Duane Hilaire
Discussion Post
The
Double edged side of Drones
There
is no debate that tensions in the Middle East are multi-dimensional and thus
have become extremely volatile however, the question remains, how do we deal
with radical terrorist organizations? According to the Brookings Institute, “The
United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a
sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater
is the risk
of inaction-and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves,
even if uncertainty remains as
to the time
and place of the
enemy's attack.” While this idea is in the country’s national interest
it can be a double edged sword. One such mechanism is the use of drones as an
anti-terrorist tool. Singers’ article gave a look at major controversies
surrounding the use of drones domestically with the underlying question of
whether “Drones Undermine Democracy?” However, there is another issue that must
be taken into consideration and that is, “Do drones increase radicalism in
targeted countries?”
Singer
wrote that, “Technology is short-circuiting the decision-making process for
what used to be the most important choice a democracy could make.” The core of
our democratic process involves the people ability to have a choice in the
ability and tasks of the government and with limited input this is indeed undermining
the democratic process. With the executive government consolidating a disproportionate
amount of power when it comes to drones it is a clear constitutional violation
however; there are those that believe because the government i.e. executive
branch is operating in the national interest then there is no harm done. This
assertion is incorrect. Accepting this act of the government can lead to a
great decline in political freedoms as it relates to drones. As it stands today
we accept what the government does and congress has also taken the back burner
to the executive branch as “that presidents [only] need(s) to seek approval
only for operations that send people into harm’s way — not for those that involve
waging war by other means.”(Singer) He best stated that
this current system has, blurred the civilian and military roles in war which
in turn open up even more avenues leaving the executive branch to “act as it
chooses”. With the power to deploy
drones noticeably separate from the checks and balances of the American system
they are only restricted by international law on the depth of their involvement.
This involvement in drone strikes raises another important question, “Do drones
increase radicalism in targeted countries?”
In
an article I read by Hasan Rizvi, he gives us a glimpse of Pakistani society’s
regression to a more as he calls it, “Islamic orthodoxy and radicalism.” Rizvi
states that with no stable government, the clergy transformed the perception of
the youths of the country to an extreme anti-American reality. This perception has
deeply penetrated society’s middle and lower classes creating a new paradigm of
strong religious ties versus growing anti-American sentiments. Since the
increase of drone strikes the anti-American sentiments have turned into all-out
hatred of America and its ideals. In our discussion we spoke about the outlets
we can use to stop radicalism however, with so many drone strikes authorized by
the target states or not, we are only creating more American hatred in these
countries. Instability in Pakistan continues to be a threat to America’s
strategic intention with the Middle East (Afghanistan) and in the pacific but
with our current efforts we continue further strain these relationships. We
suffered a great blow during September 11, and to prevent another such incident
we need to be extremely careful of the enemies we make. In an article in the Washington
post a survey by the human rights groups Human rights Watch highlighted that
drones kill more civilian that terrorists. For Pakistan alone it estimated that
2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan.
[2] This number alone is alarming and needs to change.
To
prevent the re-emergence of strong terrorist organization, there is need for a
stronger American influence in the Middle East and Pakistan however, what that
balance can be is still to be determined.
No comments:
Post a Comment