The administration and its democratic flacks (including to some extent, sadly, Andrew Sullivan) push the use of drones as minimizing American involvement – no large scale land occupations – and thus, supposedly minimizing innocent civilian casualties. On July 14, the New York Times published a creepy op-ed piece by Scott Shane, their "national security" reporter, parodying the moral issues. It is of the form: here are “serious” answers to nearly unstated objections.
The content, however, mechanized murder controlled from video boards half a world away, of people whose language the operators do not speak, is not washed away. Even Obama has sought to limit the murders – “collateral damage” – by offering the absurd idea that any young men walking near a terror-suspect is himself a terrorist (this is even more weak-minded than joint enterprise in England - see here). It does provide "good" kill numbers for the Times reporter's interviewees to repeat, but the guilt by association here probably needs no further comment.
David Maxwell a retired colonel who teaches at the Maxwell School at Syracuse, sent around a very good letter pointing out that killing people by drone, supposedly easier than using other weaponry, does not remove or mitigate the crime of war (see below; h/t Paula Broadwell). Put differently, murder of a large number of civilians is mass murder – part of what the crime of war has always been – even if it is not as massive as say, aggression against and occupation of a country. One can observe that difference without commending the former, particularly since it breeds, in response, hatred of the far off and secretive killers…
Worse yet, as the wording of the first paragraph of the Times's apology for drones suggests but does state, murdering people in a sovereign country with which one is not previously at war is an act of aggression, a violation, inter alia, of Article 2, section 4 of the United Nations Charter (fought for by Nuremburg prosecutor and later Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, representing the United States government) and Article 6, section 2 of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, which makes treaties signed by the United States the highest law of the land.
Shane cites Bradley Strawser a former air force officer and putative moral philosopher, teaching at the Naval Graduate School who says that given that the cause is just (i.e. killing terrorists), the taking out of others – wiping out innocents – may be “morally obligatory.” Let’s see: the US government commits aggression in another country. That is the crime of war – the cardinal injustice. That removes the Strawser's thought “given that the cause is just” - though he fails to notice this obvious issue (even Shane, a National Security reporter for the Times, is elliptically aware of the issue of sovereignty).
But perhaps the startling injustice is overridden, in this case, by killing an actual mass murderer. That is, in fact, a powerful case for Obama's killing of Bin Laden, not by drone, in Pakistan.
But the justification of this assassination is not generalizable (i.e. it does not justify killing members of the Pakistani Taliban, who have not committed crimes against Americans and have not been charged or convicted in any court, and even the White House offers no statement about them; it certainly does not license murdering random others - i.e. the wife giving one of the Mehsud brothers a back-rub on a roof...), let alone, raining drones down on another country.
In addition, as Maxwell points out, even sniping and certainly capture and arrest are more likely to minimize civilian casualties.
Beyond aggression, butchering civilians in the course of carrying out a war is a separate crime. The idea that the latter could be “morally obligatory” could only occur to someone who puffs himself up to teach philosophy at a military academy (ordinary officers and many teachers at these academies know better).
Avery Plaw, a political “scientist” at U. Mass. Amherst, compares civilian casualties in Pakistan with civilian casualties in declared wars, and finds – surprise – that the US has murdered fewer. It is not clear what sets of figures Plaw is using for the comparison (one would have to be real rather than Rumsfeldian about the figures in Iraq, for example). But neither Shane nor Plaw chooses to notice that the United States is not at war with Pakistan, that these acts are sheer aggression by the United States and thus, need a special justification if one is available. Were this not an apology of the Emperor’s minions and thus, in the Times, it would be really really dumb…
Now if the US is getting mass murderers like Bin Laden or those plotting mass murder, perhaps that would be a sufficient justification. But in most cases, this is improbable. More likely, Pakistan is just weak, the government isolated from the people and paid for by US military aid, the American press like Shane and political scientists like Plaw fumbling and sleepy….
But US efforts are producing a mass movement in response in Pakistan, drone murders being a motivation, which are quite likely to result over time in the Pakistani Taliban coming to power in a nuclear armed state. As a foreign policy, this is so counterproductive and stupid, in addition to its moral odiousness, that it is hard to take in (short term “expediency” defeats the long-term goals of the United States, even where, as in Obama’s case on reducing nuclear weapons, the long-term goal is good). The Democratic policy group is about as feckless – “it’s the only way we can get at them” – as it is possible to be, and journalists like Shane are enablers (he always has the possibility of looking at himself in a mirror and choosing a different course…).
Low balling also helps. Only 3 civilians have been killed this year according to the CIA (and 149 “terrorists”! And we have a bridge in Brooklyn you might like to buy, too…). The CIA, in the business of disinformation (not to mention the US government as a whole) is just who s professional reporter should invoke...
I have spoken with Syed Rifaat Hussein, a former political theory student and close friend, and, today, the leading strategic studies professor in Pakistan. Rifaat reports the slaughters of innocents- in large numbers – by American drones. Obama has probably has cut this some. But the figures in Shane’s article - those that the administration gives out - are phantasms.
At a meeting about drones in Pakistan, Clive Stafford-Smith a lawyer who has defended prisoners at Guantanamo, befriended a young Pakistani whose 16 year old cousin was killed by drone. The boy set out to report on drones. A few days later, he, too, along with another teenage cousin, was murdered by drone. That cases like this have been routinely reported by Clive and others and ignored says a great deal about this “debate” in policy circles.
In a brief letter to the Times (the Times does not allow long letters), Clive gets the issue right.
“Are Drones a Superior Form of Warfare?
Published: July 19, 2012
To the Editor:
“The Moral Case for Drones” (news analysis, Sunday Review, July 15), misses the most relevant considerations. It is not a matter of whether drones kill fewer civilians than my poor father did when bombing Germany (an experience that turned him into a strong supporter of the Geneva Conventions).
Rather, the first question is the issue of legality: Targeting militants in Pakistan without declaring war is illegal. President Obama would not dare to send in F-16s because that would be a more patent act of war.
Second, drones drastically lower the threshold at which politicians are willing to kill, because there is effectively no political downside. Witness the American military strikes in Waziristan, Yemen and Somalia, yet nobody in the United States seems to think twice about them.
I have been to Pakistan and have seen the carnage that Mr. Obama’s robot war has created. As Americans, we need a far more informed debate before declaring that this is the way to go.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH London, July 16, 2012
The writer, an American lawyer, is the director of Reprieve, an organization that advocates prisoners’ rights.”
One addition to Clive’s letter: what drone-murder does is not only illegal but immoral. We rightly condemn the terrorists for murdering 3,000 innocents on 9/11 and many otherwise. But the US government in Pakistan, too, has murdered many innocents. When the US takes out innocents, it, in fact, commits terror by drone.
The Times is a little uncertain about retailing, so abjectly, the emperor’s new clothes about murder. Peter Minowitz sent me an on line Opinianator piece from the Times website by two philosophers, John Kaag and Sarah Kreps, invoking Plato’s tale of the ring of Gyges below. In book 2 of the Republic, Glaucon tells the story of a shepherd discovering in a storm in a chasm in the earth a large wooden horse with a naked corpse in it, adorned only by a golden ring. Taking the ring, he returns to his fellow shepherds and discovers that, turned inward, it makes him invisible. He goes to the capital and commits great crimes,* and so, Glaucon suggests, would any other person who had such a ring.
For more on the resonance of this tale in Plato’s subtle psychological understanding of politics as well as in Lord of the Rings and Oscar Wilde’s Portrait of Dorian Gray, see here, here and here.
This piece gets, to some extent, the darker associations of drone murder. But isn’t evil by invisibility still evil? imagine if Hitler could have gassed all the Jews, Roma, Polish children – he murdered some 2 million, and many others – without anybody connecting it to him.
Would the act not be evil? And if the invisibility cloak slipped…?
Actually, Hitler's invisibility in Germany was guaranteed by the political-media-genocide complex...
What David Maxwell names “the seductiveness of drones” gets the ring-like fascination of this weapon for Obama and others. This is the fascination of the ring in Tolkien, developed, as an Oxford classicist, from the ring of Gyges in Plato, but with the compulsion/fascination of the ring – “my preciousssssss” – spelled out.
Though the two philosophers’ account has an element of truth, it also misses the main point. Everyone affected knows that Barack Obama orders this murder. American militarism resembles more the Company in Avatar (largely privatized), sending its minions to dominate and butcher the Navi. The American murderers under Obama are too pathetic actually to send soldiers to fight, even mercenaries. Instead, they send their missiles from Creech Air Force base in Nevada half a world away.
Just change the name of the killer to Russia or China and imagine those suffering to be in Montana or Texas, part of a weakened United States in the late 21st century – see "Imagine" here - and ask how you would feel (this is one of Ron Paul’s good points). Many nations are working on drones; the clock is ticking. Good luck on making this morally sympathetic or politically wise.
Part of Obama’s motivation, as a politician, is to head off attacks from the Right – see here. This is part of what I name the right-wing two step of American politics, rooted in the war complex and militarism, and with the imperial authoritarian party (misnamed conservative) always bellowing to the right (consider the bomb Iran crescendo...). As President, Obama has proven his toughness with Bin Laden. But the murder of innocents proves no toughness, harms the United States, and corrupts the head of the Empire (it is perhaps not avoidable to be the titular head of a trillion dollar military-industrial-Congress-media-intelligence complex with 1280 bases abroad and not be corrupted).
Only Americans are temporarily fooled as also in the case of torturer elite (Obama has made himself accomplice to the war crimes – by international and American law – see here – of Bush, Cheney, Rice et al) and the continuing criminality of bankers (faking LIBOR rates, however, is finally, perhaps, inviting some prosecutions).
But no one else is fooled.
The many friends and relatives of the 100 people blown up by drone at a wedding party in Yemen – and many who hear about it – know who to blame.
Obama recognizes some problems. He has taken to having Tuesday afternoon meetings to decide personally on who will be murdered. Possibilities are offered by the “priestly” John Brennan - a former torturer under Bush – on baseball cards. The Times was given that story by Obama, once again, to prove Obama’s toughness as opposed to Romney (this isn’t hard; Romney and my student Condi Rice are vapid sound-offs – Condi is, in addition, a war criminal, Romney still a want-to-be). One cannot help but feel here a touch of Gyges.
For as I said in a recent post here, Gyges finds the ring on the hand of a naked corpse in a Trojan Horse. The horse deceived Troy, but the thought that arises here is: what about the deceivers? What did their conquest win them, Odysseus on his long, mad quest to come home, and the others?
In Homer, warriors on both sides die. They all descend to become naked corpses with perhaps a ring on their finger...
And how does the ring of invisibility dress up a corpse?**
Gyges eventually become the tyrant in Lydia. How many tyrants fare well as Plato sees them? The vision that a tyrant is not happy – is always plotting, fearing sudden death, cutting off others, turning his ring ceaselessly to command obsequious priests, advisers, professors and reporters, never able to sleep peacefully...
Is it simply good for Barack to choose the baseball cards, limiting the killing? Now Romney, his possible successor, is already crazy, a man without a conscience, that is, a man who would do or say anything to gain power (being a religious leader does not mean one knows right from wrong or has a stopping point...).
But the danger to Barack’s psyche in what is described so sycophantically in the Times piece on the Tuesday meetings here is clear enough (Scott Shane was a co-author). Can Obama now (even in a second term) turn away?
One may hope that those who have suffered from American power and American drones distinguish ordinary Americans from their leaders. But the outliers won’t.
Unjust killings – murders – breed the desire for revenge. They do not stem the killing; they invite more killing (and by the by, strengthen American militarism as a continuing and self-destructive force).
As opposed to taking out Bin Laden, something done carefully, without murder of civilians and not done by drone, Obama and his coterie (the neo-neo cons) are wrong that this new kind of war makes America safer. It does not.
The Moral Case for Drones
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 14, 2012
FOR streamlined, unmanned aircraft, drones carry a lot of baggage these days, along with their Hellfire missiles. Some people find the very notion of killer robots deeply disturbing. Their lethal operations inside sovereign countries that are not at war with the United States raise contentious legal questions. They have become a radicalizing force in some Muslim countries. And proliferation will inevitably put them in the hands of odious regimes.
But most critics of the Obama administration’s aggressive use of drones for targeted killing have focused on evidence that they are unintentionally killing innocent civilians. From the desolate tribal regions of Pakistan have come heartbreaking tales of families wiped out by mistake and of children as collateral damage in the campaign against Al Qaeda. And there are serious questions about whether American officials have understated civilian deaths.
So it may be a surprise to find that some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare.
“I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this,” said Bradley J. Strawser, a former Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School. But after a concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, he said, he concluded that using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision.
“You have to start by asking, as for any military action, is the cause just?” Mr. Strawser said. But for extremists who are indeed plotting violence against innocents, he said, “all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have.”
Since drone operators can view a target for hours or days in advance of a strike, they can identify terrorists more accurately than ground troops or conventional pilots. They are able to time a strike when innocents are not nearby and can even divert a missile after firing if, say, a child wanders into range.
Clearly, those advantages have not always been used competently or humanely; like any other weapon, armed drones can be used recklessly or on the basis of flawed intelligence. If an operator targets the wrong house, innocents will die.
Moreover, any analysis of actual results from the Central Intelligence Agency’s strikes in Pakistan, which has become the world’s unwilling test ground for the new weapon [a circumlocution for American aggression against Pakistanis], is hampered by secrecy and wildly varying casualty reports. But one rough comparison has found that even if the highest estimates of collateral deaths are accurate, the drones kill fewer civilians than other modes of warfare.
AVERY PLAW, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, put the C.I.A. drone record in Pakistan up against the ratio of combatant deaths to civilian deaths in other settings. Mr. Plaw considered four studies of drone deaths in Pakistan that estimated the proportion of civilian victims at 4 percent, 6 percent, 17 percent and 20 percent respectively.[the Pakistan government says the rate is 600 civilians for 1 terrorist – but of course, why should their studies count…]
But even the high-end count of 20 percent was considerably lower than the rate in other settings, he found. When the Pakistani Army went after militants in the tribal area on the ground, civilians were 46 percent of those killed. In Israel’s targeted killings of militants from Hamas and other groups, using a range of weapons from bombs to missile strikes, the collateral death rate was 41 percent, according to an Israeli human rights group.
In conventional military conflicts over the last two decades, he found that estimates of civilian deaths ranged from about 33 percent to more than 80 percent of all deaths.Mr. Plaw acknowledged the limitations of such comparisons, which mix different kinds of warfare. But he concluded, “A fair-minded evaluation of the best data we have available suggests that the drone program compares favorably with similar operations and contemporary armed conflict more generally.”
By the count of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, which has done perhaps the most detailed and skeptical study of the strikes, the C.I.A. operators are improving their performance. The bureau has documented a notable drop in the civilian proportion of drone casualties, to 16 percent of those killed in 2011 from 28 percent in 2008. This year, by the bureau’s count, just three of the 152 people killed in drone strikes through July 7 were civilians.
The drone’s promise of precision killing and perfect safety for operators is so seductive, in fact, that some scholars have raised a different moral question: Do drones threaten to lower the threshold for lethal violence?
“In the just-war tradition, there’s the notion that you only wage war as a last resort,” said Daniel R. Brunstetter, a political scientist at the University of California at Irvine who fears that drones are becoming “a default strategy to be used almost anywhere.”
With hundreds of terrorist suspects killed under President Obama and just one taken into custody overseas, some question whether drones have become not a more precise alternative to bombing but a convenient substitute for capture. If so, drones may actually be encouraging unnecessary killing.
Few imagined such debates in 2000, when American security officials first began to think about arming the Predator surveillance drone, with which they had spotted Osama bin Laden at his Afghanistan base, said Henry A. Crumpton, then deputy chief of the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, who tells the story in his recent memoir, “The Art of Intelligence.”
“We never said, ‘Let’s build a more humane weapon,’ ” Mr. Crumpton said. “We said, ‘Let’s be as precise as possible, because that’s our mission — to kill Bin Laden and the people right around him.’ ”
Since then, Mr. Crumpton said, the drone war has prompted an intense focus on civilian casualties, which in a YouTube world have become harder to hide. He argues that technological change is producing a growing intolerance for the routine slaughter of earlier wars.
“Look at the firebombing of Dresden, and compare what we’re doing today,” Mr. Crumpton said. “The public’s expectations have been raised dramatically around the world, and that’s good news.”
Scott Shane is a national security reporter for The New York Times.
A version of this news analysis appeared in print on July 15, 2012, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: The Moral Case For Drones.
From: "Maxwell, David COL RET"
Date: July 15, 2012 10:01:10 EDT
To: David Maxwell
Subject: The Moral Case for Drones
I still think the issue is not the weapon system or the platform. It is the decision making process and authorities that should be examined. Why have we never talked about Hellfire missiles delivered by manned Apache helicopters? Or any other weapons systems from a sniper rifle to a B-52? Is it more precise and minimize collateral damage (I think sniper shots and capture and arrests problem result in even less collateral damage if we are going to make those comparisons)
Yes there are issues with the "seductiveness" of drones, perhaps seeming to make the decision to use them more attractive because of the less risk to US personnel since it is unmanned but that "seductiveness" impacts the decision making process and authorities. The drone itself is amoral. Sure the case can be made that a drone could lower the threshold of lethal violence. But that is not the drone's fault. The responsibility lies with those who chose to employ these weapons systems. Morality rests with men and women making the decisions.
Yes there are many issues that will need to be examined and debated particularly if there is a move toward autonomous decision making for employment of weapons but the decision to use such systems is what needs to be examined. It should not be about the platform but about the people making decisions.
Our research scientists and the defense industry are going to keep developing new capabilities for us to employ against our enemies in more efficient and effective ways. But the moral dilemmas for employment remain the same as at the time of Socrates, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas. Again, we need to focus on moral decision making of leaders and not the morality or immorality of platforms because as I said such platforms are amoral.
But I think one of the most important questions is in the first paragraph regarding employment of US lethal operations within sovereign nations with whom we are not at war. This is a question that is going to haunt the debate for years to come. The question of respect for sovereignty is something that is going to need to be thought through.
On the one hand we should not be distracted by drones and focus on their employment. On the other hand drones are providing the catalyst and opportunity to examine the moral dilemmas of modern war. But in the end those dilemmas still rest on the moral dilemmas man has faced throughout history.
July 22, 2012, 5:15 PM
The Moral Hazard of Drones
By JOHN KAAG and SARAH KREPS
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.
As the debate on the morality of the United States’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles (“U.A.V.’s,” also known as drones) has intensified in recent weeks, several news and opinion articles have appeared in the media. Two, in particular, both published this month, reflect the current ethical divide on the issue. A feature article in Esquire by
Tom Junod censured the “Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama” for the administration’s policy of targeted killings of suspected militants; another, “The Moral Case for Drones,” a news analysis by The Times’ Scott Shane, gathered opinions from experts that implicitly commended the administration for replacing Dresden-style strategic bombing with highly precise attacks that minimize collateral damage.
To say that we can target individuals without incurring troop casualties does not imply that we ought to.
Amid this discussion, we suggest that an allegory might be helpful to illustrate some of the many moral perils of drone use that have been overlooked. It shows that our attempts to avoid obvious ethical pitfalls of actions like firebombing may leave us vulnerable to other, more subtle, moral dangers.
While drones have become the weapons of our age, the moral dilemma that drone warfare presents is not new. In fact, it is very, very old:
Once upon a time, in a quiet corner of the Middle East, there lived a shepherd named Gyges. Despite the hardships in his life Gyges was relatively satisfied with his meager existence. Then, one day, buried in a nearby cave, he found a ring. This was no ordinary ring; it rendered its wearer invisible. With this new power, Gyges became increasingly dissatisfied with his simple life. Before long, he seduced the queen of the land and began to plot the overthrow of her husband. One evening, Gyges placed the ring on his finger, sneaked into the royal palace, and murdered the king.
In his “Republic,” Plato recounts this tale, but does not tell us the details of the murder. Still, we can rest assured that, like any violent death, it was not a pleasant affair. However, the story ends well, at least for Gyges. He marries the queen and assumes the position of king.
This story, which is as old as Western ethics itself, is meant to elicit a particular moral response from us: disgust. So why do we find Plato’s story so appalling?
Maybe it’s the way that the story replaces moral justification with practical efficiency: Gyges’ being able to commit murder without getting caught, without any real difficulty, does not mean he is justified in doing so. (Expediency is not necessarily a virtue.)
Maybe it’s the way that Gyges’ ring obscures his moral culpability: it’s difficult to blame a person you can’t see, and even harder to bring them to justice.
Maybe it’s that Gyges is successful in his plot: a wicked act not only goes unpunished, but is rewarded.
Maybe it’s the nagging sense that any kingdom based on such deception could not be a just one: what else might happen in such a kingdom under the cover of darkness?
Our disgust with Gyges could be traced to any one of these concerns, or to all of them
*The philosophers are careless about the story and its history, describing with Plato as seduction something very likely to have been rape. I compare Plato’s story to Herodotus’s tale of Gyges, which Plato knew and modified. There the Queen, who is shamed by being seen naked by Gyges, is a leading actor. See here.
**Hans Christian Anderson’s "The Emperor’s New Clothes" is also a version of the Gyges’ tale.