keep Congressional approval from being a factor on the off chance that they decide to make the wrong choice strategically.
ReplyDelete