The Ethical Dilemmas of Drone Strikes: A Closer Look
When the Obama administration released a newly declassified memorandum regarding U.S. drone strike policies earlier this month, it didn’t introduce much that was new. Essentially reiterating policies from 2013, the memorandum emphasizes a troubling demand for “near certainty” of zero civilian casualties in drone strikes. What’s notably absent is a formal assessment of the potential civilian casualties that could arise if such a strike is not carried out.
The Weight of Inaction
This omission raises significant ethical concerns. British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously argued that individuals can cause harm through both action and inaction, asserting that they hold moral responsibility for both. The current policy’s failure to account for the repercussions of inaction — particularly in the context of drone operations — introduces what could be termed a “moral hazard.” Traditionally a term from economics, “moral hazard” refers to a situation where an individual does not bear the consequences of their decisions, often leading to reckless behavior.
In the arena of military decision-making, this moral hazard manifests as a lack of incentive to consider the implications for civilians who may be harmed if a potential threat is not addressed. Decision-makers may feel shielded from criticism when opting not to strike, as they can point to the absence of an immediate attack. In contrast, if a strike does take place and results in civilian casualties, the scrutiny is intense.
The Two-Fold Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemmas of drone strikes extend beyond the dichotomy of action versus inaction. A striking portrayal of these complexities can be found in the film “Eye in the Sky,” which dramatizes a joint U.K.-U.S. operation targeting al-Shabaab militants. The film captures the agonizing decision-making process faced by military and political leaders when a young girl unwittingly enters the strike zone just before the operation is to be executed.
Despite the strike appearing lawful under international regulations—considering the proportionality of preventing a suicide attack versus the potential loss of untold civilian lives—decision-makers opt to halt, exacerbating the moral conundrum. Critics like retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula argue that such hesitations reflect a broader trend of excessive caution that distracts from the fundamental objective of protecting civilians against immediate threats.
The Proportionality Principle
Legal frameworks governing armed conflict, such as the law of proportionality, require commanders to balance military advantage against the potential loss of civilian life. However, this law primarily sets boundaries on actions rather than dictating when to actively intervene to save lives. Military operations are often trapped in a web of political and ethical limitations that exceed legal mandates, complicating decision-making significantly.
As highlighted by Deptula and his co-author Joseph Raskas, these self-imposed constraints lead to a failure in accountability. Inaction, particularly when it enables future terrorist acts, does not carry the same weight of scrutiny as a fatal misstep in an operation, distinguishing the two scenarios morally and politically.
A Call for Moral Accountability
The current approach, as indicated by the Obama administration’s latest memorandum, sidesteps the “evil” associated with inaction. By neglecting to address the consequences of refraining from strikes, it allows decision-makers to abdicate moral responsibility for the suffering that occurs subsequently. In a world where adversaries routinely commit horrific acts against civilians, neglecting to factor in the human cost of inaction seems increasingly untenable.
Therefore, there’s a growing imperative to incorporate a form of “moral hazard” assessment into use-of-force policies. This would acknowledge the consequences of inaction and hold those responsible accountable for when their failure to act leads to preventable suffering.
Navigating the Landscape of War
While it is essential that the laws of war continue to be observed rigorously, there must also be an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in modern warfare. Striking a balance between ethical responsibility and operational effectiveness is crucial. As military leaders and policymakers navigate these treacherous waters, the pressing need to incorporate moral considerations should not be overlooked in discussions about drone strikes and the use of force against threats.
Ultimately, as the nature of warfare evolves, so too must the frameworks guiding military operations. Addressing these multidimensional ethical concerns will be essential in ensuring that decisions taken in the name of national security do not disregard the lives of civilians at home and abroad.