A Change in Policy

On Saturday, October 5th, US forces were ordered into action in coordinated capture operations in Libya and Somalia. The US commandos targets in Libya and Somalia were members of Al Qaeda linked to the 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in which over 200 people died. Normally, terrorists of this caliber would qualify for a quick and lethal salvo of Hellfire missiles courtesy of the United States' fleet of heavily armed UAVs. Instead, teams of highly trained soldiers were dispatched with orders to capture the targets; significantly, these were not orders to capture or kill..These operations could mark the beginning of a shift in US policy with regard to 'the war on terror'
.
Since their widespread introduction into the US arsenal in the mid-2000's, armed UAVs have proven themselves efficient offense weapons, and they don't require risks to US personnel. For these reasons, their appeal is obvious, so its no wonder the US has made the use of targeted killings via armed UAVs a central pillar in its counter-terrorism policy. Robert Skidelsky, who is, among other things, a member of the British House of Lords, summarizes the process well in an article discussing the futility of great power's efforts to intervene militarily in the affairs of lesser states in the modern age.

Colonel Mathieu is the unsung hero of current counter-insurgency orthodoxy, which requires a minimum military presence in the target country, mainly of intelligence agencies like the CIA and “special forces.” Through “rendition,” a captured suspect can be handed over to a friendly government to be tortured, and, on the basis of the information thus gathered, “kill lists” can be compiled.
The killing of Osama bin Laden last year required an actual hit squad to verify its success, but normally assassinations can be left to drones – unmanned aircraft, mainly used for surveillance, but which can be armed with computer-guided missiles. Not surprisingly, the US is the leading developer and user of drones, with a fleet of 7,500. An estimated 3,000 drone killings have taken place, mostly in Pakistan, but also in Yemen and Somalia.

Basically since the Bush Administration first employed kill lists and flying death machines as a solution to fighting a global war against an elusive foe, the international community has had objections, and not without merit. Barbara Lochbihler, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament, raises a number of salient objections to current US policy with regard to drone strikes in an article entitled 'Drone Wars'. She discusses the psychological impact of drone strikes on soldiers and civilians at home, and the indescribable terror of innocent civilians abroad who live in fear of errant strikes and collateral damage. From a more abstract perspective, she discusses the legality of targeted killing via drone strikes.

From a legal and human-rights point of view, the US drone program is even more alarming. After all, countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia do not belong to declared war zones. Outside the context of war, in turn, state killings are legal only if they prove absolutely necessary to save lives. They must be conducted either in self-defense after an attack, or in anticipatory self-defense against an immediate threat, when taking time to discuss non-lethal alternatives is not feasible.
More than a decade after September 11, America’s drone program does not fall into the first category of reactive self-defense. Likewise, there is no evidence that any presumed terrorist who was killed outside of official war zones in the last few years represented a threat so immediate to US citizens’ lives that preventive and premeditated killing was the only option. Unless US leaders prove otherwise in every case, American UAV attacks in countries like Pakistan or Yemen should be called what they are: extrajudicial killings.

As the (currently) undisputed global hegemon, the US can manage to flout international laws and internationally recognized norms in its drone policy and in its wider 'war on terror'. This is one of the many advantages of being the 'indispensable nation'. But lets be realistic here, the US will not maintain its monopoly on armed UAV capability, nor will it retain its hegemony over the long term without real challenges. I would argue that it is America's interest to immediately conform to international laws and norms and to work multilaterally towards establishing a more concrete international framework regarding the rules of engagement and modern security threats such as terrorism and armed unmanned aerial, land, and sea vehicles. It won't be long before Putin has his own fleet of drones, and China's military capability approaches ours. A strong internationally recognized system of restraint on aggressive uses of military power would help us to meet the challenges ahead.