Contesting the new military strategy in Afghanistan
(Here's a short essay i wrote for a law school application I thought some people might find interesting!)
The increased use of drones for counterterrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen, by the American military and intelligence service has stirred a great debate. Proponents argue that drones protect American soldiers, minimize civilian casualties through advanced surveillance and precision capabilities, and are the most effective weapon against AlQaeda. Due to these supposed merits, drones are now increasingly used in a controversial new strategy: targeted killings of high-level insurgents. In the emerging debate around drones, it is this strategy, and not the weapon itself, that must be scrutinized.
Targeted killings are strategically and legally problematic. The presumption that targeted killings contain damage to civilians is contestable: civilians continue to die in these attacks and many experts correlate increased targeted killings with accelerated violence and instability in the region. Far from winning "hearts and minds," targeted killings are increasing local antipathy, decreasing US legitimacy, and boosting local support for the insurgency. Targeted strikes, whether conducted by drones or other weaponry, are also illegal. Although attacks have been justified as they target AlQaeda and the Taliban, targeted killings violate central tenets of international law emphasizing civilian immunity, distinction, the right to a fair trial, and state sovereignty.
The United States has the right to protect itself and its citizens. However, a strategy that mistakes innocent civilians as targets and disregards the laws of war is not in the United States’ best interests. To end local support for the insurgency, the US must follow international law and prioritize civilian protection and development.
The increased use of drones for counterterrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen, by the American military and intelligence service has stirred a great debate. Proponents argue that drones protect American soldiers, minimize civilian casualties through advanced surveillance and precision capabilities, and are the most effective weapon against AlQaeda. Due to these supposed merits, drones are now increasingly used in a controversial new strategy: targeted killings of high-level insurgents. In the emerging debate around drones, it is this strategy, and not the weapon itself, that must be scrutinized.
Targeted killings are strategically and legally problematic. The presumption that targeted killings contain damage to civilians is contestable: civilians continue to die in these attacks and many experts correlate increased targeted killings with accelerated violence and instability in the region. Far from winning "hearts and minds," targeted killings are increasing local antipathy, decreasing US legitimacy, and boosting local support for the insurgency. Targeted strikes, whether conducted by drones or other weaponry, are also illegal. Although attacks have been justified as they target AlQaeda and the Taliban, targeted killings violate central tenets of international law emphasizing civilian immunity, distinction, the right to a fair trial, and state sovereignty.
The United States has the right to protect itself and its citizens. However, a strategy that mistakes innocent civilians as targets and disregards the laws of war is not in the United States’ best interests. To end local support for the insurgency, the US must follow international law and prioritize civilian protection and development.
Always to the point and easy to understand. Keep posting.
ReplyDeleteMaman