The U.S. use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Afghanistan and
Pakistan has
long been controversial.
The drones, armed with missiles and flown constantly above areas where
U.S. troops cannot go, are estimated to kill one civilian for every two
militants. President Obama's increase in the program in December was met
with wide skepticism.
Critics warn that the drones, because they foment anti-American rage and needlessly kill civilians, do more damage than they are worth. Yet the drones have killed some
high-value terrorist
targets. Now, some war-watchers are wondering whether the drones
could be effective enough to merit the terrible costs. Are they right?
- 'Battered'
Al-Qaeda Is Constrained The New York Times' Jane Perlez reports that
drones have "battered Al Qaeda and its Pakistani and Afghan brethren in
the tribal area of North Waziristan." She writes, "The strikes have cast
a pall of fear over an area that was once a free zone for Al Qaeda and
the Taliban, forcing militants to abandon satellite phones and large
gatherings in favor of communicating by courier and moving stealthily in
small groups." She reports that strikes sometimes come "multiple times a
day."
- Program Is Legal, Correct The New York Daily News
lambastes critics of the drone program, which it says have "wandered
far afield into trying to litigate wartime proprieties in courts." They
affirm State Department lawyer Harold Koh, who recently argued for the
program's legality. "Koh's muscular statement of a wise Obama policy was
all the more remarkable because he had been one of the fiercest legal
opponents of Bush administration tactics in the war on terror. Now that
the we're-not-at-war types are wringing their hands in Obama's
direction, one-time critics in the administration have the duty to talk
sense."
- 'The Moral and Legal Case' Joint Force
Quarterly's Amitai Etzioni makes it.
"The reason UAS have recently gained special attention is largely
because of their novelty and because their employment is rapidly
growing." But he says that the drones are just as or more effective than
conventional forces, and that all that remains is building the
appropriate legal framework. "We should work toward a new Geneva
Convention, one that will define the status of so-called unlawful
combatants. These people should be viewed as having forfeited most of
their rights as civilians by acting in gross violation of the rights of
others and of the rules of war."
- This War Has Bigger
Problems Outside the Beltway's James Joyner declares,
"Terrorists, guerrillas, insurgents, and other non-state actors who are
waging war are combatants, pure and simple. And combatants can be
targeted for killing rather than arrested. There’s no doubt about that
under existing law." However, "The primary gray area in international is
what to do with enemy combatants who are captured in an
asymmetric war."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
mfisher at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
User Comments
Please type your comment and click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be prompted to log in or register