In recent months, the U.S. has been in the limelight of the international community for controversial reasons its citizens are probably not thrilled about. Most notable among these reasons are airstrikes, more accurately stated as the possibility of an airstrike in Syria and the reality of the one that just occurred in Afghanistan. On Oct. 4, the U.S. used drones to eliminate Al Qaeda militants in an area close to Jalalabad City, the capital of the eastern province of Nangarhar, according to presstv.ir. Afghani President Hamid Karzai claims that five civilians were killed overall; of these five, three were brothers aged 10, 14 and 16, according to Reuters. The U.S. asserts that all air strikes, especially drone strikes, are only aimed at verified militants–never civilians. The U.N. initially supported this statement but has now begun an investigation into the strikes.
Civilian casualties are on the rise in Afghanistan, according to Reuters, which begs the question: are U.S. Forces giving proper consideration to the native Afghan population during the targeting and proportionality analysis that accompanies every targeting decision? The answer is not an easy one; soldiers are trained how to react when civilians are on the battlefield or, in the case of air strikes, in the area targeted. Yet civilians are still being killed. In order to stop this, U.S. Forces must continue to stress the importance of limiting civilian collateral damage, which involves loss of life, injury and property damage.
Unfortunately, trying to reduce collateral damage is never easy. In fact, this is one of the reasons why drones are used, because they provide the opportunity to observe the target and the utilization of precise munitions, which are both key features in the reduction of collateral damage.
Drone strikes are a touchy subject even here in the States where you don’t see them flying around fully armed as can be seen in Afghanistan. It is hard to imagine the fear one of these unmanned aircrafts might evoke in the mind of an Afghan boy who has grown up witnessing the power and danger associated with its image. Furthermore, the Afghani president, a man many previously considered a U.S. puppet-leader due to the heavy U.S. support given to him throughout his presidency and particularly during his 2001 election, has condemned the drone air strikes in his country calling for the U.S. to halt drone activity. The continuation of nighttime drone attacks has led to stress in the relationship between our respective leaders. This is important to note as President Barack Obama has been attempting to iron out the details on an agreement to keep a number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan past the initial U.S. withdrawal date.
A drone attack is a scary proposition, no doubt. It is ruthless, cold and quick, the only human control element derived from an operator sitting comfortably in a seat far away from the conflict. It’s maybe not the safest weapon system, but it clearly complies with international law, The Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions. It also provides more safety and accuracy than many of the alternative methods of warfare. It eliminates the risk of death to one of our own pilots and eliminates a large portion of the human error associated with having an on-scene pilot, who would likely be under fire and subject to tremendous stress, pulling the trigger. Drones elicit fear– there is no doubt about this. They are recognizable and built for two purposes: espionage and destruction. I say this in a good way; they serve their purpose well, providing priceless information with no risk to human life. Likewise, the media is presenting us with a truly sad story of three brothers being killed by a U.S. drone, which is an atrocity, don’t get me wrong, but at times I believe the media fails to report the thousands of successful drone specific air strikes. The media generally portrays the drones as non-discriminating, killing machines that frequently make errors in regard to who they kill, but this is far from accurate. The modern drone is a superb example of the precise use of technology to limit unnecessary death and destruction during warfare, which is all about death and destruction. When drones kill the wrong human beings it is generally because of a failure in intelligence, not a failure of the drone itself. The drone will only attack what it is told to attack after all.
Drones have revolutionized combat, effectively improving the efficiency of U.S. capabilities tenfold. The U.S. military has reduced this method of warfare to an absolute science, but is this method ethical? Sending an unmanned destructive machine on a mission where the decision to kill is made from a great distance away is absolutely legal, but is it morally correct? There is an element of honor or morality associated with being close to the people you plan to kill during warfare. Many experts suggest, and maybe rightfully so, that the current conventions of warfare, the Geneva Conventions and Protocols and the Hague Regulations fail to properly incorporate our collective morality. Simultaneously, if we comply with these regimes we have also acquitted ourselves of any possible moral violation. The future holds a myriad of uncertainties regarding the usage of drones and other unmanned sources of destruction, but until they are made illegal–if they ever are– they are a necessary tool.
Richard J Whitaker can be reached at richard.whitaker@theminaretonline.com