This weeks readings brought several new and several repeated argument for and against drone strikes. The main points which I found particularly worth investigating are the wide variety of sources and codes for calculating casualties and the idea of human detachment. I think it is clear that many opponents and even some supporters of drone strikes would like to see more transparency and this seems to me that this alone could help to settle many of the issues, but of course like many cure all solutions this one is simply unattainable. It is not for lack of trying that we don't have accurate or trustworthy numbers, but simply that the line separating militant and non-combatant are so blurred that there is no way we can really know what the outcome of any attack is. Drones can "look" at the damage but not having feet on the ground hurts our ability to examine bodies, damage, and see the other unaccounted damage. We also cannot trust local sources as they are apparently paid by ISI. So really I think it is necessary not to look at the numbers on their own or even the supposed numbers but instead at the alternative.
I think that we can easily use bin Laden's death as evidence of the alternative. In bin Laden's case, the special operatives were given orders to kill or capture but never once considered the capture aspect for a variety of reasons. So what happened in the raid? bin Lade was killed along with 2 others and 1 injured. Of those 3 most 2 could be considered non-combatants. As well if we look at the war in Iraq, most counts put the casualties at over 100,000 with most sources having over 60,000 of those being civilians. That is means 60% of all deaths were civilian. This seems in line with the average of all drone strike counts, but there is one crucial difference; in Iraq we lost 4,486 American soldiers. When a drone goes down, Americans go home in cars, not in caskets.
So while I think that many arguments we have read support drone warfare, I feel this weeks readings really showed a real comparison, and when trying to reveal some weakness revealed the main strength. Less Americans die and equal casualties occur. This is not to say I don't care about civilian casualties, but I do not think it is necessarily irresponsible for a country to first think of its citizens and then think of everyone else's.
I think that we can easily use bin Laden's death as evidence of the alternative. In bin Laden's case, the special operatives were given orders to kill or capture but never once considered the capture aspect for a variety of reasons. So what happened in the raid? bin Lade was killed along with 2 others and 1 injured. Of those 3 most 2 could be considered non-combatants. As well if we look at the war in Iraq, most counts put the casualties at over 100,000 with most sources having over 60,000 of those being civilians. That is means 60% of all deaths were civilian. This seems in line with the average of all drone strike counts, but there is one crucial difference; in Iraq we lost 4,486 American soldiers. When a drone goes down, Americans go home in cars, not in caskets.
So while I think that many arguments we have read support drone warfare, I feel this weeks readings really showed a real comparison, and when trying to reveal some weakness revealed the main strength. Less Americans die and equal casualties occur. This is not to say I don't care about civilian casualties, but I do not think it is necessarily irresponsible for a country to first think of its citizens and then think of everyone else's.
Though I understand your point, I believe that the US should make a much larger effort to discover what civilian casualties result from their drone strikes. With drone strikes being as precise as the government claims them to be, the US should be more than able to account for each and every casualty that happens and discover ways to reduce these incidences. While it is reasonable for a country to think of its citizens first, the US must really make an effort to care for the citizens of the area they are striking.
ReplyDelete