The notion of semiautonomous machines battling our wars for us, to some extent, still seems like something out of Star Wars. Imagine how advantageous it would be to have legions of C3P0’s with laser rifles and R2D2’s that shoot laser guided rockets. Over the past several decades innovations in military technology have changed the course of military tactics and warfare itself. Drones have transcended themselves from the pages of science-fiction to the articles of science-fact, thus our need to utilize them in battle has grown exponentially. With their inception comes the debate of whether or not to mass produce smaller models or produce smaller numbers of larger models has only begun (Springer 39).
The fact that droids can emulate human cognition and process vast amounts of information pertaining to given situations make the desire to implement them into war all that more tempting. “The inherent advantages of drones -- most of all, not placing pilots or ground forces at risk of being killed or captured -- have lowered the threshold for the use of force” (Zenko,”The Next Drone Wars”). Nothing could have been more truthful, it also brings up several factors concerning the proliferation of Drones, or more specifically UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and the like. Has lowering the threshold for the use of force had a positive impact on international relations or has it hurt our means towards diplomatic resolutions?
The ramifications for such a powerful addition to a nation’s arsenal stem from the technology’s specifications themselves. Drones are semiautonomous, efficient and relatively cost-effective. They are not capable of independent thought and therefore do not need to have extrasensory perception which would be limited to such thought. Most importantly, they do not have a pilot, or rather, a pilot that sits in a cockpit located within them. This proves to problematic in regards to the rules of engagement and international law.
The factors to the problems that must be considered are both ethical, political and legal in nature, and lest we forget the significance of the monetary aspect of it all. These factors raise such questions as, “who is affected aside from the intended targets of UAVs and the like, who is in control of these weapons, and who pays for it all?” All of which are of equal importance and should be addressed as such, however, the biggest question therein lies, “should we have the ability to just push a button and await an enemy to die?” Who are we at that point if not men playing God as we strike down enemies without regard to consequences because of our notion of sovereignty as a nation?
THE PREDATOR’S BITE: “The year 2013 began with a series of drone strikes [in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region] that were tactically counterproductive to the elimination of terrorism in the region, according to Brigadier Dogar of the Pakistani military”(Ahmed 82). It is apparent to see that drones are not foolproof and do come with certain consequences. These can range from tactical mishaps and setbacks, friendly fire, or worst of all -- the killing of innocent civilians. “In March 2010 Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, “Each time an errant bomb or a bomb accurately aimed but against the wrong target, kills or hurts civilians, we risk setting our strategy back months, if not years. Despite the fact that the Taliban kill and maim far more than we do…”(Ahmed 82). Unfortunately, the ends do not justify the means, especially when the ends are not a guarantee of a desired result. In an article by Micah Zenko, he stated,“Based upon the averages within the ranges provided by the New America Foundation, the Long War Journal, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there have been an estimated 522 U.S. targeted killings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia since 9/11, which have killed 3,852 people, 476 (or 12 percent) of whom were civilians”(“The United States Does Not Know Who It’s Killing”). This further cements the notion that for however accurate a UAV system might be, it does not ensure complete accuracy. Instead, it is reminiscent of high-efficiency and low cost to one’s conscious, or in other words; it’s synonymous with Network Centric Warfare. Not the textbook definition of NCW, but rather the meaning behind it, in how prolonged warfare cannot be sustained using such a model and thus all efficiency begins to deteriorate. According to Akbar S. Ahmed, “For a Muslim tribesman, this manner of combat not only was dishonorable but also smacked of sacrilege. By appropriating the powers of God through the drone, in its capacity to see and not be seen and deliver death without warning, trial, or judgment, Americans were by definition blasphemous” (p.2). Control over one’s life by any means is playing God. If this is completely so, is it not one’s duty to at least be certain that (1) you’re killing your intended targets and (2) you’re not inciting more turmoil by the methods in which you choose to take preemptive or countermeasures? “In 2009, during one of many conferences she attended in Pakistan, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was informed by a Pakistani audience member that the drone strikes were comparable to “an execution without trial” …[which] the majority of Pakistanis seemingly agree that the Americans are distrusted because they’re carrying out a manhunt of their countrymen to fulfill their vendetta against all of those deemed to be a terrorist” (Williams 205). Pakistan is obviously not the only country to feel bite of the raptor or the ‘scythe’ of the reaper. Turkey too has dealt with fallout in regards to poor intelligence and a hair-trigger. There was an incident in 2011 in which the United States loaned 4 of it’s UAV drones to Turkey for monitoring purposes. As a result of such generosity, at least 35 Kurds were mistaken to be guerillas crossing the Iraq-Turkey border and killed when the drones reported their coordinates to missile-ready F-16 fighter jets. The men had nothing more on them then contraband of cigarettes and oil and the incident became the largest Kurdish civilian death toll in a single strike in Turkey’s three-decade-long war with the Kurdish insurgents (Williams 220). Back in 2008 there was no indication that the CIA would transform its restricted assassination program, limited to 1 to 5 strikes per year, into a full-blow aerial campaign of thirty-four strikes per year (Williams 65). Which leads one to wonder, has the CIA transcended from intelligence gathering to bounty-hunting so to speak? If so, what are the implications and does that make them a gun for hire of sorts? As in all Revolutions in Military Affairs, technological advances and new organizational conceptions will blur lines of protocol and seemingly make a particular organization behave much like another.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONTROL THE BEAST?: As far as who’s carrying the ‘bigger stick,’ and refuses to tread lightly in regards to not overstepping boundaries and international law, the United States has been on top for a few decades now. However as far as policy is concerned, one would think Congress would have jumped at the chance to draw up the rules governing the use of drones, yet, they have not. In fact, they deferred to the executive branch on drone policy. Some believe this to be too much power for the president and his staff to hold, while other believe this will resolve conflicts abroad in a faster and timelier manner. It is the same methodology behind the regulation and distribution of power regarding the roles the United States plays. Efforts to regulate the proliferation of drones have been underway since 1987 through the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) whom of which were initially created to nuclear-capable missiles and related technologies (Zenko, “The Next Drone Wars”). The general consensus relating to the efficacy of the MTCR is that (1) the regime needs a reformation which would include new implementations of sanctions and penalties, (2) the United States would have to do something it rarely does upon the world stage, and that is lead by example. Lead in the sense that there must be an openness about its own use of drones and the ethical implications therein lie. It’s quite possible that the old regime might just have to be cast aside if it is just too outdated. A worldwide guidebook of sorts must be instituted if the world wants to slow the rate at which drone proliferation is expanding. Regardless of whichever path the United States and the MTCR are to take it is apparent that clarity of its own actions, just or unjust, is what the world we need in order to comply with the United States. The question at hand is whether or not the proliferation of drones has already begun to spiral out of control? According to an article published by The Los Angeles Times, “by early 2012, the Pentagon was said to have 7,500 drones under its control, representing about one-third of all US military aircraft (Hennigan, “New Drone...Who’s Accountable?”).
ARMS RACE OR ARMS FOR SALE?:
Nations will continue to emulate the United States in regards to their proliferation of drones and its implementation of military technology. This has always been the case and always will continue to be so considering that history is based off of perpetual arms races. According to Zinko, “Some U.S. officials and analysts contend that the widespread proliferation of armed drones is inevitable, and that any efforts to influence their use will fail” (“Limited Armed Drone Proliferation”pp 23). It’s a scary notion to think that not only will espionage become commonplace, but attacks will come with that much greater ease on a global scale as a result. The possibility that wars will escalate even quicker now is an even more frightful notion. There is a truly viable danger on the horizon and that is the risk of increased escalation. Take for example the responses Japan has had concerning China invading their sovereign airspace. As Zinko stated, “Japanese defense officials claim that shooting down Chinese drones in what Japan contends is its airspace is more likely to occur than downing manned aircraft because drones are not as responsive to radio or pilot warnings, thereby raising the possibility of an escalatory response” (“Limited Armed Drone Proliferation” pp 11,12). If such is the case, one can assume the same level of escalation perhaps between the United States and Russia if either one were to have prolonged intelligence missions over each other’s sovereign airspace. Such disregard could escalate into more severe forms of conflict, possibly even ground war. The ethical aspect of it all really comes into play when considering that the United States has intentions of selling our drone technology abroad. Earlier this year the State Department released a statement that acknowledged which countries we could export our drones to. For instance, “[the] policy was actually preempted by the Feb. 8 announcement that the State Department had approved the sale of four armed-capable MQ-9 Reapers, the most advanced unclassified military drone in the U.S. arsenal, to the Netherlands (Zenko, “The Great Drone Contradiction”). It’s common knowledge that the U.S. has good relations with the Netherlands, however, they are not one of its closer allies as for example, the way France or The United Kingdom are. It is also a well known fact that The United States is the world’s largest arms dealer. It should be understood that the dealing of arms at the same time proclaiming peace can be problematic in certain ways for the United States; but from a defense policy perspective why would The United States sell spy equipment to someone who might use it against them?
WHO IS LEFT WITH THE BILL?: According to Springer the range of cost can be broken down as thus: “At the expensive end of the spectrum are enormous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, which, at $35 million apiece, cannot remotely be considered expendable. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the comparatively simple RQ-11 Ravens, which cost only $35,000 apiece. For the price of a single Global Hawk, could 1,000 Ravens perform the same function”(“Military Robots and Drones”)? Based off of this logic, one cannot say whether or not this is a completely accurate depiction of the cost to the American people.
PLAYING GOD: According to Akbar S. Ahmed, Muslims encountering this new manner of warfare in which Americans are “enacting God’s judgment,” are highly critical to the matter, as they should be. Not that terrorists get a pass by any means, however, the innocent observers within the nations in which they reside find UAVs highly insulting. It isn’t warfare as far as they’re concerned. It is a means for an American operative to flip a switch and cause death and destruction. This further reinforces the idea that Network Centric Warfare isn’t as efficient as those in the Department of Defense would like to believe. Network Centric Warfare leaves a gaping hole in the minds and hearts of those nations that have to endure it. The main issue with the concept of NCW is that there is no accountability after the initial conflict is over. One must remember military efficiency does not equate to political efficiency. Yes, one would like to be able to push a button a win a war, however, that might just be a means to end a battle or several. Being that Network Centric Warfare is based on the ideology that democracy is sovereign and noble to all who encounter it. This is the same notion that was proposed to Iraq after the elimination of Saddam Hussein. The ideology of democracy being as natural as the flow of water or the occurrence of the seasons is utter malarkey to a Muslim. The Quran comes first, second, third and last in the minds of those who follow Muhammad.
BUT IS IT LEGAL? IF SO, WHERE?”
According to Mahmood Ahmad, “For almost a decade, the United States has deployed unmanned aerial vehicles, known as ‘drones’ to kill members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in targeted operations. In particular, the CIA-run drone programme in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan has stirred strong debate over the legality of such operations. It is argued that USA is not at war with Pakistan; therefore, it has no right to conduct drone strikes in its territory. Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by one member state against another. However, there are two exceptions to this Article: first, when such action is taken with the consent of the host state; and second, when it is carried out in self-defence as a response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, providing that the host state is unable or unwilling to take appropriate action itself (“The Use of Drones In Pakistan…”). Mr. Ahmad goes on to state that there is legal consent regarding the United States’ use of UAVs in Pakistan. He further states, “Pakistan has effectively, if not publicly, consented to drone strikes. It is evident from reports that Pakistani authorities have not only consented to such strikes, but also shared relevant intelligence and even allowed drones to use Pakistani air bases (“The Use of Drones in Pakistan…”).
CONCLUSION:
The debate over the use of drones, in particular UAV drones, is not at issue of efficacy. The unmanned flying harbingers of death and destruction have proven to be very reliable in combat. In fact, such proficient killing has made it possible to expand the realm in which the drones are used. This has given the desired publicity-goal of putting less Americans in harm’s way. It has also given obsolete functions of the Department of Defense new life and a chance for prosperity. Bequeathing such responsibility upon the United States military has given the Joint Chiefs of Staff more to do than manage the “Global Police of Earth.” Despite such perceived benefits, the drone program is not without its faults.
There exist several issues with drone proliferation. These issues amount to a single all-encompassing question; is it worth it? Probably the most significant point of conflict is ethics. Where is the line drawn? How can the United States stand on its soapbox and preach peace, while they obliterate a lesser force with armament too advanced for its more suitable rivals? The United States stands as the unparalleled leader in armed forces. The other military superpowers would be required to join forces in order to have a reasonable chance at victory. With such might, the current engagement in the Middle East looks more like “David and Goliath” than the Trojan War.
The UAV program is increasingly costly on American taxpayers as well as those tasked with maintaining its operation. With the advent of non-sentient personnel, more and more service members will find themselves obligated to choose between returning to civilian life or cross training to another service community. This is identical to what happens in American industry. As technology advances, humans are forced to improve or succumb.
The use, manufacturing of, proliferation, and distribution of unmanned aerial vehicles is not inherently nefarious. There have been many benefits discussed and others omitted. Despite the positives, the negatives cannot be neglected. Such is the cost of any decision made in regard to policy making. The best that can be hoped for is that the people put in the positions of power and those operating the drones are not corrupted by some external force that will bring about World War III.

Work Cited:

>