Joey Ippolito Post #3
Singer's article in the New York Times made several interesting points regarding the effects of drone warfare on the democratic process of War-making in the United States. In particular were the concerns that removing the risk to American personnel has removed congress from any influence in decisions that matter regarding violent international conflicts. In a way, this makes sense; congress is the embodiment of the American public, and since drone strikes don't result in American deaths, it's understandable that Congress wouldn't have much of an input in drone missions. Given this reality, the more important question is whether or not foreign military operations should ever be the responsibility of Congress when no American lives are threatened; in today's world, I don't believe they should.
Singer in their article argues that drone strikes are part of a trend, including tomahawk missile attacks, of fighting battles without Congressional input. If you view these operations as traditional wartime operations, Congressional input is key, serving as the voice of the people, the most important feature of a democracy. However, this view of any foreign operation as strictly a wartime operation is outdated. Today's technology allows for the executive branch to enact foreign military policy is ways never before possible. Drone strikes should be considered just another way for the executive branch to fulfill its mission of protecting the country, similar to covert international missions that have been carried out in countries the U.S. is at peace with.
Instead of questioning what drone strikes mean for the democratic process in the U.S., analysts such as Singer should focus their criticism on the processes by which targets are identified and killed by the President, CIA, and the rest of the decision makers at the top of the executive branch. Although this process has been analyzed by outsiders, how targets are identified and how the decision to strike is made still isn't clear to the public. The executive branch should maintain the control it currently has over the drone program, but the mechanisms by which they decide on targets should be more open.
To your overall point of the executive branch have the authority to carry out contained strikes I would completely agree on. The parallel between CIA missions and drone strikes is a strong and more than fair one. Although I do think there may be some issue within this. If I'm not mistaken, although the President is Commander-in-Chief, these strikes could be considered foreign policy and issues of money which could mean intervention by Congress. Who could say that a contained strike could not possibly start a war? Also near the end you talk about how it should become more open which if I'm translating correctly could mean what the congress has currently regarding war and its missions.
ReplyDeleteBut overall, I think you made some critical important points. I like how you recommend that analysts go after the method in which they are initiated. Drones have complicated what is war and what isn't. This could lead to a further unraveling of other policies if authors such as Singer don't call out how drones have become an unilateral action.
Your point about the executive branch making it more clear about how exactly they identify their targets is interesting. As you mention the article implies that the strikes are a part of a trend, but ultimately that's not clear enough of a tactic. Of course it is important for their method of target gathering to remain somewhat classified for security, but it would be interesting to learn how they identify their targets. Your idea of whether or not Congress should be involved is also very interesting. While Congress is the voice of the people as you mention, this is a very new way for the executive branch to really carry out their foreign military policy.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting that you chose to focus more so on the processes that lead up to the targeting and killing of subjects. However, if you are going to analyze how they are found, you are also going to have to analyze how they are killed. It seems that drone attacks straddle the thin line of what should constitute and shouldn't have input from congress. As you stated, congress has for the most part stayed out of drone attacks because Americans are not dying, but every action has a reaction. How can they or anyone be so sure that one drone attack won't cause a war?
ReplyDelete