According to the article by Jane Mayer, there are currently two drone programs in the U.S. The U.S military drone program as an “extension of conventional warfare” in Afghanistan and Iraq and the covert CIA program that targets terrorist internationally. Mayer describes them as “a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned force” and criticizes the CIA’s program specifically for its lack of visibility and accountability.
I feel safe in assuming the general class sentiment is that the current use of drones could have dangerous implications.
I’m curious of the class opinions on if the use of drones is ever acceptable. If so, what would be the conditions of acceptability?
What if we got rid of the CIA program and kept the military one?
What if we could somehow enforce a decrease in the amount of civilian deaths associated with the killings? Is even one civilian death acceptable?
What about the intelligence implications? Are we harming our national security by killing suspects instead of interrogating them? Would it even be possible to locate and capture them instead of killing them?
What are the human rights issues given the opacity of the target list creation? Is it more important that we are able to eliminate the potentially violent treat of the targets being alive?
What are your opinions?
9 comments:
You brought up some really interesting points Rebekah. I think you are right to draw attention to whether these drones could possibly be used in "good" ways, and if we should maybe just choose one of the drone programs. I think it is important to really tease through the implications of this technology and see if there is a way that it can be utilized well or if the technology itself is inherently bad (of course, they are inherently violent).
I don't really know how to answer these questions. But I think the technological determinism argument that we discussed on Friday is an interesting one in this discussion. While drones are definitely transforming warfare in a particular way, we of course cannot forget the other social forces that are driving this technology. The way that it is used is definitely driven by current political and military desires. This does not mean that drones are necessarily a good technology and that it is only the present political environment that is causing them to be used in less than ideal ways. But of course, drones were not born independently of all social life. There were reasons for their production and there are certain states that have the ability to use them and others do not.
I think what scares me most about drones is the people who use them. People so distant from their actions, both geographically (perhaps in a different country sitting in a room) and from the physical act of what they do. I don't know exactly how it works, but I figure that pushing a button of some sort has a much different visceral effect than pulling a trigger and seeing that person right in front of you. It seems that we are getting farther and farther away from both the actions themselves and the consequences of our actions. Drones being just one very extreme example of that. I worry that this will just desensitize our further and lead to even more disturbing processes of dehumanization.
I don't know if I really answered any of your questions, but these are the things that came up for me when we were talking about drones. I guess in essence I would not deny that there could be a way to use drones more effectively and reduce the amount of error and casualties in terms of targeting the wrong person and killing others besides the intended target. But what does this say about ourselves and what does it mean for the way we will view warfare? If we are to take seriously Gandhi's assertion that violent means only bring violent ends and Arendt's idea of bureaucracy and the distance created between "us" and "them", this seems like a most grotesque act of dehumanization. And I am not quite sure it can be utilized in a way that does not bring as much harm to those using them as it does to those upon whom it is used.
You address a lot of good questions Rebekah. It's hard to figure out if the drones can ever be acceptable. I think the problem with them is that they're being used so often that now they're part of the US standard of warfare. Mayer brings up the interesting distinction between tactic and strategy, where I think the Predator program was originally made to just be a tactic instead of an entire strategy. Also, a line that stuck with me when I read Scahill's article is how these new forms of warfare just require money instead of citizenry. Then Mayer talks about how this makes war seem costless (not monetarily but in regards to American lives), which is why these drones can be so appealing. If we put in the money, then these robots can do all the dirty work for us. This causes causes dehumanization (like Justine mentions), especially since these victims remain undocumented.
I think I'm straying from your questions though. Killing suspects instead of capturing them is also another form of dehumanization. Not only are we losing possible valuable information, but we're suspending human rights in general. What happened to trials, prison (a legitimate one), or any democratic practices? This goes back to our readings about if these people are inherently "evil," can't be changed, and therefore should just be exterminated.
In regards to your question about civilian casualties, the use of drones will always have the problem of killing innocent bystanders. There's too much error in how they're being used. This would also go back to our other readings about if one civilian death is acceptable if it's for "the greater good" (once again referencing the "us" vs. "them" debate).
Overall, I think that drones are a great technological achievement but are being overused and are creating a kind of dependency (Mayer mentions that the reason the Administration keeps using drones is because it "doesn't really have anything else"). It has redefined what warfare is and has become so standardized, it'd be difficult to go back. This persistence that occurs once an innovation is made reminds me of Meade's argument (in that article about how war is just an invention). Under her claim, drones will only be rid of whenever a new/better innovation is made to replace it. ...now that seems scary. What's the next step after target-killing robots?
I am not sure if the drones will ever be acceptable. I am sure with technologies advancement that there are potential ways to improve and make the program to be more effective and less civilian killings - But thats brings to me a deeper question of whether targeted killings and violence are acceptable in general. And more specifically what Mayer’s article raises questions of what laws and code are the CIA responsible to. The drones are not the first killing program implemented by the CIA. There are secrets methods and processes of the CIA that have been deemed above the law and it seems the general public rarely addresses questions of accountability where the CIA is concerned. Are they too outside of the law like Guantanamo Bay, as Butler points to the new war prison that operates on lawless power over life and death. It seems that there is an emergence of many different types of new war methods that are increasing operating outside the law and human rights.: detention prisons, drone programs, the private military complex. Who are the arbitrary decision makers who decide between who’s on the target list, who should be detained. Who is to stop private industry as Blackwater from expanding further into drone programs and fighting wars--there are profits to be made! Decision makers in war get spread over all levels in war far and accountability will always be questionable. I also recalled Ticktin article on humanitarianism in France as she questions what the consequences of the arbitrary nature of decisions being left to arbitrary decision makers, rather than the law. There are many people along the way deciding who is eligible for papers, prison, life and those who are not. Many different factors then come in to play, it comes back to how those decision makers are conditioned and influenced, and how they decide who human or not.
I think Justine is spot on in addressing concerns of further dehumanization process.
The normalization and dehumanizing effects of these new technologies and types of warfare are removing individuals away from the compassion for human life and society are increasing dangerous in the longer term. In reading Mayer’s article, I recalled earlier discussion on the violence in video games, and wondered how future virtual warfare is what our new generations are being trained for. I imagined their future “office space” as a virtual war game completely void of humanity. All of these new warfare types are setting up conditions for an even more violent future than today. The rapid and increasing pace that Mayer and Kolder point to in the globalization of warfare in conjunction with the normalization of violence, the dehumanization process, and lawless nature of the powers is setting in place a set conditions that make for a scary future.
Heres the trailer for Call of Duty: Black ops Video game launch on Tuesday -- expected to top largest sales. And if you are so inclined, Jeep Wrangler Blck Ops special Edition 2010 coming soon for 30k!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPTOVQFRggI
The biggest issue I have with the drone programs is the lack of accountability, highlighted by Mayer with regards to the CIA. It seems that the lack of public information regarding this program is dangerous because it allows decisions to be made by a few individuals very unilaterally, yet has implications globally and is, clearly, a matter of life and death.
The question of how many deaths is acceptable is what especially struck me about this article. Mayer notes that a computer algorithm is used to determine whether or not a strike near a school is ok. If another country were operating in this way against the US, there would be outcries of murder and a denial of human rights much louder than what is happening with Pakistan.
Mika brings up a good point. Since a lot of this information is hidden from the public, many Americans still defend programs such as this one in a post-9/11 sentiment. But if they knew the specifics, perhaps this patriotism would change.
Another issue that I worried about in these articles (which is a little off tangent but oh well) is this perpetuation of war, which can be seen in different ways. First, there's the privatized military industry, who's motivated to continue this endless war for the sake of profit. Second, there's the fact that Americans are unaware of these secret programs and therefore continue to support what's going on without realizing that they're supporting this continual war. Third, these civilian casualties create vengeful people who want to avenge their loved ones' deaths. I know this isn't really part of the questions Rebekah asked, but I was just wondering what people's thoughts are about this idea of perpetual war and how it can be stopped.
Perhaps used extremely sparingly with serious oversight over who is targeted and under what conditions operations are conducted, I could see drone strikes being acceptable. However, when they are used as frequently and as covertly as they are by the CIA, the program seems to be a kind of terrorism campaign in and of itself. The use of unreliable local informants is a tactic to spread fear not only among the terrorist groups we are attempting to target (by creating mistrust and paranoia about who is targeting them), but also seems like a way of diffusing some of the responsibility for any collateral damage to the people that are ultimately suffering. By using information that we know is spotty at best, we can blame Pakistanis/Afghanis when our air strikes go wrong and kill innocent people. It kind of reminds me of the "Airquake" article in which we are making our enemies feel responsible for their own destruction. Additionally, the secrecy attached to the program, combined with its sometimes extremely cruel implementation (ie. attacking a funeral) adds to the feeling of the whole thing basically being a terror campaign meant to arouse fear among the populace until they cooperate...kind of like Operation Success in Guatemala, where we carried out a propaganda campaign via radio and bombed civilian and military targets (under the guise of a revolutionary army) in order to inspire the Guatemalans to overthrow their democratically elected governor.
I believe that, at the very least, the CIA drone program should be elmininated because it causes more problems than it starts. The problem of corrupt governments, as the US sees them and they arguably are, is not the result of single people no matter how high up they are. It tricks us into thinking that these drones are somehow more "humane" than other general drones for military purposes. However, extermination of people on an individual basis sounds like the most dehumanizing thing imagineable. Even the most "wretched" life deserves dignity if killing is going to take place. If trust could be enacted so as to simply "capture" targets and interrogate them, then maybe they can stay. But, two programs are not needed. Tax dollars are better spent. If "freedom" becomes so valuable that the US begins using more drones so as to enable a more amorphous type of warfare, then what happens to the respect of the millions of soldiers that have died in combat in history (not even the United States). Progress in scientific capabliites should not transfer to more efficient war. Good point to bring up!
What I am saying seems somewhat obvious and redundant, though not really spoken of. The drones in respect to what is going on between the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, seem like almost a perfect tool. 40 hours of surveillance, and capabilities of seeing a person from 5 Km away… it’s almost like a telescreen (1984 reference) but UAVs can cover more ground…
Though it is really awful that innocent people are being killed, what is expected when terrorists hide amongst civilian/innocent population? It would be great if there was a magic solution to sift out the good from the bad, but it isn’t possible... Is it? The battle field is changing, and in turn warfare is evolving… and UAVs are a prime example of how we are adapting. It is keeping the bad guys afraid… in the Mayer article, drones have been doing their job with Al Qaeda creating, “constant fear and distrust” only at night will terrorists leave their hideouts. I don’t mean to upset anyone, this just seems like a realist point of view.
Post a Comment