One of
the most urgent problems in warfare that has been made apparent from the
readings this week is the administration’s use of drone warfare without
obtaining the permission of Congress. The Constitution was set up in mind to ensure
that the president would not be able to declare war without obtaining the
permission of Congress, but the Authorized Use of Military Force of September
18, 2001 has undermined that for the past decade—even though it was written
well before drones being mainstream. Essentially, this bill has extended the
president’s power so far that they can authorize almost any lethal operation
around the world without Congressional approval—including drones.
I have heard about this issue before, but it has been disappointing to hear in more detail how the president, affiliated with the party that criticized the actions of the previous administration’s use of such acts in wartime, has also used them to his own benefit. The administration’s excuses for doing so do not appear to qualm any uneasiness about the entire situation. They claim that initiating these drone strikes is not equivalent to declaring a war because our side faces no risk, but how short-term are these views of risk and why do we only consider the risk that our own side faces? From previous writings, it is evident that noncombatants in the areas of these drone strikes do suffer.
In addition to the risk that the other side faces, it seems that our idea of risk continues to be very short-term. Some terrorists have claimed that drone strikes in their country have led them to attempt such violent acts on our country. In addition, the US is not the only country that is developing technologies such as drones. Other countries, including the ones we are initiating these drone strikes on have also developed such technologies. Perhaps our country is safe for the immediate future, but our safety further down the line is far from guaranteed.
As technologies continue to advance, our policies must also continue to advance. Though drone warfare has developed what we currently consider to be a “risk-free” form of warfare, it is still warfare. As I have stated, drones appear to be far from risk-free if we do not only observe it from such an immediate window of time. For this reason, sending out drones without the permission of Congress should be unconstitutional. Congress should be more upset that they are being passed over when the administration makes such decisions due to a decade-old piece of legislation that should not have been passed in the first place.
I have heard about this issue before, but it has been disappointing to hear in more detail how the president, affiliated with the party that criticized the actions of the previous administration’s use of such acts in wartime, has also used them to his own benefit. The administration’s excuses for doing so do not appear to qualm any uneasiness about the entire situation. They claim that initiating these drone strikes is not equivalent to declaring a war because our side faces no risk, but how short-term are these views of risk and why do we only consider the risk that our own side faces? From previous writings, it is evident that noncombatants in the areas of these drone strikes do suffer.
In addition to the risk that the other side faces, it seems that our idea of risk continues to be very short-term. Some terrorists have claimed that drone strikes in their country have led them to attempt such violent acts on our country. In addition, the US is not the only country that is developing technologies such as drones. Other countries, including the ones we are initiating these drone strikes on have also developed such technologies. Perhaps our country is safe for the immediate future, but our safety further down the line is far from guaranteed.
As technologies continue to advance, our policies must also continue to advance. Though drone warfare has developed what we currently consider to be a “risk-free” form of warfare, it is still warfare. As I have stated, drones appear to be far from risk-free if we do not only observe it from such an immediate window of time. For this reason, sending out drones without the permission of Congress should be unconstitutional. Congress should be more upset that they are being passed over when the administration makes such decisions due to a decade-old piece of legislation that should not have been passed in the first place.
I totally agree that our nation's policies should following the changing landscape of war. Given this, I think that there should forced publication of where we are attacking and the estimated casualties that these strikes cause. With this, the commander in Chief has to dignify the reason for the strike and should be accountable for the damages that they cause to both other humans and the nations image.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to political parties, the finger pointing will always be there. That is never going to go away and it should be ignored because it is not effective in creating lasting policy. In cases of national security, political parties need to be excluded from the discussion because they cloud congressional debate and mask the views of the people that these actually people represent.
I think your point about making drone strikes completely transparent is interesting. I definitely agree that they should be much more transparent, but it is difficult to know how transparency effects military strategy. I have a preference for transparency, but one must wonder if a completely transparent drone program would be worth it if it is rendered ineffectual. Obviously, I am simply playing the role of a pessimist, but I believe I have heard such critiques of transparency before.
DeleteI agree with Steven, and I think this is really what is difficult about new technology; a lack of doctrine combined with a necessary lack of transparency for security reasons leads to a lot of irresponsible testing (one might call this period a test war for drones) and an uninformed populace which is oblivious to such attacks and their scale.
DeleteI like how you pointed out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and its criticisms of the Bush administration. Also pointing out the short term views of the policy is great. It was the actions of the Reagan administration that led to the armed Taliban and Al Quaeda threats. In twenty years when all the carnage is done which terrorist movements are going to crop up because of the hate that the people of Pakistan have for our drone program
ReplyDeleteI don't know how effective a transparent drone program would be. I believe bi yearly report would be the most effective way of monitoring drone losses and maintain the safety of troops. This would reveal information at a much later date so that the data would be aged and not put our national security at risk
ReplyDelete