You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

MITCHELL: Obama making up drone rules as he goes

Americans need transparency of conventional warfare

The Obama administration has not yet answered concerns regarding the secrecy, legality and efficacy of the drone warfare program. During the presidential elections, to avoid leaving business unfinished, a last-minute effort surfaced in the White House to create a secret rule book for targeted killing. Although Barack Obama retook the White House, the rule book is still being written, and the American people must work quickly to bring drone warfare out of the darkness and into public view. There are many reasons for this.

The first concern is secrecy. Drone strikes and targeted kill lists are highly classified by the U.S. military and Central Intelligence Agency. This makes it difficult to discern the true effects of their use in warfare. Keeping all the details in the shadows also creates confusion among media outlets and human rights organizations, which are attempting to calculate precise casualty statistics. Current figures from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism range anywhere from 472 to 885 civilians killed in Pakistan, to 60 to 163 in Yemen since 2002. This high level of secrecy results in inaccuracy, to say nothing of the psychological damage done to innocent bystanders and the physical destruction of infrastructure created by the air strikes. The denial that follows from the CIA only further frustrates foreign onlookers and civilians on the ground.

The second concern is legality. While there hasn't been much chatter on the home front, the U.S. has yet to convince other nations that drone warfare and targeted killing are legal under international law. Just last month the United Nations made public that it will be setting up an investigative unit within the year to research specific drone attacks.

Under the rules of International Humanitarian Law, targeted killing is only lawful when met by three requirements: 1) The target is directly participating in the hostilities; 2) the use of force is proportionate; and 3) precautions are taken to minimize harm to civilians. Ambiguous terminology raises questions: How are we sure they are direct participants? What is proportionate use of force? What is acceptable harm to civilians? It may not take lawyers and policymakers long to develop calculated justifications to rationalize and defend U.S. military operations, but there must be accountability somewhere along the way, and long before the order to "fire."

The third concern is efficacy. Even if all legal avenues have been addressed, the question remains: Does drone warfare create a safer environment and keep Americans out of harm's way? If the goal was, as George W. Bush vowed, "to rid the world of evil-doers," it is not clear we came even marginally close to success. In conventional warfare, nations would fight one another and the war would end when a leader either surrendered or claimed defeat. It is baffling that U.S. war policy is still derived in this fashion. The United States military, coupled with the support of the CIA counterterrorism forces, has eliminated countless militant leaders, but the war wages on. One kingpin after another has been toppled, but the replacements are relentless and, in some cases, more terrifying than their predecessors. Clearly, the game has changed, yet we are still trying to wage war using archaic tactics masked by expensive, remote-controlled weapons.

Even more disconcerting is these targeted attacks are being executed in our name, by the United States of America, without the consent of the American people. American principles and values are at stake. Military policy has always been public knowledge. Yet, the CIA, which is supposed to be an intelligence gathering agency, is waging secret wars. Moreover, Mr. Obama has classified more documents in his tenure than any other president in American history.

Before the Obama administration expends more effort and tax dollars justifying drone warfare, Congress and the American people need to start soliciting the White House for appropriate disclosure of all previous drone strikes. Exposing the attacks will create an open dialogue and bring these covert operations out of the shadows and into the limelight. When it comes to rule books and kill lists, oversight is not optional, it's demanded.

Allyson Mitchell is a graduate student at George Mason's School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts