Under the 'Legitimate' Appearance of US Drone Strikes
On March 15, a UN investigation team stated that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and caused civilian casualties.
The figures provided by the Pakistani government to the UN investigation team are shocking: U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have caused at least 400 civilian deaths.
U.S. officials did not respond to this, but CIA Director John Brennan’s earlier position is enough to represent the government: U.S. drone strikes have always been “methodical, carefully considered and cautious.”* In short, the acts were neither illegal nor unethical.
But is this really true?
Last year, the U.S. Attorney General made provisions for situations where UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) combat is applicable. These three premises must be met: The target is likely to be terrorists who would attack the U.S., arrest is not feasible and relevant provisions and laws related to principles of war are met. This shows that what the U.S. relies on is neither “law,” nor war criteria, nor international conventions, but Uncle Sam’s "domestic disciplines."
It seems that the U.S. is aware that it is not on solid ground; it either plays dumb or is evasive whenever it encounters the UAV problem. The CIA refuses to disclose information about the UAV actions on grounds that it will “benefit” the enemy. On the other hand, while President Obama promises “more openness and transparency to the American people and the world,”* the federal government is obstructing Congress from obtaining confidential documents.
Although the “legitimacy” of UAVs has shortcomings and difficult to convince the public, the U.S. has so repeatedly indulged in their convenience that it would now be difficult to give them up. While UAVs cause civilian casualties and violations of the sovereignty of other countries, they are saving huge amounts in transportation costs for the U.S. in the implementation of military operations overseas and greatly reducing the risk of U.S. military casualties.
In 2001, the Pentagon only had 50 UAVs, but a decade later, that figure has soared to 8,000. In 2011, the United States launched 294 drone attacks in Afghanistan. In the first 11 months of 2012, the number reached 447. This year, the UN began to record Afghan civilian casualties caused by UAVs.
Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski compared the use of UAVs to “covert acts of violence without a declaration of war.”* In his view, technological progress is making the rules of the game between nations increasingly ineffective and the international system “precarious.” It seems like he’s not exaggerating.
*Editor’s note: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
The figures provided by the Pakistani government to the UN investigation team are shocking: U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have caused at least 400 civilian deaths.
U.S. officials did not respond to this, but CIA Director John Brennan’s earlier position is enough to represent the government: U.S. drone strikes have always been “methodical, carefully considered and cautious.”* In short, the acts were neither illegal nor unethical.
But is this really true?
Last year, the U.S. Attorney General made provisions for situations where UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) combat is applicable. These three premises must be met: The target is likely to be terrorists who would attack the U.S., arrest is not feasible and relevant provisions and laws related to principles of war are met. This shows that what the U.S. relies on is neither “law,” nor war criteria, nor international conventions, but Uncle Sam’s "domestic disciplines."
It seems that the U.S. is aware that it is not on solid ground; it either plays dumb or is evasive whenever it encounters the UAV problem. The CIA refuses to disclose information about the UAV actions on grounds that it will “benefit” the enemy. On the other hand, while President Obama promises “more openness and transparency to the American people and the world,”* the federal government is obstructing Congress from obtaining confidential documents.
Although the “legitimacy” of UAVs has shortcomings and difficult to convince the public, the U.S. has so repeatedly indulged in their convenience that it would now be difficult to give them up. While UAVs cause civilian casualties and violations of the sovereignty of other countries, they are saving huge amounts in transportation costs for the U.S. in the implementation of military operations overseas and greatly reducing the risk of U.S. military casualties.
In 2001, the Pentagon only had 50 UAVs, but a decade later, that figure has soared to 8,000. In 2011, the United States launched 294 drone attacks in Afghanistan. In the first 11 months of 2012, the number reached 447. This year, the UN began to record Afghan civilian casualties caused by UAVs.
Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski compared the use of UAVs to “covert acts of violence without a declaration of war.”* In his view, technological progress is making the rules of the game between nations increasingly ineffective and the international system “precarious.” It seems like he’s not exaggerating.
*Editor’s note: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.