Study Notes on Obama’s Drone War
Introduction to Obama’s Drone War
The Obama administration has recently disclosed information regarding drone strikes against suspected terrorists in regions outside active hostilities such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
This disclosure includes casualty figures and a framework for targeting decisions, representing a significant shift in transparency for a program critical to Obama’s legacy and that of his successor.
Legal and Moral Justifications
The Obama administration has emphasized the legality of its drone program.
Legal arguments have been made that the program operates within legal constraints in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
The central moral question: Is Obama’s drone war moral?
Two components to consider:
Can targeted killings outside of conflict zones justify?
Does the structure instituted by Obama uphold moral standards?
Philosophical Perspectives on Moral Justification
Philosophers of war suggest that targeted killings can be justified, albeit with specifications:
Standards for moral killing permit a higher number of civilian casualties than expected.
The need for the killing to support national security is emphasized.
Obama’s Stance on National Security
Obama articulated that strikes should only occur in the presence of a continuing, imminent threat, and with high certainty of no civilian casualties.
Expressed in a speech at West Point, 2014.
Administration's self-evaluation:
Estimates suggest a maximum of 116 civilians killed versus 2,581 combatants in drone strikes.
Independent estimates claim civilian casualties could be significantly higher.
Questioning the true significance and interpretation of these numbers in the context of moral assessment.
Requirements for Civilian Protection in Targeted Killings
Requirements laid out by moral philosophers for defensive violence include:
Defensive killing must be necessary.
Only those posing serious threats should be targeted.
Killing must be the only means to eliminate threats.
Clear distinction between combatants and innocent bystanders is crucial.
Harm to civilians must be proportionate to the threat.
Hypothetical Scenario
Example: A government intervenes during a terrorist attack:
If a terrorist cell detonates bombs and another plans to attack with firearms, targeting the terrorists via drone may be justified if it follows the moral structure provided.
Consideration must be given to potential innocence of hostages versus potential civilian casualties.
Challenges in Practical Application of Theory
Real-world application presents significant challenges:
Law enforcement generally encounters terrorists only after attacks have occurred.
Requirement for preemptive action complicates moral evaluations in practical scenarios.
Obama’s concept of “continuing, imminent threat” expands the traditional definition of imminence, suggesting that taking action before an attack is justifiable.
Ethical Implications of Targeted Killing
The moral difficulty of preventive violence arises from uncertainty.
A hypothetical scenario: Someone dining innocently may be unjustly targeted without clear evidence of impending harm.
Justifying such actions involves grappling with ethical dilemmas around mistaken identity and wrongful deaths.
Example of Permissible Civilian Casualties
Military ethicists propose that civilian deaths can be accepted if proportionate to lives saved:
Example: Targeting a terrorist known to plan mass harm even if it might result in civilian deaths.
Reference point: Justice in response to immediate threats must balance between civilian safety and the harm posed by active terrorists.
Reality of Civilian Casualty Data
Data release from the Obama administration offers insight but shows failures in ideal moral justification:
Reported figures: 473 strikes resulting in 64-116 civilian deaths, 2,372-2,581 combatants killed.
Moral evaluation is severely limited due to lack of detailed strike documentation.
Transparency and Moral Accountability
The government's aggregated reports prevent the public from evaluating moral implications effectively.
The claim made by CIA Director John Brennan regarding careful target review includes:
Patterns of secrecy around the targeting process diminish moral accountability.
Sari Kisilevsky's commentary: Justice must prioritize upholding legal rights, not merely focus on national security.
Concerns about Secrecy and Ethical Governance
Ethical considerations arise when the government conducts targeted killings without public knowledge:
Critical observation of national security as a reason for withholding information.
Risks associated with extreme secrecy in targeted killing policies include wrongful identifications and violations of rights.
The Complexity of Non-Traditional Warfare
McMahan's perspective challenges the view of terrorism as solely military engagement:
Characterization of suspected terrorists as targeted murderers complicates their treatment under military norms.
Comparison to the police response in Dallas indicates the potential for legal public accountability.
Conclusion
The Obama administration's move towards transparency on drone strikes represents an attempt to navigate the moral complexities of modern warfare.
However, the conflict between maintaining national security and upholding legal and moral obligations continues to challenge the legitimacy and ethical standing of the drone program.
The nature of these targeted killings requires a reevaluation of how governments justify such actions publicly and the standards by which they operate.
The ongoing discourse highlights the importance of public trust and accountability in governance when addressing complex security threats, alongside respecting individual rights and promoting justice.