Drone attacks: promise vs. reality By Don Dillard
The use of drones to pursue U.S. foreign policy is oftentimes promoted as clean, easy, effective, selective, and without unintended consequences. Nothing could be further from reality. CLEAN Legal: The legality of the use of drones to target individuals has been sidestepped due to the novelty of the mechanism. Those targeted may indeed be guilty of waging war on the U.S. but no court has convicted them and they have had no due process. The targeting of individual leaders of political factions that the U.S. considers enemies has the distinct feel of assassination. These extrajudicial executions may be someday come to be considered as war crimes. Permission: The U.S. use of deadly force over foreign territory without the permission of the legitimate government is a violation of sovereignty. If this “permission” is obtained in secret with the purpose of later deniability then the U.S. may be colluding with that government against the will of its people. Anonymous: At the moment there is little doubt that it is the U.S. or its allies that are responsible and should be held fully accountable for all results of drone attacks. Any attempt at deniability is ludicrous. EASY Targeting: Finding and verifying that a proposed target is indeed the same person on a list to be executed is not likely an easy proposition. It is laughable that U.S. personnel are checking I.D.’s.
Therefore, clandestine operations with spies and informants are of necessity to be “trusted” to correctly finger the targets. After the targets are correctly identified, relaying highly specific and accurate information about place and time are critical. Room for mistakes is obvious. Cost: I’m certainly unfamiliar with the costs of drones, missiles, intelligence, personnel to launch, and to remotely guide these attacks. Nevertheless, accounting most certainly underestimates the support functions of bases, battle ships, risks to local indigenous sources, and loss of political allies and the moral high ground. EFFECTIVE Executing advisories: Of course there have been several high profile executions that have been touted to laude the effectiveness of drone attacks. However, evidence that these executions have been effective in lessening the capability or resolve of enemy organizations is unconvincing. We know they have to replace the leader, but so far only a brief interim has resulted. Precludes the capacity to negotiate: Very few wars end with the total abdication of one side and the total victory of the other. Short of annihilation, the U.S. will ultimately need to have a partner with whom to negotiate, begin the peace process, and the building of a civil society.
RÉDA
Special Edition 2012
20