Jim Caton (an economics student at San Jose State University) takes issue with my recent response to Brian Doherty on drones. He thinks I neglect two points (let me know, Jim, if you think I'm being unfair in my summary):
1. Reducing the cost of war to soldiers makes Americans non-chalant about war which makes us more likely to go to war.
2. Drones separates soldiers from their killing, making them non-chalant about their work.
I don't understand these objections at all. This sounds like Charlie Rangel's call to bring back the draft so that Congress will be less likely to go to war. So our soldiers have to put themselves in more danger just so we at home will feel bad for that danger that they're put in and be less likely to send them. Do I have that right?
I don't know, I think it's a terrible flop.
The same with the second point. I could see how some drone operators could treat what they're doing like a video game, and not consider the gravity of it. But again, what is the argument here - that to prevent that from happening we have to make life even worse for soldiers: make them less safe (and the countries they are operating in less safe) by being there, on the ground, with far less precision or time to make life and death decisions.
These points seem unserious to me.
Should we children and make them fight with bayonets? I usually don't like abusing reductio ad absurdums, but I'm really not sure what else to make of this "we have to make soldiers lives hell and pose more of a threat to innocents abroad so WE make the right decision" argument.
The other weird thing about the post is that he acts as if I'm ignorant of blowback. Of course blowback is a problem. That's why we never should have gone into Iraq, for one thing. But there are reasons for taking out al Qaeda (which is not especially popular in most of the Middle East), and if we're going to do that and if you're worried about blowback (as I am), it seems to me you want to do it in a way that minimized innocent casualties! I don't understand why Caton is under the impression that he's the one mindful of the blowback. That's a critical reason why I think drone strikes make sense. Of course they're not immune from blowback - I've claimed no such thing. But I don't see any reason to think they inspire less of it than boots on the ground invading and occupying a country and causing significantly higher civilian casualities.
Questions of drone attacks on funerals and of rescue workers have come up too.
I really don't feel comfortable speaking to this because these claims are highly contested. It's a moot point anyway. I've argued that drones are important to use. There's nothing in the drone's programing or design that requires we use them in dumb ways. So you support the administration's use of drones and oppose its targeting of funerals, etc.
But let's keep in mind how tough to verify those accusations are - something that all the reports have taken care to point out.
I think our reaction to it ought to be contextual too. What are "rescuers/first responders"? Is this a group of al Qaeda affiliates that has another group of militants rush over after the strike? If so, that's obviously not the same as targeting civilian EMTs. And what is the funeral? Is this four or five other al Qaeda members burying a compatriot in the middle of nowhere? Again, that's very different from a funeral with family and civilians around.
I don't know any of this, and I don't think it's clear that anyone does. My view is that these sorts of circumstances should be avoided entirely, and none of that detracts from the argument for drones.
Drones are safer for soldiers, they are safer for civilians, they are more dangerous for the enemy. I don't need a soldier to suffer for me to think carefully about the policy decisions we make. Congress shouldn't need that either. And supporting the use of drones is of course not the same as supporting every use of drones (just like supporting gun rights is not the same as supporting every private use of guns or supporting the existence of a military is not the same as supporting every use of that military).
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Isn't the point that drones shift (to a degree) the burden of war (deaths) on the civilian population living in the areas we are at war? Which shifts the negative feedback onto a group who may not have the means to act to end the conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree, that drones do reduce the overall death toll, I also worry about unintended consequences. Regarding the possibility of callousness on the part of soldiers, did you see the video on WikLeaks showing the killing of the Reuter's reports, and listen to the soldier chatter?
Those with their hands on the trigger sounded like teenagers in an arcade. I'm not sure there is anything really wrong about that, but it was disturbing to listen to.
Do you mean to write "off" the civilian population? The civilian death rates - not from administration sources, but from the sources that Greenwald and the NYU/Stanford study cite - seem to suggest that civilian casualties are lower, not higher with drones. This is one of the principle appeals.
DeleteThe Reuters deaths were from a helicopter, not from a drone. A drone can wait for hours to confirm the target. Again, this is part of the appeal. If you're in a helicopter and you're not sure if someone has a gun or not or is about to shoot you may act irrationally or on incomplete information. As the incident illustrates, there's going to be callousness among soldiers no matter what. It seems to me that drones can help prevent some of the bad consequences of that inevitability.
I should have been more specific, I agree that drones reduce the overall *civilian* death toll. I expect the use of drones will grow, and that they will reduce the death toll of soldier even more so, as compared to civilians. Eventually, there will be a tipping point where the death toll from drones can exceed the reduction in deaths by using them. I hope we eventually have some policy in place to avoid tipping the other way, but is is something we should anticipate and keep an eye on.
DeleteIn any event, I don't mean to imply any change to current policy is needed.
A drone Laffer curve, in effect!
DeleteThat would be a full-scale drone war, I suppose. I would hope such a thing is not in the cards. Remote, mechanized war like this - I would hope - would avoid the need to amass huge forces with guns opposing each other in a populated area. I in other words, I wonder if there even is a Laffer curve peak.
Certainly I'd agree with you that we need to consider these prospects and think out how to avoid them. Transparent decision making around war is a good place to start, IMO.
I have addressed some of your concerns.
Deletehttp://moneymarketsandmisperceptions.blogspot.com/2012/12/re-daniel-kuehns-defense-and-counter.html
Do you think that the institutional incentives exist to promote transparency? War by its nature must be secretive.
I think the focus on Killer Robots shifts the focus away from areas drone critics may have valid points, but from a certain journalistic perspective its pretty easy to see why this particular aspect is (how a Tomahawk missile is any less "video-game" like than a predator drone nobody seems to ask) emphasized. Here is a solid post, largely complimentary to your point, that everyone should be forced to read before they discuss this issue.
ReplyDelete"blowback is a problem. That's why we never should have gone into Iraq"
ReplyDeleteThe US should not have gone into Iraq because there were better, cheaper, less dramatic ways to achieve all of the legitimate objectives in Iraq.
The farcical thing about the war on terror in general and on al Quaeda in particular is that it appears that the US has never seriously gone after the funding sources. A few drone strikes on some Saudi princes and other financial backers (the Pakistan ISI?) and the whole thing could be done with at a much lower cost in lives.
There is a substantial difference between putting those who signed up for it in harm's way and forcibly putting in harm's way people who just want to be left alone. Your reductio ad absurdum ignores that distinction.
ReplyDeleteDrones allow us to shift the cost of war on the enemy. Part of that is shifting the cost in lives from American lives to enemy lives. Part of it is the political cost to Congress and the President to enemy lives. If you believe that the President and Congress are generally wise in who they choose to kill, then there is no problem. Shifting the cost of war onto the bad people trying to kill us is fine. But if you believe, as many libertarians do, that the President and Congress are generally unwise in who they choose to kill, they we are shifting the political cost of war onto innocent lives. And I'm not just talking about civilian casualties, but also guys who get drafted by their countries to defend against Congress' and the President's decision to shoot at them.
I find it hard to justify that the cost of Congress' or the President's adventurism should be born by some random guy abroad rather than the guy who signed up to do Congress' and the President's bidding.
I just can't wrap my head around this attitude.
DeleteIf we think Congress doesn't pick the right people to kill the right answer is to make it harder for them to go to war (an institutional solution), and to vote out the ones who vote to go to war (an electoral solution). The worst solution imaginable to me is to make it easier to kill Americans. Why? In the hopes that that would somehow teach politicians a lesson or hope to reduce votes by people who don't like the high death tols? That's insane.
"If we think Congress doesn't pick the right people to kill the right answer is to make it harder for them to go to war (an institutional solution), and to vote out the ones who vote to go to war (an electoral solution)."
DeleteI just don't see a concrete way from here to there. And I'm not even sure there is a concrete "there" we can go to. And while we try to implement a "right" answer, many people will die. People who don't deserve to die and never asked to be in harm's way.
"The worst solution imaginable to me is to make it easier to kill Americans. Why? In the hopes that that would somehow teach politicians a lesson or hope to reduce votes by people who don't like the high death tols? That's insane."
It's not insane if it works and we end up with fewer dead innocent people. First, the idea isn't to make it easier to kill Americans. The idea is to make it harder for Americans to kill other people without putting themselves in harm's way. If Congress is responsive to the threat of American casualties, Congress will send fewer Americans to kill people. Also, we aren't talking about Americans who just want to be at home playing with their kids. We are talking about Americans who signed up for doing Congress' bidding and take on substantial personal risk. Putting a volunteer soldier in harm's way to save many innocent lives doesn't seem particularly morally problematic to me. That's kind of what they signed up for.
re: "And while we try to implement a "right" answer, many people will die. People who don't deserve to die and never asked to be in harm's way."
DeleteI suppose I'm not seeing how not using drones is the answer to this problem. You would have more Americans die (perhaps they signed up, but still...), you would have more civilians die, and you may even have less non-civilians die (and we are not clear on whether Congress has chosen the right non-civilians to kill). How is this moving closer to the solution?
re: "It's not insane if it works and we end up with fewer dead innocent people."
I can't imagine how "fewer dead innocent people" does not involve drones. The only thing that leaves a smaller footprint than that is not going to war in the first place.
re: "Also, we aren't talking about Americans who just want to be at home playing with their kids."
You might want to rethink this sentence.
"The only thing that leaves a smaller footprint than that is not going to war in the first place."
DeleteExactly. Congress and the President are casualty-shy. I think drones will increase the number of wars and the number of dead innocent people. Of course that's a hard proposition to test.
"You might want to rethink this sentence."
Yes, I'm sure soldiers would rather be at home playing with their kids similarly to how that is what I want to do when I am at work. (No kids, but you get the idea) I am also sure that they would rather not get shot and I don't advocate throwing their lives away for no reason. But they have made a decision that they are willing to take substantial risks doing Congress' bidding. That makes a huge difference. If anybody's life should be in danger in Congress' war, it should be the life of the guy who agreed to it.
Also, even if drone strikes are cheaper in civilian lives than conventional warfare, that ignores the possibility that the US will prosecute more wars as a result of drones resulting in a higher total civilian death count. It all depends upon the elasticities.
ReplyDeleteI feel safe assuming we'd never reach that point. Think about the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq. You would need thousands of drone theaters of war to get to the point you describe. Our operations in the whole Middle East don't even come close to the civilian casualties in one conventional war in Iraq. As a matter of theory, you're right, but I can't bring myself to worry about this as a real problem.
DeleteI don't think the alternative to drones is full-scale invasion. I think the alternative is much closer to sending in special operations units or targeted strikes with planes and helicopters.
DeleteI would think those complement drones. I think we have very different views of what type of warfare we're thinking of. I think of drones as a part of a larger "surgical operations" approach (SEAL Team 6 and the bin Laden operation is a good example).
DeleteWe may be more on the same page than I thought, but if you are saying we need small footprint approaches, I don't understand why you're so concerned about drones.
Because having live human beings personally showing up means the President has to consider the possibility of one of them getting shot and loosing votes as a result. (I'm sure he cares about the people too but he can be relied upon to care about voters) If we want the President to give the order to shoot less often, (which I do) forcing him to put Americans in harm's way can help. I think drones allow the President and Congress to further externalize the costs of military operations with predictable effects.
DeleteI'm assuming surgical strike vs full scale war is largely independent from the drone vs no-drone decision.
Why is that a viable assumption? If drones are accurate enough to make surgical strikes relatively easy, which is damn hard with troops?
DeleteHow often does the US have objectives that can be achieved by drone strikes and have a high enough value to justify a full scale invasion?
DeleteYes, drones do make it easier to strike at certain targets. But my understanding is that in that respect, they are only an incremental improvement over special forces raids, helicopter strikes and other related military options.