The Shift in the Drone Debate

John Glaser, April 02, 2013

When a forum as hawkish at The Washington Post‘s editorial page starts running pieces arguing the drone war is creating more enemies than it is eliminating, you know the dialogue is beginning to shift.

In an Op-Ed yesterday, Danya Greenfield, “deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East,” and David J. Kramer, “president of Freedom House,” insisted the high numbers of civilian casualties in the Obama administration’s drone war in Yemen is having the unintended consequence of expanding the support base of extremist militants, while also criticizing “the lack of transparency and accountability behind the drone policy.”

They write: “Thirty-one foreign policy experts and former diplomats — including us — sent a letter to President Obama last week that said the administration’s expansive use of unmanned drones in Yemen is proving counterproductive to U.S. security objectives: As faulty intelligence leads to collateral damage, extremist groups ultimately win more support.”

Despite considerable U.S. humanitarian aid and development support to their government, most Yemenis associate U.S. engagement with the ongoing drone campaign to destroy al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and they see it as having little regard for its effect on civilians. A number of former U.S. military and intelligence officials argue that the drone program’s costs might exceed its benefits. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal has articulated the hazards of overreliance on drones, and Gen. James E. Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned last month against unintended consequences, arguing that no matter how precise drone strikes may be, they breed animosity among targeted communities and threaten U.S. efforts to curb extremism.

Of course, the Op-Ed was not nearly strong enough. The still-expanding drone war in Yemen, which often kills civilians, does in fact cause blowback and help al-Qaeda recruitment – as attested to by numerous Yemen expertsinvestigative reporting on the ground, polling, testimony from Yemen activists, and the actual fact that recent bungled terrorist attacks aimed at the US have cited such drone attacks as motivating factors.

After a September drone strike that killed 13 civilians, a local Yemeni activist told CNN, “I would not be surprised if a hundred tribesmen joined the lines of al Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake. This part of Yemen takes revenge very seriously.”

And of course there is more to the drone war outrage than the fact that it’s strategically counterproductive. Even if it killed less civilians and avoided considerable blowback, it would still be unacceptable for the President to draw up secret kill lists of mere suspects and conduct a secret, unaccountable war that dispenses with traditional legal boundaries of war and habeas corpus.

But the gradual push-back the Obama administration has been receiving from elite policy wonks (“foreign policy experts and former diplomats,” as well as a military general here and a CIA officer there) does represent a change from what the norm as has been for the entirety of Obama’s first term – namely, that almost exclusively alternative media and antiwar activists spoke out against the inhumane and counterproductive drone war.

This pressure hasn’t generated a change in policy yet: President Obama is still conducting the drone war at full speed and with all the ruthlessness and disregard of his first term. Last month, however, it was reported that a decision has been made to shift responsibility for the drone war from the CIA to the Defense Department. What appreciable change this will bring is not yet known, although there is reason to expect none.

Still, there are other pressures mounting. A federal appeals court ruled last month that the CIA cannot continue to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of the drone war, in a court case prompted by a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union. For years, the modus operandi has been for the drone war to be the world’s worst kept secret so Obama gets the credit for being “tough on terror,” while reserving the right to disregard probing questions or inquiries.

In addition, a high level United Nations investigator last month said the drone war in Pakistan technically violates the law because it is conducted without the express consent of Islamabad, therefore a breach of Pakistani sovereignty. The UN envoy, Ben Emmerson, is leading an investigation into the drone war’s compliance with international law and international human rights law.

Add to this Rand Paul’s attention-grabbing (although far from perfect) anti-drone filibuster last month and you have a remarkable shift in the debate on drones compared to a mere six months ago.




10 Responses to “The Shift in the Drone Debate”

  1. Let 'em know http://teespring.com/DroneShirt

  2. David J. Kramer, “president of Freedom House,” insisted the high numbers of civilian casualties in the Obama administration’s drone war in Yemen is having the unintended consequence of expanding the support base of extremist militants
    _______________________________________
    And yet it seems that this is exactly what US foreign policy sets out to do. Through US client state Saudi Arabia- Sunni militants in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Yemen are supported in order to destabilize those regimes not amenable to having their strings pulled by the US government. The planned disorder also gives the US another excuse to further intervene in the region. The goal is a servile Middle East that is politically divided and poses no threat to Israel . Drones and the support of proxies like the Muslim Brotherhood are bringing these goals to fruition. It appears the so called debate is on the periphery and has no effect on the decision makers in the foreign policy community. Actions speak louder than words.

  3. why is conducting a coward’s war somehow legitimate?

  4. [...] The Shift in the Drone Debate [...]

  5. The drone can reduce the loss in the patrol mission, but it may increase the tension and potential war.

  6. It would appear to me that a destabilized planet is the goal of the U.S., which has, historically, always benefited from instability and warfare.

    I'd like to think this time it's not paying off as they planned it to; but too many people are profiting greatly from the "war on terror."

  7. [...] The Shift in the Drone Debate [...]

  8. The drone can reduce the loss in the patrol mission, but it may increase the tension and potential war.

  9. When we readily capitulate to and normalize that the 'Leader of the Free World' is our Judge, Jury, and Executioner, then you know that dictatorship is taking hold. The death-knell of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" rings somberly and unmistakably when being a suspect is enough warrant for your extra-judicial execution or targeted killing. Citizens, be wary of demo-Crazies usurping our Democracies: Have the drones started flying over our heads yet- in our communities, towns and cities?

  10. [...] The Shift in the Drone Debate (antiwar.com) [...]