An unmanned combat air vehicle, better known as a drone, is really just an extremely advanced remote controlled airplane like the ones you see in the park. They come in all shapes and sizes and can either be used in the field with a handheld ‘remote’ or directed remotely from the other side of the globe. Some are used only for reconnaissance, while others are heavily armed terrorist hunting machines. In the past couple of years the Obama administration has increasingly relied on drone strike to target enemy combatants abroad—which is where the debate starts. The recent debate is actually about two separate things: do we have the right to assassinate foreign civilians abroad, and more recently at least, can the president kill American citizens abroad without a trial.
The Haters:
- No country has the right to fly a remote controlled airplane over another person’s country and kill its inhabitants. Imagine if Canada did that to us, we’d flip out. It’s a violation of sovereignty and, therefore international law. Unless, of course, there’s a treaty agreeing to the action.
- Drones are indiscriminate. As hard as you try to ensure that you only kill your guy, there have been multiple occasions where drones killed entire innocent families along with their targets. Or, even worse, they’ve mistakenly blown up foreign troops or wedding parties.
- They make people hate us even more and encourage further extremist behavior. The theory goes that as little Jimmy and Johnny from Pakistan see their entire family blown up and witness the disrespect the Americans seem to have for Pakistani life and law, they’ll be pushed to join a group that seeks revenge. Kill one terrorist and create two more.
- Giving your government the power to assassinate an American citizen without trail is awfully reminiscent of some pretty dark periods in human history. The government works for the people and must work in a legal framework. Every American is guaranteed the right to a trial—then their government can kill them. Without the trail it is, arguably, just murder.
The Fans:
- Drones are incredibly effective, at least in the sense that they blow people up from a long way away. It used to be you had to march over some rough terrain (which is where all terrorists seem to live) and risk a couple of American lives just to shoot one guy. Now you have a 20 year old kid in an air-conditioned trailer in Kansas killing him for you. In essence, it allows us to wage war around the world without putting boots no the ground.
- Drones show the terrorists that there is nowhere to hide. The Taliban used to be able to run from Afghanistan over the border to Pakistan with impunity—now they’re followed and blown to smithereens by our buddies in the sky. Simply put, drones can go places where American boots aren’t allowed.
- They’re cheap. Not in the sense that you or I could afford one, but they’re way cheaper than having a military jet kill these guys or, even worse, a battalion of Marines. In these days of shrinking Pentagon budgets you still have to keep America safe, but on less coin.
- They bring fear into the hearts of America’s enemies. The hope, I suppose, is that we can scare the radicalized masses into submission with the constant threat attack by an invisible, yet deadly and vengeful ghost in the sky.
The debate really seems to hinge on a number of things. I personally am uncomfortable with the prospect of any country flying remote controlled killing machines across borders to kill me. I can almost picture a world where China is considerably more powerful than the United States and really pissed that I’ve made fun of them repeatedly. The next morning, I wake up to the sight of the St. Peter. That being said, I understand the necessity of protecting America and the sacrifices that are involved in creating the standard of living that I enjoy.
As with any debate there are nuances to every argument, and plenty of other arguments that I was unable to add here. We’d love to hear your feelings on the matter in the comments section below.
