The opinion piece that I read for this week was “Do Drones Undermine Democracy” by Peter Singer. I thought this was an interesting case to read near the beginning of the class as it really gives an objective point of view regarding drones. It also spearheads the overall issue of what in considered war especially in today’s technological advanced war. But most importantly, Singer brings up an important point on interpretation of age-old laws and if Congress and ourselves have become to self-interested to enforce them.
Since the initial writing of the constitution, the United States has always had a specific set of rules to follow in regards to war. This has always been an important and critical political platform as war had real and local consequences. Politicians who were elected to decide on behalf of their constitutions knew that those sacrificing where sons and daughters and that was real money being spent. But in the 21st Century theater of war, the main anchor in deciding as become blurred to the point where it is practically obsolete.
Singer makes a hard line when explaining this idea. He says that “we now possess technology that removes the last political barrier to war.” The military and families can become disconnected by this, having little or no emotional attachment and therefore no risks to elected officials. But what troubles Singer the most is that with this and the new rising of a lawyer army, the Executive branch as turned war into a unilateral utility.
No longer are speeches made to the country in front of congress and what use to require a grand mobilization strategy now requires a few people in a room. The Executive branch has used this and the disappearance of repetitional risk to advance its own agenda. Congress is too busy with their own fights to come together and cry foul with operations the Executive branch is under their sole authority. But most importunely Congress, as Singer points out, is always almost full aware but likes it when they have the chance to be on both sides of the operation just in case anything does happen. Outside of this story, a recent example is the CIA interrogation program. It was debated for several years, mostly agreed upon but many in Congress have come out against it.
But going back to how drones really accelerated this issue. Personally I mostly did agree with Singers’ take on drones and how they a promoting a less liberal environment. Indeed they are a technological marvel and are efficient depending on how you look at them but there is always a downside to everything. As mentioned above, drones and modern warfare have become a utility that can be based on polarized opinions. There is no handbook, or better yet a universally agreed upon handbook that tells what is legal warfare and what is not.
This graying has come over on the domestic side, away from the daily precision strike attacks on sovereign nations where it was immediately challenged. The use of around the clock drones by police forces were challenged in courts as violation of privacy and unreasonable search on innocent people, a huge violation of due process. I think that it is important to bring this up as what is happening away from us doe not seem to garner as much attention.
When there is no micro level attachment, drones and their missions are just a footnote is page 15 of the Washington Post. But in actuality, these unilateral movements and violations of the power set in the constitution is the beginning of an unraveling of what is legal and what should not. Unlike many other states, the US has large checks and balances. These priceless tools have allowed for democracy to flourish and for those who should be to be held accountable. But with the creation of new methods of attacking, no matter how small direct human interaction is, drones are a great example of how overall technology is creating issues for words written 300 years ago.
Singer brings up many great points that I mostly agree with. Although I also do agree that drones are good for the country and the world as a whole. But I do not necessarily like the way in which they are being used as a political tool than that of national defense. This has turned small conflicts into large ones that are now used to fight opponents in TV spots. It has time and again violated the founding principles of democracy and can lead to a further weakening across the board.
Your take on the fact that there really is no "handbook" on what kind of warfare is legal or not is interesting. While there are frowned upon methods of warfare we saw out of WWI and WWII, there is still no ultimate "handbook." So when a new method like drone warfare is introduced, the question does come up as to whether or not this is violating the founding principles of democracy, as you mentioned. The accountability is significantly less as the drone operators are simply sitting in a room in an entirely separate location. However, as you mention it is efficient depending on the way that you look at it. It does keep our troops safe, but at the same time it could be more dangerous considering lives are at the whim of a soldiers press of a button.
ReplyDelete