Page 3 of 3 (Return to previous page)

Consider the following tables, which represent, as accurately as possible [ahem], the number of deaths as a result of drone attacks since 2004:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2012

*Through June 14, 2012

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 - 2012

*Through June 14, 2012

Estimated Militant Leader Deaths from US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2012

*Through June 14, 2012. Included in estimated militants and estimated totals, above.

But these numbers say nothing about accountability or the effects of the "push-button" approach to fighting Al Qaeda. To quote Mayer:

Because of the C.I.A program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war.

Peter Singer makes a similar point, saying that the damage of the bombings have largely gone unseen because the Pakistan has prohibited the press to access Waziristan, where a majority of the drone strikes occur.

Propagandastic: But the real crux of the issue comes from the alienating effects that drones have on the populace and, possibly, decision makers, especially as the clandestine nature of drone operations undermines transparency, which is necessary in a system of checks and balances and due process. Mary Dudziak, a professor of Law at the University of Southern California, argues, "Drones are a technological step that further isolates the American people from military action, undermining political checks on...endless war."

Yet, drone attacks continues for a number of reasons.

For one, drone operations are cheaper and easier than boots-on-the-ground special operations. Also, they put few American lives in danger. Also, terrorist suspects are nearly impossible to capture to question, even though that would be better for everyone. Indeed, those considerations might outweigh any of the moral, tactical and semi-legal criticisms raised earlier. But they don't outweigh the necessity for civilian oversight of drone operations. The public should not be demanding that drone operations cease, because they won’t, but they should be arguing for greater control, greater transparency, and greater consideration in the use of drones.

Drones and cyberweapons will change warfare in the 21st century. Wars of attrition are long gone, but the new wars will not be robots fighting robots, nor will it they be virtual battles in cyberspace. There might be someone operating a joy-stick, looking at a computer screen. But he’ll still be yelling, “Kill, kill, kill.” And someone, on the other end of the word, will be still be dying.

---

Follow on Ology: David Barnett | PoliticOlogy

Follow on Twitter: @blankbarnett  |  @OlogyPolitics

Comments (0)

ALSO IN...

WarOlogy

PoliticOlogy

David Barnett