I’ve been having the debate about drones lately. It’s a difficult one. Most everyone is quite certain in their opinion. I’ll share mine, but first a question to everyone who objects to our use of drones. If you agree that we need a military and if you agree that that military will sometimes take up arms and be deployed, would you prefer that we march our soldiers into harm’s way, your son or daughter or mine, or that we use the technology we have, which, by the way allows, us to be as precise?
If we expect a sanitized conflict where no innocent gets hurt or killed, and we will always get precisely and only our man, we should probably wake up to the realities of life and foreign affairs and governance and conflict, not to mention human nature, because as you may have heard, war is Hell. Unfortunately, regrettably, on this planet people are still unkind to each other, sometimes brutal, and there is still a need to defend one’s self, individually and collectively. And there is no war, big or small, where combatants and innocents don’t die. That’s why they call it Hell. And that’s why we should never initiate one blithely, under false pretenses as our last president did. If you want to pretend that magically the world tomorrow will be without war and that we don’t need soldiers or weapons or technology or intelligence or any of that, that’s certainly one view.
The American citizen who was killed by a drone, that everyone points to as proof of the immorality of drones -- he renounced the US and his citizenship, and declared war on us and announced his intention to kill every American he could. His death was not murder or an assassination. John Kennedy was assassinated. Abe Lincoln was assassinated; it was a killing. That’s what happens in war. You kill your enemy. His son’s death is tragic, but until proven otherwise can be considered unintentional collateral damage, but ask yourself what responsibility does he bear for putting his son in harm’s way?
Again, if you think the world can be without war, that’s a whole ‘nother topic but probably one I don’t have time for because I prefer to deal with the world as I find it, working to change it, but clear eyed and honest. If you have a choice of your son or daughter marching into Pakistan or sending a drone, I would hope you would pick the drone and admit to yourself that war is Hell, and to expect otherwise is a bit foolish. Great that you have that luxury, though! Because you’re not living in Homs, or how many other dangerous places around the world?
I'd like to hear your thoughts because this is a topic I have definite opinions about but don't believe I have all the answers to.
ETA and share an NPR interview: (audio link below)
"What Does Obama's Foreign Policy Stand For?
http://www.npr.org/...
"This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. President Obama has withdrawn U.S. ground forces from Iraq and hopes to be able to do the same in Afghanistan within time. He's a Nobel Peace Prize winner and the man who got Osama bin Laden. After three and a half years in office, what does President Obama's foreign policy stand for as he seeks reelection? David Rhode is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times reporter who's now a foreign affairs columnist for Reuters and The Atlantic. He tries to define what he calls "The Obama Doctrine" in a piece that appears in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine. David Rhode joins us from New York. Thanks for being with us.
DAVID RHODE: Thank you.
SIMON: What's the doctrine you see?
RHODE: It's stated as a doctrine that it's one of multilateralism, working with our allies, transparency - being very public about what we're doing - and a very narrow focus on using lethal force against people that are direct threats to the United States itself. But the story I wrote talks about one practice - drone strikes - which sort of undermines that whole approach.
SIMON: How, in your judgment?
RHODE: The basic premise is that drone strikes are this narrow and precise use of force. It's a term called a light footprint. Whereas the doctrine of the George W. Bush was a very heavy footprint - big ground invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Drone strikes are not a light footprint in any way, shape or form. In every country that they're carried out, they are seen as this sort of oppressive American weapon. They attract tremendous public attention and they also fuel tremendous resentment.
SIMON: You point out people may not appreciate the number of covert drone strikes that have been undertaken.
RHODE: It's extraordinary. No one knows the exact numbers 'cause they're, you know, supposed to be covert but everyone talks about them. But it's 239 strikes in Obama's first term so far, as compared to 44 under George W. Bush. So that's, you know, nearly a five times increase in the number of drone strikes under Obama. To be fair, administration officials said to me that the increase has occurred in part because the technical systems they're using, you know, have improved - the technology - and then they're getting better information, better intelligence on the ground to carry out the attacks.
SIMON: And you write from personal experience. I mean, you are one of the few Americans who have seen a drone strike.
RHODE: Yeah, I was kidnapped by the Taliban actually in Afghanistan, and they quickly took me over the border into Pakistan, the remote tribal areas, which is basically this Taliban safe haven where they retreat from Afghanistan and rest and train and recoup. So, the only way the United States can sort of pressure the Taliban once they cross the border into Pakistan are these drone strikes. So, yes, they were constantly circling overhead during the seven months we were in captivity - myself and two Afghan colleagues. You can spot them as they're specks in the sky, but they're sort of haunting. The missiles they fire travel faster than the speed of sound. So, as you hear this propeller buzzing overhead, you also realize, you know, the missile will travel so quickly you will not hear the missile that kills you.
SIMON: And what was the effect of this daily presence?
RHODE: It definitely hindered Taliban operations and al-Qaida operations. And I sort of argue in the story that we should use drone strikes. The problem is that they become more excessive. The Taliban did not gather in large groups for trainings. You know, there was, again, in the safe haven of Pakistan they trained suicide bombers, they teach young men how to make roadside bombs. And so they're very nervous. And they knew the drones were there. They don't move in large convoys. So, it definitely slows them down. The problem is outside of the tribal areas in Pakistan. Because the U.S. keeps this as a covert program, there is no American narrative in terms of what's happening. So, across Pakistan there's a belief that the overwhelming majority of people killed in these strikes are simply civilians. And in my research - there was just a story this week from the Associated Press - has found that, you know, roughly 70 to 90 percent of those killed are actually militants. But because there's no American public discussion of the program, the widespread perception in Pakistan is just it's a brutal bombing campaign that's killing primarily innocent people.
SIMON: What would you recommend, Mr. Rhode? Here you have a weapon that's demonstrably effective, noting some of its drawbacks, and can be prepared quickly.
RHODE: I would first shift the use of drones over to the American military, which has a much public and rigid policy in terms of carrying out these strikes. I would involve local governments and force Pakistan and Yemen - they're now being carried out in Somalia as well - to support them and describe these attacks publicly. And there's a broader discussion. I think the international community has to start updating the laws of war - drones, secret detentions. We need new international norms for when drone strikes are appropriate, who is a legitimate target, when you detain someone, how and, you know, you can hold them. And it's the technology in a sense and the tactics have grown faster than these laws that really haven't been updated since World War II. So, I think all three of those things should help because drones are a reality, they're here to stay, and many, many countries are going to have them.
SIMON: David Rhode, the Pulitzer Prize winner. His article, "The Obama Doctrine," appears in the current issue of Foreign Policy. Mr. Rhode, thanks so much.
RHODE: Thank you." ~NPR Sat 3/4/12