Comment Paper 3
Technology in warfare is not what has undermined our
democracy. I believe these advancements
have only exacerbated an underlying, seemingly unnoticed problem to our government. Since our founding fathers, the U.S. has
strayed from our basis for democracy through new policy measures and the lack
of citizen participation in national and even state government. Many of the authors that we read blame
Congress for the deficiency in the decision making process with warfare. I entirely agree with this sentiment; it
appears that Congress and our legislative process as a whole has not had the
ability to keep up with the advancements of our time. Whether our process in itself for legislation
is too slow for such things is another problem in itself. But I do believe that while Congress must
make revisions and better hindsight, I also think the problem lies within the
President himself. Yes, Congress has
given him this power, but is it not also alarming that he has chosen these
actions subsequent to being granted these powers? Should the President of the free world not
want to abide by the long-standing traditions and laws that we have stood by for
centuries? This problem is bigger than
just the advancement of technology, but this “robotic revolution” has certainly
brought it to a head.
To find a solution for this would not be easy. Congress would have to revise how it deals
with warfare decisions once again and also possibly the powers of the executive
branch as a whole, however the latter is very unlikely. This is similar to how Singer discusses a
military “doctrine”. Without any
precedent on how to proceed with these new technological advancements, we lack
any control on where the President (or otherwise) can take them. “If you don’t know where you are going, you
will wind up somewhere else,” (Singer, 208).
We lack any continuity with the Constitution now because we have not set
any standard or guide for these new found policies and decisions that must be
made. Drones have become a symbol for
the centralized power that the government holds and shows just how little civilians
remain involved in the important matters of our government and how it is managed. Because there is a lack of accountability
when using robots in the field, it seems that Congress and the President
especially have found it unnecessary to inform the rest of the government, much
less the public, or for us to have a say in these proceedings. This belief is everything that is wrong with
our government today and why we have slowly deteriorated our democratic
system. Technology has vastly changed
the way we wage war, yet our government has not caught up and our people remain
mostly ignorant.
I am not sure that he is President of the Free World, since they didn't elect him...;-)
ReplyDeleteMore seriously though, you bring up a good question. Is it that we need to follow the constitution more closely or that we need to revise the constitution to reflect a reality that the founding fathers couldn't have imagined?
I think that the a more narrow following of the constitution would not allow us to remain secure within the international space. The world changes too fast for out nation to react if it were to adhere strictly to the Constitution. Furthermore, the fighting that exists in congress would cripple this nation if congress was the primary decider of war. When the Constitution was written, phones were not available and people could not move from one nation to another as quickly as they can now. A strict following of the constitutions would slow down the nation's reaction time at a time when speed allows for dominance. All of our efforts are focused on developing thing that go faster and if we were to revert to a more narrow interpretation of the Constitution we would be too slow for our own capabilities.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see your point, but much of the constitution is structured to be timeless and while I do agree the President has too much power in drone strikes, perhaps this is due to the politics you speak of and the necessity to simply act while congress is deadlocked.
ReplyDeleteI also think the idea of a new type of war is non-existant, war is always changing, we don't line up in a row and take turns shooting anymore, but we still fight. In this sense we don't need any real changes to constitution or law, simply enforcement. We need to declare war and gain approval from congress, not live in our current state of "peace"