Droning On
- September 24th, 2012
- Posted in Uncategorized
- Write comment
New York Times columnist Melissa Porges, in a recent article, argues that drone strikes are not an adequate tool for fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or abroad. Her main argument is that drone attacks are ineffective because they do not allow US intelligence to get inside the heads of the enemy through interrogation. In recent years, while Guantanamo Bay remains open, the number of detainees brought in for questioning and holding have decreased drastically as the Obama administration turn increasingly to drones to combat Al Qaeda and terrorism. Borges believes that this strategy is dangerous in that it prevents the US from fully understanding Al Qaeda’s motives, operations, and execution.
The argument of Borges’ article is compelling, however, I disagree that the detaining of suspected terrorists is more effective than drone strikes. I believe that Guantanamo, water-boarding, and secret CIA prisons all marred the reputation of the Bush administration – especially in the International community, and continually raised a slew of legal and ethical questions. It seems wise that Obama would distance himself from this largely unpopular practice. Drone strikes, however, are far from a pretty solution to stopping terrorism since they create inevitable civilian casualties, and draw the ire of local populations and Governments (such as Afghanistan and Pakistan). Despite these drawbacks, drones are a decisive, fatal, and low human-cost method of fighting terrorists. While several drone strikes (such as the one which killed US-born Anwar Al Awlaki in Yemen) became controversial, the killing of combatants or civilians abroad will never, in my opinion, be as hotly contested by the American public as the deliberate and starkly anti-American use of torture to illicit information from detainees. Drones are also advantageous in that they can operate where conventional ground forces can not – and therefore keep Al Qaeda on the run at all times. Drones are far from perfect, but are the best alternative when the public will to fight is low and dangerous terrorists roam free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/dont-kill-every-terrorist.html?ref=afghanistan&moc.semityn.www
– Daniel
The article’s argument seems to imply that American airpower now primarily consists of and revolves around drones. Yes, drones have played in increased role in recent years and since they are a new war-fighting technology they have become a popular story in the press. However, drones are simply a new tool for the US military, and like all tools they are to be used only in appropriate situations. Interrogation and “getting inside the heads of the enemy” are not the purpose of drones; nor were they the purpose of the manned ariel vehicles they have been replacing on missions. Human intelligence has definitely not been negatively effected by the increased use of drones. On the contrary, signal intelligence and recon work by drones may be increasing the military’s ability to gather information and communicate in the field.
Porges is correct that drones are ineffective for getting in the heads of Al Qaeda. However, she is proposing a plan for a more strategic style of war. People are tired of fighting the war in Afghanistan and it seems like the strategy has turned from understanding the enemy to just annihilating him. It seems like the U.S. is throwing everything they have at Afghanistan in the hopes that it might roll over and concede.
I definitely agree that drone strikes are the way to go. I think after being involved in this war for such a long time we need to evaluate the most cost effective solutions in engaging the threat. Drones are precise, effective (both in terms of capability and cost) and not to mention that when we send in drones thats one less time we have to send in our troops. I think the latter is the most important plus on the side of drones because we have been in this war for over a decade and I think the American population is just about sick with the casualty count this war has brought with it.