The Legal and Ethical Challenges of Drone Strikes Post-Afghanistan

When the last U.S. soldier departed Afghanistan, it marked not just the end of an era but also a transition into a new phase of military engagement. President Biden’s declaration about using “over-the-horizon” capabilities to combat terrorist threats emphasized a shift in strategy focusing on remote military interventions. But what does this mean in practice, and what legal and ethical challenges arise from it? NPR’s Scott Simon converses with law professor Rosa Brooks, who sheds light on the intricacies of this contentious topic.

Understanding “Over-the-Horizon” Capabilities

At its core, “over-the-horizon” refers to the ability to conduct military operations from a significant distance away from the battlefield. While it is often conflated with drone strikes, Brooks clarifies that it encompasses a broader spectrum of military actions, including special operations raids and remote training. The essence of this strategy is to maintain military efficacy while minimizing American boots on the ground, thereby reducing risk to U.S. personnel.

However, Brooks emphasizes that this distance does not inherently equate to precision or efficacy. The decisions to engage adversaries are still grounded in intelligence—an aspect that can be flawed or misinformed. The sobering reality is that technology alone does not guarantee accurate targeting; mistakes are still made, leading to tragic collateral damage.

The Consequences of Drone Strikes

The fallout from drone strikes extends beyond immediate physical destruction. For instance, recent reports indicate that an airstrike in Kabul resulted in the deaths of ten civilians from one family. Brooks argues that the repercussions of such tragic incidents are profound. When innocent lives are lost, families and communities don’t just mourn; they harbor resentment towards the U.S., which can further exacerbate anti-American sentiments and even contribute to the creation of new militants.

This resentment complicates the U.S.’s ongoing war on terror. Brooks points out that the unintended consequences of drone strikes can fuel cycles of violence and hinder intelligence cooperation from local populations who may feel alienated or victimized. The illusion of drone precision, often touted by military and political leaders, is challenged by the harsh reality of mistaken identity and miscalculated strikes.

Ethical and Legal Implications

Brooks dives into the complex ethical and legal frameworks surrounding drone usage. The ruling factor in determining the legality of a drone strike rests not on the technology employed but on the context in which it is used. According to international law, attacking people designated as enemy combatants within an active armed conflict is permissible. However, targeting individuals in countries where the U.S. is not in an armed conflict raises severe legal and ethical concerns.

This distinction is crucial, as actions taken without judicial oversight can easily slide into extrajudicial killings. Brooks warns that such practices lead the U.S. down a treacherous path that undermines its moral standing in the world.

The Psychological Impact on Local Populations

The presence of drones not only impacts individuals directly involved in conflict but also instills a pervasive sense of fear in the broader civilian populace. Brooks illustrates this with an analogy: imagine going about your daily life, constantly aware that something lethal could befall you without warning. This feeling resonates deeply in regions subjected to drone surveillance, overshadowing daily existence with anxiety and dread.

Even if a drone strike never occurs, the mere threat of such an event can be disconcerting. In societies where these strikes are prevalent, citizens live under the specter of sudden violence, leading to a chilling effect on normal life and social interactions.

The Disconnect Between Military Strategy and Public Awareness

Brooks challenges the perception that drone strikes are a “safer” military option because they spare American lives. Administrations may be more inclined to deploy drones due to the reduced risk to American personnel and the relative lack of public scrutiny surrounding those operations. This disconnection between military practices and civilian awareness raises ethical questions about transparency and accountability.

The true cost of these operations, including the human toll and the reputational impact on the U.S., often goes unnoticed. Brooks emphasizes that ethical considerations should extend beyond the effectiveness of a military strategy to encompass the broader implications on international relations and humanitarian principles.

Through this conversation, we glean not only the legal intricacies surrounding drone usage but also the broader ethical dilemmas that arise from America’s ongoing military engagement in a post-Afghanistan landscape. As military strategies evolve, so too must our understanding of their implications on human life and international law.