The
increased use of drone strikes during his presidency raises the question among
critics that Obama has sidestepped congressional approval for declaration of
war.: “There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow
we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,” Obama
has stated.
The NY Times recently reported that over 300 drone strikes
have taken place since he first took office, leading to 2,500 deaths, the
creation of “kill lists” and mass displacement of civilians in targeted
regions. But the administration is not backing off. Its goal is to
“institutionalize” the drone program to ensure that there is protocol in place
for future successors. As we set rules that govern our use of drones, we must
also consider other factors.
Is this
administration’s increased use of drones unique to Obama’s outlook on how to
best fight “the War on Terror”? Do these unmanned strikes reflect growing
ethical dilemmas posed by technological advancement? Is it time that we
reevaluate the price that is being paid globally for keeping Americans safe?
What happens when the technology is adopted by other nations? And is it ethical
to use overwhelming force without engaging in combat?
Vijay Prashad, a
professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.,
argues that this type of technology is likely to produce outrage. “You can’t
bomb a country into giving up certain ideas,” he said in an interview.
“Internal struggles have to take place to marginalize certain ideas. You harden
ideas this way. Why does the U.S. feel the need to enter other people’s
conflicts versus allowing them to sort through it on their own?”
We must be cautious
about being enthusiastic about the establishment of protocol, Prashad argues.
He believes that who gets to set the rules is as important as what the rules
are — challenging the idea that internal regulations by agencies such as the
C.I.A. will offer the level of accountability and due process that the American
public needs.
Prashad
rightfully believes that we can’t ignore who is using the technology and who is
being victimized by it. According to the NY Times article, “In Yemen,
some strikes apparently launched by the United States killed militants who were
preparing to attack Yemeni military forces.” What’s the implication if these strikes are
being used to serve the U.S. government’s special interests in foreign
conflicts rather than responding to an imminent threat to this country?
“The history of
industrial advantage is that the West will always use this advantage against
the rest,” Prashad said. “They will use the fruits of industry in military
fashion. The history of colonialism coincides with the history of modern
industrial warfare.”
A leading argument in
support of drone strikes is that they diminish the weight that American
families have to personally carry for warfare. The unmanned strikes eliminate
the fear of a loved one returning home in a flag-draped casket. They remove the
element of psychological trauma experienced by soldiers on the ground. In the
words of our president, drone strikes allow us to be engaged in never-ending
wars “without any mess on our hands.” But war is always messy.
No matter how
good-intentioned a Commander-in-Chief may be, the onus is still on Americans to
know the trail of death, displacement and hopelessness that our government is
leaving behind in other parts of the world.
© 2012 The Washington Post [Abridged] http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/10-8
Rahiel Tesfamariam is a writer, social
activist, public theologian and cultural critic.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/10-8
No comments:
Post a Comment