One of
the most frequently recurring topics in the debate on drone usage is the effect
that drone strikes have on civilian populations. As the readings and lecture addressed, there
is no one authority tasked with providing accurate and unbiased information on
civilian deaths that result from the use of drones. This causes significant flaws to both sides
of the argument when discussing the
morality of drone usage. Civilian
casualty figures are used as reasons for why or why not drones should be
utilized. However, sources like the
Pakistan Body Count claim that 88% of casualties in drone strikes are civilian
while the New America Foundation estimates that 20% of drone strike casualties
are civilian. These studies, while they
have differing criteria for who is labeled a terrorist or combatant, are based
on reports from undoubtedly biased sources such as Pakistani journalists and
even the Pakistani Taliban. In order to
have proper discourse on how effective drones are in preventing civilian deaths,
there must first be consistent civilian casualty numbers reported by a
relatively unbiased source.
If
accurate information is needed in order to have an informed debate on drone
usage, how can we obtain that information?
First, Pakistani authorities must allow foreign journalists entrance and protection in the tribal areas. However, enticing the Pakistani government execute
this would be wildly difficult because they view drone strikes as an
encroachment on their sovereignty and would rather inflate numbers than allow
objective reporting. According to
Christine Fair, potentially one third of Pakistani journalists are on the ISI’s
payroll. Additionally, the Pakistani
government may not be able to provide sufficient protection to the journalists,
which may discourage reporters from traveling to afflicted areas.
In
addition to Pakistani cooperation, the U.S. must admit the existence of a drone
program and de-classify some information surrounding the drone program’s
usage. For example, if the government
reported information about the attacks it executed along with a casualty count,
media sources in Pakistan would have information to compare to and would also
immediately know which areas were affected.
Recognition of the drone program and declassification of strikes once
they are carried out would also quell fears of an entirely unchecked drone
program.
While both
sides of the drone debate have valid concerns, civilian casualty numbers are
too crude and have been used too often as reasons for supporting or opposing
the drone program. If accurate information
on civilian casualties becomes available, then a well informed debate can begin. The figures released would allow proponents
of drone usage to compare drone civilian death rates to death rates that result
from other means of aggression.
Additionally, opponents would be able to accurately consider whether or
not the civilian death count is too high.
No comments:
Post a Comment