Last week, President Obama announced that by this time next year, the United States will withdraw half of its troops from Afghanistan. This is encouraging news for those who believe the War in Afghanistan has gone on too long. But will such a significant drawdown result in a reduction of military operations in the country? Intuition says it would, but a highly controversial, often ignored practice leaves this question unresolved. This practice, of course, is that of U.S. drone strikes.
The United States has been using unmanned aircraft, or drones, for well over a decade, even before present conflicts in the Middle East. But throughout the Obama administration, the practice has become much more common and better understood. Earlier this month, NBC News obtained a copy of a controversial Justice Department memo justifying the use of drones to kill United States citizens overseas without due process. This memo was a follow-up to another Obama administration memo outlining the guidelines that the president uses to authorize to do just that – kill U.S. citizens. These guidelines were set ex post facto to the use of drones to kill, Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Al-Awlaki was a radical Muslim cleric, believed to inspire the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. He was also an American citizen.
Apart from their past and possible future use targeting American citizens overseas, drones have been responsible for countless civilian casualties. By some counts from human rights watch organizations such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, more than 800 civilians have been killed in Pakistan by American drone strikes since 2004. This practice has greatly strained U.S. relations with Pakistan, one of the America’s most crucial allies in the War on Terror.
There are certainly benefits to using such technology in warfare. For one thing, it minimizes the role American soldiers have to play in combat. Furthermore, drone strikes allow the CIA to target militants that would otherwise be out of reach. It is quite possible that without the use of drones, the planned drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan would not be possible. Several top al-Qaeda leaders have also been killed in such attacks including Abu-Zaid al Kuwaiti – considered by some to be al-Qaeda’s second-in-command – who was killed in Pakistan in December.
It is clear that there is merit to both sides of the debate over the use of using unmanned drones to target enemies of the United States, but the debate itself is remarkably lacking. Some conservative lawmakers have raised issue with the clear constitutional concerns of using drones to target U.S. citizens, but among the American public this debate of utmost concern has hardly flourished.
One problem, it would seem, is that conservatives in Congress have complained about so many of Obama’s polices that this complaint, which very well may or may not be legitimate, has no weight. Likewise, if conservatives may only be complaining about drone use because it is an Obama policy, it seems liberals are only silent on the issue for the same reason. It does not take a very creative thought process to imagine what the left’s reaction to targeted killings of U.S. citizens would be if George W. Bush was still president – there would be outrage.
Democracy cannot properly function without the input of the citizenry. The lack of dialogue on drone strikes certainly isn’t due to a lack of information, a multitude of information has been leaked on the subject. Whether this policy is further pursued or abandoned, the implications will be immense. Silence shouldn’t be taken to mean tacit support – silence is ignorance or apathy. This is unacceptable. Regardless of the consensus (or lack thereof), it is time for the American people to take part in this discussion. As in generations past, students need to step up and take the lead.
