In the third presidential debate, President Obama and
Governor Romney found common ground on a few issues of foreign policy. One case in particular, the use of drone
attacks on terror suspects, stands out because Governor Romney stated simply
that he agrees with the President’s policy.
Some commentators have latched on to that to show how conservative the
President is on national security or how Governor Romney is more moderate than
some of his advisers Beneath it all,
the question is not one of liberal/moderate/conservative. It is a question of right or wrong.
Drone attacks are, by any reasonable measure, theologically
and morally wrong.
Drones, the unmanned aerial vehicle
or UAV, are a creation of the intelligence community and have become the front
line troops in the seemingly endless “war on terror.” Drones are designed to be
precise (though they have proven not to be), to be secure (though their
security has been called into serious question) and a means of winning the war
on terror (though there is no end in sight).
In truth, drones are the modern
equivalent of a societal prefrontal lobotomy about war. By removing the “human element” and replacing
it with non-emotional machines freed from the constraints of moral cognizance,
we have moved war from the realm of human tragedy to one of rationalized and
sterilized policy-making. It is far
easier to send a machine, more of which can easily be made, into war than it is
to risk the lives of our sons and daughters.
And to be fair, drones do limit the exposure and risk to our military
and civilian personnel. The trouble is
that as advanced and celebrated as they are, drones do not always work. In fact they often do not work. Some investigations claim that up to 25% of
drone related deaths are accidental.
Still, if they limit the exposure of
Americans and limit the extent of the war zones in Pakistan and Afghanistan,
don’t the advantages outweigh the drawbacks?
In other words, in the messy reality of war, aren’t drones at least a
little more moral?
If the only gauge of morality in war
was protection of “our side,” they certainly would be. However, under the principles of nearly 1600
years of Christian Just War theory, drones are, in fact, a less moral way of
waging war.
Just War theory can generally be
divided into two categories: jus ad
bellum (reasons to go to war) and jus
in bello (behavior in war). Since
the argument about going to war has long since been made irrelevant in the
present war, our attention is best directed to jus in bello. How, having
gone to war, must nations and people behave in war?
The general theory of jus ad bello lists five general
categories of behavior morally regulated by just war theory: distinction (distinguishing
civilians from combatants), proportionality (an act of war must not be
disproportionate to the precipitating act), military necessity (the act must be
necessary to defeat the enemy and end the conflict), fair treatment of
prisoners and the use of no means malum
in se (no means that are evil/immoral in and of themselves or the effects
of which cannot be controlled once used).[i]
The use of unmanned drones violates
at least three of these principles.
·
Distinction: The evidence is clear that drone attacks kill
civilians. Drones are neither limited
enough in their power nor precise enough in their guidance to ensure that only the
target is killed. While studies have
claimed that up to 25% of drones miss their targets and kill unintended
civilian populations, civilians are often the victims of successful drone
attacks. In 2011 a drone hit a tribal
council meeting in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. The four terrorist targets were killed, but
so were 38 others. Nearly 90% of those killed in the attack were not targets
but by-standers.
Another issue of
proportionality concerns the targets themselves. Often drone attacks target “terror suspects.”
They are executions carried out on suspects of terrorism rather than those
proven to have committed acts of terror.
There is no question that global terror is vastly different than a war
of opposing armies. The question for us
as a culture is whether or not that reality will so radically change the
metrics of our moral vision. We think
this person is a terrorist so we will kill him and his neighbors just in case
seems less than ideal as a moral foundation.
·
No Means Malum in Se: It is an overstatement
to say that drones are evil in and of themselves the way mass rape, child
conscription or the use of weapons of mass destruction are. Nonetheless, because they are free from the
moral difficulty of directly causing the death of another, drones are innately free
from moral inhibition and decision making.
Making war easier and less costly to wage has a coarsening effect on the
society fighting the war. Anything that
makes the commission of sin easier cannot, by definition, be anything but less
moral.
Do drone attacks make the “war on
terror” immoral? Is President Obama evil
for pursuing a policy of drone warfare?
Is Governor Romney evil for agreeing with him? Are the men and women who direct the drone
attacks evil for participating in such an immoral system? These and other questions that continue to
explore the morality of our current national security policies are (or at least
should be) of great concern to the church and people of faith.
Any war waged for any reason has dehumanizes and violates the most basic principle of Christian love. As 2000 years of history has taught us, though the community of Christ exists in the world the perfect peace of Christ does not yet. Just War theory has been an effective,
if imperfect, check on our propensity for war.
Restraint in war is one of the most enduring theological and
philosophical legacies of Christendom. If
we, as a community of faith, will not stand up for our own historic principles,
who is left?
There is no war that is free from
sin. There is only the degree to which
we submit to it. The larger question of
the morality of the “war on terror” will likely occupy the church for a
generation. The morality of drone
warfare should not.
[i] A
reasonable argument could be made that drones violate all five areas of Just
War theory concerning conduct in warfare.
Prisoners are mistreated in the fact that they are never taken prisoner
nor given the opportunity to surrender themselves. That drone attacks have been used since 2004
without great effect could reasonably argued as a violation of the principle of
military necessity. These are hardly
clear and reasonable arguments can be made on the other side of each. The same cannot be said for the other three
principles outlined above.
6 comments:
In principal I don't oppose your argument here, but I'm not sure that any of your argument apply to drones in a way that they do not apply to air-to-land warfare more generally.
Distinction: I'm not sure if there is a significant distinction between the effectiveness of drone engagement in comparison to air-to-land warfare (or for that matter, sea-to-land warfare). But lets assume that drones do in fact make significantly more errors than sea-to-land missiles or manned bombers. We are still arguing a matter of degree. And each generation of improvement of the drones would weaken the argument. So the argument would only be that drone warfare is STILL immoral.
Proportionality: All missiles and bombs are arguably overkill. As you know, a "war" on terrorism is itself difficult to defend on several just war criteria. This has little to do with drone warfare though.
Malum in se: Drones warfare does not lack a moral agent. There are still persons behind those controls, just a distance away. If "making it easier" to commit sin is an instance of Malum in se then we would need to prohibit all modern war devices. Most relevant to this argument, is that manned bombers are much easier than either stabbing your enemy with a sword or carrying the bomb in on your back. All devices of war are meant to make it "easier to sin."
While drone warfare may be less moral, it is a matter of degree not categorically different than other means.
I agree that our war on terror has serious "just war" issues, but I don't think these are primarily about drones. I also agree that the argument will be largely lost in the political realm because politicians will tell Americans what will cause less AMERICAN deaths and not less non-combatant deaths. Non-combatant deaths seem to be taking a place below American deaths AND the financial costs of way.
I think there is a distinction for drones in that they remove the immediate danger to self or ally. A drone shot down costs money, a plane costs lives.
I think the distinction comes because at the moment of decision there is no moral actor to "make the call"in the same way there is with air to ground bombing. I think you are correct that when it comes to distance bombardment and missile attack, there is an element of degree at play. That drones are specifically designed to remove threat of harm to self without regard to the distinction between combatant and noncombatant victims, is a statement of its immorality.
Proportionality applies, I think, because it is one of the justifications of drones vs. missiles etc. They are smaller therefore more proportional. I think they are still overkill. I do not mean to imply that they are somehow more overkill than a missile, but that they fail to achieve the moral improvement they claim. The malum in se argument rests on a principle that anything that makes the consequences of warfare more distant from the moral actor is in and of itself less moral because it precludes moral immediacy. In that respect a drone is like a missile. Again, I am not claiming that drones are in a class alone, but that they fail to meet the moral bar that is set for them as an improvement in moral action in warfare.
The political argument is that drone warfare is more moral or at least amoral improvement over other means of warfare. I want to point to the deficiency of that argument.
Jeremiah, one thing I neglected to say is that I also see the drones as putting one more element between the targeter and target. It further isolates the act from the actor and that has the effect of rendering it more morally palatable to some.
so you basically concede that drones are only different from manned bombers, missiles, etc by a matter of degree. It's not that we should not place limits which are simply matters of judgment regarding the degree to which something is acceptable.
An argument you have heard from me before: I would judge abortion to be universally sinful. But it may be that the sin is justified in cases related to rape/molestation/etc. In my mind it is only a matter of degree, but there is a still a (wise) judgment that one is morally acceptable and another is not.
So are you arguing that this is where we should draw the line, OR should we also forbid certain kinds of missiles, manned bombers, etc?
My argument is less against drone warfare per se but against the perception that it is somehow more moral. The argument in favor is that it is more moral than missile attacks etc. I disagree.
The central issue is not so much degree as it is the distancing of violence from the actor. It is the perceived sterilization of the killing that troubles me.
Can drone warfare be just?
No.
Thanks for this thoughtful post, Robert.
Post a Comment