While last Monday’s final presidential debate covered an impressive breadth of topics related to American foreign policy, the discussion of drone warfare was conspicuous only by its virtual absence. It is unfortunate and worrisome that the current centerpiece of American counterterrorism policy received so little attention from the candidates and moderator. Regardless of who is elected on Nov. 6, the United States’ next president must establish stricter and clearer guidelines on the use of drones in combat.
Of course, there are political reasons for the dearth of discourse on drones. President Barack Obama cannot speak freely about a highly classified component operation, while his high-tech shadow war against Al Qaeda hardly fits into Mitt Romney’s criticisms that the president has been soft on foreign policy. Indeed, when questioned directly during the debate, Romney stated that he supports the president’s strategic use of drone strikes to “go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.” However, neither the president’s aggressive stance on drones nor Romney’s willing acceptance of it are particularly reassuring — for all that has been made about the basic similarities between the candidates’ brands of foreign policy, this shared attitude on drones is troubling to the extent that their use creates ambiguous legal and normative circumstances.
With technology playing an ever greater role in today’s armed conflicts, the nature and character of warfare have been dramatically altered. As The New York Times described last spring, President Obama has made unprecedented use of cyberwarfare tactics in attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and air strikes over Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The future of warfare is quickly arriving, with sophisticated software that can wreck digital infrastructures and drones that can pinpoint and eliminate enemies on President Obama’s now infamous “kill list” without any boots hitting the ground. But it is rather dubious whether these changes are unequivocally good for American power or the international system.
Fighting the war on terror from a computer lab somewhere in Nevada certainly has its benefits — leveraging our technological capacity means a high degree of accuracy when hunting a specific target and keeps American lives from being directly in harm’s way. The war on terror has become essentially “costless” when drones are involved because they minimize American bloodshed and render the highly visible commitment of ground troops unnecessary. Yet it is precisely this naive perception of war without cost, coupled with the Obama administration’s failure to consult with Congress or the public, that makes drone strikes an important issue morally, legally and for America’s international image.
On the other hand, the use of drones in pursuing terrorists has negative ramifications that are only just creeping into the wider public debate on foreign policy. Legally, the Obama administration has entered uncharted territory, not only by violating “the sovereignty of more countries, more times, than any other administration,” according to Foreign Policy magazine chief executive David Rothkopf, but also by using drones in countries like Yemen and Somalia where the United States is not formally at war. Additionally, the September 2011 assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric and Al Qaeda propagandist who had been hiding in Yemen, raises valid questions about whether a president can order the killing of an American citizen without due process, whatever the circumstantial evidence.
Furthermore, current policy either obscures or ignores the moral implications of drone usage. Despite the president’s insistence on personal oversight, the pace at which strikes are being carried out and the methodology for counting casualties suggest that the Obama administration has allowed its national security agenda to supersede concern for civilian harm and America’s global prestige. Across East Africa and South-Central Asia, drones are unwelcome symbols of omnipresent American influence and provide powerful fodder for the recruitment of extremist militants. The present focus on strikes seems to have diverted attention from long-term goals and the strategic pitfalls of flaunting American primacy.
Ultimately, our next president must concentrate on providing the proper context and transparency with respect to drone policy. There should be explicit, published guidelines for what constitutes a credible threat and high standards for the level of intelligence needed to trigger a drone strike. Otherwise, the United States risks setting a poor international precedent of casual disregard in the expanding realm of high-tech warfare.