Drone Warfare

by Medea Benjamin

  Air strikes have not only blown up perceived enemies and innocent people, but also peace talks. In November 2011, a US air strike meant to target the Taliban in Pakistan mistakenly killed Pakistani soldiers who were camped along the Afghan border, leaving two dozen dead. The strike came just before a long-planned major diplomatic gathering on Bonn, Germany, where over one hundred countries and international organizations were gathering to discuss how to end the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan was a key player in the discussions.

  But in the wake of the air strike and public outrage, the Pakistani government refused to attend the gathering, destroying the long-awaited attempt at peace negotiations. An anonymous State Department official complained to the Washington Post that this was one more example of the disconnect between the military’s short-term security objectives and the State Department’s long-term diplomatic goals.301 “In a lot of ways, diplomacy is this historical anachronism,” the official lamented.

  At the Aspen Security Forum marking ten years since 9/11, retired admiral and former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who was pushed out of the Obama Administration, questioned the drone attacks and the entire focus on terrorism from both a strategic and economic perspective. Blair estimated there were 4,000 Al Qaeda members around the globe. With most of the yearly intelligence budget of $80 billion devoted to catching them, that comes to $20 million per terrorist per year. “You think —wow, $20 million. Is that proportionate?” he asked.

  Blair said that in the decade since 9/11, less than twenty Americans had been killed on US soil by terrorists (fourteen of them in the Ft. Hood massacre when a Muslim soldier went beserk after the army refused to discharge him). He contrasted the terror body count with deaths from car accidents and street crime, which killed more than one million Americans in the same time frame. “What is it that justifies this amount of money on this narrow problem versus the other ways we have to protect American lives?” asked Blair. “I think that’s the question we have to think ourselves through here at the tenth year anniversary.”

  Retired Lieutenant Colonel Willam Astore wondered the same thing. Looking back at the “shoe bomber” and the “underwear bomber,” he asked, “Why did the criminally inept actions of those two losers garner so much attention in the media?” As the most powerful nation on earth, we should have “shared a collective belly laugh at the absurdity and incompetence of those ‘attacks’ and gone about our business.” Instead, he said, they were used as yet another excuse to feed the “web of crony corporations, lobbyists, politicians and retired military types who pass through Washington’s revolving door…engorged by untold trillions devoted to a national security and intelligence complex that dominates Washington.”302

  Indeed, since 9/11, the Pentagon and CIA have been lavished with funding, especially for their drone programs. Even during the post-recession budget crisis, the funding for drone research and acquisition increased. When Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta talked about 2013 budget cuts, including cuts in troop numbers, weapons systems, and military benefits, he made it clear that “unmanned systems” would be given priority.

  In contrast, the State Department has been reeling from budget cuts. One of the only areas of its budget that hasn’t been slashed is funding for its operations for Iraq, where the State Department—after the December 2011 pull-out of the US military—is now responsible for such “diplomatic activities” as overseeing thousands of armed guards, training the Iraqi police, and operating a fleet of drones.

  In Pakistan, the State Department is forced to collaborate on drone killings with the CIA. US Ambassador Cameron Munter was put in the most undiplomatic position of having to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on each of these strikes. “Can you imagine if the Pakistani ambassador to Washington DC Sherry Rehman was required to say yea or nay to killing people in Texas every other day?” asked Reprieve lawyer Clive Stafford Smith. “She would be assassinated if she wasn’t prosecuted for the death penalty in Texas itself. What they are doing is making the State Department’s job absolutely impossible.”

  In the past decade, the State Department has become a weaker and weaker institution, watching its anemic attempts at diplomacy go up in smoke. It’s only gotten worse since Predators and Reapers became key players in US foreign policy. With drones as the new workhorse, diplomacy—the forgotten art of talking to one another—has been unceremoniously taken out to pasture.

  “Forty years ago American universities used to teach the art of diplomacy, now they teach about national security and strategic studies—all militarized ways of thinking about international issues,” lamented former diplomat and retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright. “Consider the belligerent policies of the State Department during the tenures of the last secretaries of state: Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. They were not diplomats representing nonviolent resolutions to international challenges, but instead were extensions of the Defense Department carrying out the military policy of the United States for the president they served.”

  Yet, when we look at the forty-year history of groups once designated as terrorist, a RAND study shows that the primary factor for their demise was not military defeat but negotiations. Of 268 terrorist groups, 43 percent ended through participation in the political process, 40 percent through effective policing, and a mere 7 percent through military force.303

  In the US struggle against terrorism that has been so biased toward a military response, we not only have a dire need to create more diplomacy, we also have a dire need for more citizen involvement. In the United States, foreign policy has only on the rarest of occasions been subject to democratic input, and typically only when body bags containing American soldiers dominated the evening news. With drones, the president can choose to take the nation to war with no Americans putting their bodies on the line. In a more perfect world, this would not have an impact on decisions to use lethal force; the justness of a war, after all, does not hinge on whether one’s own side of a conflict might suffer casualties.

  On the globe we actually live in, though, nationalism and a bias toward the familiar tends to lead people to feel more for their compatriots than for the nameless, faceless “Other.”

  And with US wars today, the Other is not only nameless and faceless, but invisible. Have you ever seen a drone victim on the news? Have you seen pictures of body parts hanging from trees, houses turned to rubble, mothers wailing in grief? The mainstream media, after cheerleading for war and enthusiastically covering the initial shock-and-awe volley of missiles, quickly became bored with America’s imperial exploits. And with the rise of drone warfare that poses no risk to Americans, they aren’t about to spend time covering blown-up foreigners, especially when there’s something important like a celebrity breakup to report.

  Imagine if the tables were turned, though. Imagine if Cuba was operating drones in Southern Florida, surveilling Cuban-Americans and executing confessed terrorists like Luis Posada Carriles.

  Pretty soon one might not need to imagine. Other countries are sure to follow the precedent set by the United States government, the one that says it’s acceptable to bypass the formality of the law and simply assassinate another country’s citizens—or your own—so long as some anonymous official whispers the word “terrorist” in a journalist’s ear. Israel is already doing the same thing. China, Russia, Iran—indeed, the rest of the world—are watching.

  Instead of the rigorous public debate one would expect from a democratic society faced with these complex ethical questions regarding remote-controlled killing, the media is silent, most religious leaders are silent, elected officials are silent. And the anti-war movement, so vocal and vibrant during the Bush years, lost its voice when Barack Obama became president.

  That provided the space for President Obama to continue his predecessor’s wars and rain ever more Hellfire missiles overseas with less public debate than if he were a sports executive proposing to trade a first round draft pick. Sure, ther
e have been wars with much greater casualty counts. But no president has ever carried out so many secret, targeted killings.

  It’s quite astounding that the Obama Administration has killed thousands of suspected militants and civilians alike, including US citizens, in undeclared, illegal wars with nary a whisper of “impeachment” on Capitol Hill.

  Even if they were so inclined, it’s not clear lawmakers would be able to dig up much about the wars being remotely waged in their names. Between the CIA, private contactors and the Pentagon’s ultra-secretive Joint Special Operations Command, the Obama Administration has been able to wage undeclared wars in ways that shield it from public scrutiny. The convergence of military and intelligence resources has created blind spots in Congressional oversight, as the CIA briefs intelligence committees and JSOC reports to armed services committees. Since the briefs are secret, the committees can’t compare notes to gain a comprehensive understanding. And it’s only the relevant committees—and sometimes only the committee heads—that get briefed, leaving most officials in the dark.

  But don’t assume the lawmakers are clamoring to learn more. When there’s a Democrat in the White House, other Democrats in positions of authority—even the ostensibly anti-war ones—have shown no real inclination to investigate their own president’s wars of choice, particularly when there’s no real risk to the Americans piloting the drones. And Republicans, being the less subtle pro-war party in Washington, are generally in favor of bombing everywhere and would rather investigate community groups like ACORN than something as banal as an illegal, only winkingly-acknowledged war.

  There is one voice talking about drones in Congress, though. It’s the self-described “industry’s voice on Capitol Hill”—the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus. This group of fifty lawmakers, who as of 2012 represented about one in eight members of the House of Representatives and just under half of the defense appropriations subcommittee, helps make sure that even killer drones enjoy a voice in Washington.

  It seems that, like corporations, robots are people too.

  A membership map provided by the caucus shows that its bipartisan membership spans the range of acceptable opinion in the US capital, from Republican hawk to militarist Democrat. From California conservative Buck McKeon to New York liberal Maurice Hinchey, the members, spread all over the country, demonstrate the drone industry’s broad geographic and political support.

  The group’s mission statement says the members recognize “the urgent need to rapidly develop and deploy more Unmanned Systems in support of ongoing civil, military, and law enforcement operations.” These Congresspeople, many of whom are fiscal conservatives busy slashing social programs in the name of the taxpayer, also pledge to support “policies and budgets that promote a large, more robust national security unmanned system capability.”

  Contrary to some its more strident critics, the United States does indeed have a functioning representative democracy. It’s just that those being represented aren’t the same “we the people” that they teach in grade school.

  Peter Singer, author of Wired For War, says that we’re at the Wright Brothers Flier stage of unmanned aircraft and that debating drones is like debating the merits of computers in 1979: “They are here to stay, and the boom has barely begun.”304

  But we are constantly having vigorous debates about computers. In January 2012, for example, when Congress attempted to pass a law that would have shut down Internet sites accused of violating copyright laws, they were flooded with so many millions of calls and petitions that they had to table the legislation.

  Yet there is no such vigorous debate and activism around a technology like drones that has such a profound impact on our reputation, the ethical foundations of our society, the lives of innocent people, and ultimately, our security as a nation.

  With the US military now using thousands of drones and FAA opening domestic skies to drones, the conversation is long overdue.

  Not all uses of unmanned aircraft are bad. Drones were used after the earthquake in Japan to observe radiation levels at the Fukushima nuclear plant. They were used in Australia to inspect the state of wildlife after a massive flood. They have great potential to help firefighters by hovering over swaths of burning forests.

  Environmental, human rights and even protest groups are starting to use drones. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is launching small drones over the vast expanse of ocean to spot illegal whaling. Human rights groups are advocating that drones be used to spy on regimes cracking down on their people, as in the case of Syria.305 Protest groups in Poland have flown drones over the heads of police to monitor their conduct, a tactic that Occupy Wall Street in New York mimicked with $300 toy mini-drones sold in Brookstone.

  But what is fueling the drone boom is neither scientific missions nor creative activists, but state-sponsored assassinations and semi-covert wars. And unfortunately it is those latter pursuits—not a cure for cancer, say, or replacement for fossil fuels—to which some of the best scientific minds in the world today are dedicating their time.

  Drones now under development in research centers all over the country are designed to be more lethal, have greater autonomy, stay airborne for longer periods and have a more precise, broader vision of the battlefield. One technology under development is termed the “swarm.” Like a swarm of angry bees, a bevy of unmanned aerial, ground, and sea vehicles would autonomously converge on enemy troops, aircraft and ships. Then they’d jointly decide their plan of attack, engage the enemy—and beat the hell out of ‘em, of course—all without direct human intervention.

  Drone surveillance will become more all-encompassing. The US Air Force description of current drone projects says new “unmanned aircraft systems (Vulture) and airships (ISIS) can remain aloft for years…large airships containing football-field size radars give extreme resolution/ persistence.” One can imagine whole swaths of nations or whole nations subjected to a kind of “dronesphere” in which all public activity is monitored without respect for national borders or personal privacy in a way far beyond what has ever been technologically possible.

  Of course, these new systems are not just for use overseas. The surveillance capabilities of drones and their increasing use by domestic law enforcement agencies in the United States and elsewhere threaten to eviscerate what’s left of our privacy rights. The sensors on drones are designed to monitor miles of terrain. No matter how targeted an investigation, you always risk the prying eye of the state observing your affairs. Who needs to live in a glass house when the government, armed with drones and million-dollar heat sensors, can already see whatever it wants?

  Drones aren’t a unique evil—but that’s just the point. Drones don’t revolutionize surveillance; they are a progressive evolution in making spying, at home and abroad, more pervasive. Drones don’t revolutionize warfare; they are, rather, a progressive evolution in making murder clean and easy. That’s why the increased reliance on drones for killing and spying is not to be praised, but refuted. And challenged.

  The burden is now squarely on we the people to reassert our rights and push back against the normalization of drones as a military and law enforcement tool. The use of drones needs to be limited, transparent and, at the least, acknowledged; it’s no less a war if the plane firing the missile is remotely operated. Our ability to curb the use of UAVs—rescuing hurricane victims, yes, carrying out extrajudicial killings, no—will not only determine the future of warfare and individual privacy, but shape how we live together as a global human community.

  Acknowledgments

  First, let me thank Charles Davis for his wonderful writing and research help; Allison McCracken for being such a terrific assistant; Rafia Zakaria for her work on the victims in Pakistan; Nadira Sheralam for her careful editing; Kindra Wyatt for her painstaking documentation; and Nancy Mancias for her research and action guide.

  I also want to give a shout out to my CODEPINK sisters on the national team, who make this work so rewarding: cod
irectors Jodie Evans and Rae Abileah, Joan Stallard, Sasha Gelzin, Farida Sheralam, Janet Weil, Nancy Kricorian, Melanie Butler, Kristin Ess Schurr, Gayle Brandeis, and Lisa Savage, and my Global Exchange colleagues, especially Kirsten Moller.

  My opposition to drone warfare has deepened by witnessing the commitment of the unsung activists around the country who have been protesting at Air Forces bases and dronemaker offices for years. These include Kathy Kelly, Nick Mottern, Brian Terrell, Jim Haber, Ann Wright, Ray McGovern, Ed Kinane, Mary Anne Grady, Judy Bello, Vicki Ross, Debra Sweet, Father Louis Vitale, Father Jerry Zawada, the Catholic Workers, the Creech 14 and Hancock 38, World Can’t Wait, and the War Resisters.

  I am inspired by my CODEPINK sisters who speak out so passionately on behalf of drone victims they have never met. Many thanks to Toby Blome for her pioneering work, as well as Nancy Mancias, Martha Hubert, Leslie Angeline, Eleanor Levine, Liz Hourican, Cynthia Papermaster, Marie Bravo, Zanne Joi, Chris Nelson, Caroline Kittrell, Shirley and Pamela Osgood, Zohreh Whitaker, Beverly McGain, Susan Witka, Renay Davis, and Dianne Budd. I extend special gratitude to Candace Ross, the Goddess Temple priestess, for her extraordinary hosting of protesters at the Guest House near Creech Air Force Base. I also want to recognize Jean Aguerre for her steadfast and effective Not 1 More Acre Campaign.

  I received valuable input from many colleagues, including Pratap Chaterjee, Clive Stafford Smith, Jody Williams, Peter Ansaro, Noel Sharkey, Mark Gubrud, Fran Quigley, Tom Barry and Polly Miller, as well as interns Rosie Platzer and Viannka Lopez. Special thanks to Tara Murray at Reprieve and Mizra Shahzad Akbar for his work with drone victims in Pakistan, Chris Cole of Drone Wars UK and the great UK activists whom I look forward to working with.