Earlier this week, a main force in the al Qaida movement, Anwar al-Awlaki was killed as the result of a drone (here and here). The drone was obviously effective and useful so what's the big deal?
First of all, Awlaki was an American citizen. That in itself is a big deal and for the U.S. to kill a citizen without due process is shocking. However, this has been defended by using a quote from Lincoln: "the U.S. could 'treat its own citizens as enemies when they take up arms in rebellion.'"
For a couple of years now, drone warfare has been a topic of debate. Mainly, the legality of it. Should the U.S. continue to use drones even though the UNHRC has said that it needs to stop? The Obama administration continues to support drone warfare despite this. After all, drone warfare is considerably cheaper than sending in humans, and we have less causalities on our part.
I personally am against drone warfare as a little mistake in a calculation can lead the drone off target and kill innocent people. And, drones give the U.S. a considerable advantage and so if our enemy at the time decides to use it wouldn't it lead to another arms race and we'd experience MAD all over again? The main thing that concerns me is the large advantage that we have as a result. Wouldn't this advantage simply turn the U.S. into a killing machine because we can fairly accurately kill anyone we want at any time we want?
1 comment:
Keeping in mind Mr. Awlaki's active role in Al Qaeda, including "directing the efforts to murder innocent Americans," I would contest that his death was justifiable. Would we hesitate to kill an American defector to Nazi Germany during World War II? Given his clear position with the opposing side, I frankly consider nationality a weak argument.
You do, however, raise excellent points about drones. My main concern is not with potential for human error, but the fact that with less human lives at risk, war could potentially turn in a violent "video game." Though far from MAD, the dangers are still very real.
Post a Comment