Drone warfare: top 3 reasons it could be dangerous for US

Is the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone warfare campaign – secretly ordered targeted killings in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia – making America safer? Here are the top three dangers of drone warfare to America, according to new studies.

3. Lack of oversight

Evan Vucci/AP/File
Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California (2nd l.) meets with Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar (l.) on Capitol Hill on Sept. 19.

It is traditionally the US military that wages war on behalf of the country. Troops have taken an oath to the US Constitution, and in return receive the authority to kill on behalf of the US government. They are also in uniform, and identifiable as combatants.

But what happens when the CIA is waging the wars instead, through drones whose operators may or may not be US military personnel? wonders Holewinski. “When you then have a civilian agency getting involved in targeting and actually pulling the trigger, that becomes very difficult to square with international law.”

What’s more, the CIA works in close cooperation with Joint Special Operations Command, which runs “black” special ops like Delta Force and Seal Team 6, “so the military is subsumed under this civilian spy agency,” which, she adds, is not asking the same questions the US military asks in the wake of drone strikes in Afghanistan, for example.

“After a strike, they look at how much civilian harm they have caused, and how to respond to it. They talk to village elders, they may pay compensation.” But when drone strikes are secret and without US military on the ground to investigate claims, “none of this happens,” Holewinski adds.

The few members of Congress who provide oversight and are briefed on such operations, including the speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate majority leader, and the chairs of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – known as the “Gang of Eight” – are not delving into the consequences of drone strikes on civilians, argues Holewinski.

Rather, “they seem to be focused on which targets we’re going after.” This means they get a briefing along the lines of, “ ‘OK, we’re going to go after this guy. Here’s his bio, here’s why we think we we should go after him,’ ” she adds.

While all of the information about potential drone strikes doesn’t necessarily need to be public, Congress's Gang of Eight should be weighing “killing in the short-term people that we don’t want to exist anymore, versus the long-term impact of anger on the ground,” Holewinski says. “I want Congress to know, as the oversight body that speaks for me, and I want them to delve into the process. What are these drones doing to people on the ground, and are they creating more goodwill, or less?"

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.