Do Drones Bother Obama?
Published in El Mundo
(Spain) on 7 June 2012
by Inocencio Arias (link to original)
(Spain) on 7 June 2012
by Inocencio Arias (link to original)
Translated from
by Brian Perez.
Edited by Becca Prashner.
Drones are still lethal. The U.S. media reports that the Pentagon's "drones" (or worker bees) have cleared the second head of al-Qaida. The frequent use of these aircrafts increasingly solves problems for Washington, primarily in its fight against terrorism.
The drones, of which the Pentagon and the CIA now have about 19,000, can be used for various purposes. These include peaceful uses, such as performing a field survey of the last tsunami, monitoring the border to prevent illegal immigration, and espionage over areas subjected to war. The surveillance or espionage has reached sophistication unimaginable a few years ago. Months ago, an Rg-170 Sentinel fell into Iranian territory from an unknown failure. It's a small plane, about 20 meters from end to end when measured at the wings. The cost of the plane was only about $6 million, although it is capable of flying thousands of feet high and is virtually undetectable by radar. The aircraft can be handled accurately from about 12,000 kilometers away, at a base in Nevada. It takes photographs of great precision. Before the malfunction, if it was in fact undetected as its mythic capabilities suggest, the Sentinel sent thousands of photographs of facilities or Iranian troop movements.
It is not uncommon, then, for drones to be manufactured and or purchased by more than 40 countries.
More controversial and important is the role played by the drones as deadly fighters. A good number of them are being used by Washington to eliminate terrorists in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan, among others. The relation of cost to benefit is clear. The U.S. does not have to admit that is at war, and the loss of American lives when eliminating a terrorist is zero. It is the ideal weapon to prevent a runoff of dead American soldiers, as the sight of body bags coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan clearly affects public opinion. Casualties are reduced, so Obama has embraced the drones without any squeamishness. He has approved, in the last three years, about 262 plane attacks of this sort. This is about five times more than Bush did in his eight years in office.
The American public does not seem undeterred with the performance of the drone despite having two legal and moral pitfalls. On one hand, the elimination of a terrorist has been decided without any kind of due process. On the other, despite their precision, there are inevitable deaths of innocents. When a terrorist target is located, and certainty is established regarding their identity, it remains uncertain whether the two or three people that are with him are also terrorists. This problem, apart from the already existing moral dilemma, fuels anti-American propaganda.
Obama, despite his promises and goals, has failed to close the Guantanamo base and has even continued some practices that were criticized when his predecessor was in office. These include delivering terrorists to regimes that are not always respectful of human rights and the protocol of military courts.
The president strives to smooth out these policies, and in the matter regarding the use of drones has imposed a more rigorous implementation. It seems that when the three conditions are met, he does not hesitate to issue the order to send a drone: when the capture of the suspect is impossible, when the identity of the terrorist is certain, and where there is conviction that said individual is involved in preparing an imminent attack. According to the New York Times, Obama reviews the list of potential targets every month and authorizes it personally. The list has been prepared by some 100 experts on terrorism. He has no excessive doubts. It seems that he only holds back on an order if there is a non-negligible probability that there would be civilian casualties.
Breaking his pacifist image, Obama, according to his national security adviser, [Thomas E.] Donilon, "is a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States." The concentrated attack in Pakistan, violating the sovereignty of the country in order to eliminate bin Laden, whose residence had been extensively photographed by drone, was a good test. The removal in November of a dangerous Islamic cleric, a U.S. national, is another. The number of drone deployments and attacks is also telling.
Voters, as well as the majority of American media, seem to have no qualms with this expeditious way of wiping out terrorist suspects. Public opinion and the international press have also not been troubled with this violation of the law. Drones do not bother Obama or his compatriots, but it is unlikely that public permissiveness would occur if the executor of the policy had been Bush, or another Republican president.
The drones, of which the Pentagon and the CIA now have about 19,000, can be used for various purposes. These include peaceful uses, such as performing a field survey of the last tsunami, monitoring the border to prevent illegal immigration, and espionage over areas subjected to war. The surveillance or espionage has reached sophistication unimaginable a few years ago. Months ago, an Rg-170 Sentinel fell into Iranian territory from an unknown failure. It's a small plane, about 20 meters from end to end when measured at the wings. The cost of the plane was only about $6 million, although it is capable of flying thousands of feet high and is virtually undetectable by radar. The aircraft can be handled accurately from about 12,000 kilometers away, at a base in Nevada. It takes photographs of great precision. Before the malfunction, if it was in fact undetected as its mythic capabilities suggest, the Sentinel sent thousands of photographs of facilities or Iranian troop movements.
It is not uncommon, then, for drones to be manufactured and or purchased by more than 40 countries.
More controversial and important is the role played by the drones as deadly fighters. A good number of them are being used by Washington to eliminate terrorists in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan, among others. The relation of cost to benefit is clear. The U.S. does not have to admit that is at war, and the loss of American lives when eliminating a terrorist is zero. It is the ideal weapon to prevent a runoff of dead American soldiers, as the sight of body bags coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan clearly affects public opinion. Casualties are reduced, so Obama has embraced the drones without any squeamishness. He has approved, in the last three years, about 262 plane attacks of this sort. This is about five times more than Bush did in his eight years in office.
The American public does not seem undeterred with the performance of the drone despite having two legal and moral pitfalls. On one hand, the elimination of a terrorist has been decided without any kind of due process. On the other, despite their precision, there are inevitable deaths of innocents. When a terrorist target is located, and certainty is established regarding their identity, it remains uncertain whether the two or three people that are with him are also terrorists. This problem, apart from the already existing moral dilemma, fuels anti-American propaganda.
Obama, despite his promises and goals, has failed to close the Guantanamo base and has even continued some practices that were criticized when his predecessor was in office. These include delivering terrorists to regimes that are not always respectful of human rights and the protocol of military courts.
The president strives to smooth out these policies, and in the matter regarding the use of drones has imposed a more rigorous implementation. It seems that when the three conditions are met, he does not hesitate to issue the order to send a drone: when the capture of the suspect is impossible, when the identity of the terrorist is certain, and where there is conviction that said individual is involved in preparing an imminent attack. According to the New York Times, Obama reviews the list of potential targets every month and authorizes it personally. The list has been prepared by some 100 experts on terrorism. He has no excessive doubts. It seems that he only holds back on an order if there is a non-negligible probability that there would be civilian casualties.
Breaking his pacifist image, Obama, according to his national security adviser, [Thomas E.] Donilon, "is a president who is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States." The concentrated attack in Pakistan, violating the sovereignty of the country in order to eliminate bin Laden, whose residence had been extensively photographed by drone, was a good test. The removal in November of a dangerous Islamic cleric, a U.S. national, is another. The number of drone deployments and attacks is also telling.
Voters, as well as the majority of American media, seem to have no qualms with this expeditious way of wiping out terrorist suspects. Public opinion and the international press have also not been troubled with this violation of the law. Drones do not bother Obama or his compatriots, but it is unlikely that public permissiveness would occur if the executor of the policy had been Bush, or another Republican president.
Next article![]( "Corruption Puts US Capital on the Brink of Political Paralysis")
