Drones Argumentative Analysis

The moment I received the prompt to explore just war theory, the first controversial topic containing strong arguments on both sides that interested me was that of drone warfare. As tensions rise between countries and technology improves, the possibility of advanced warfare among nations seems imminent as drones are deployed in replacement of soldiers. The purposes of these unmanned drones in present day are primarily intel collection and target acquisition, which usually leads to extermination of known and presumed threats to the dispatcher. In the United States, when it comes to the topic of using drones within foreign countries, most of the citizens will agree that it is an efficient way to remotely deal with immediate threats to the country.

Where this agreement dissolves, however, is on the question of ethics. Where some believe drones represent a humane, ultimate resolution to resolving conflicts of the state, others argue whether or not these objects incite fear and anger within the communities of those affected by the drone strikes. I was pulled into this topic specifically because as the metaphorical torch has been passed down to the 45th commander-in-chief of America, I felt it was my duty as a citizen to educate myself further regarding foreign affairs. I felt as drones are one of the most debated topics, I could delve into the many aspects of the argument with many questions. Is it possible to have a just war with the involvement of drones? Is it possible to have a just war?
While scanning through the class custom reader for information on drones, the first exposition to catch my eye was Mary Ellen O’Connell’s testimony arguing that the use of drones outside of war zones is infringing upon international law and is highly unethical.

(Custom Reader 104) This topic intrigued me because I haven’t really thought about if the American citizens had to run in fear for their lives, knowing a drone flying around your safe territory could randomly eliminate you at any time. This made me wonder if situations like this created enmity or jealousy towards the safeguarded citizens belonging to the aggressor. The article highlights O’Connell’s dismay that the misuse and misplacement of drones within ethical bounds has fanned fire into the flames, only making those opposed to the United States angrier. (106) While O’Connell’s argument is definitely sincere in caring for the well-being of other beings, I believe that there can definitely situation in which another hostile would resort to hiding within the safe zones, which would endanger those who are immediately surrounding him and those who he may be plotting against. While this does not intrinsically warrant deployment of drones to search for and eliminate the target, it forces a great burden on to the shoulders of the CTU and the government that I’m sure no person would

envy.
A possible philosopher that would think in conjunction with O’Connell’s beliefs would have to be Hugo Grotius in his essay “On the Law of War and Peace.” I believe that based on my understanding of both writers’ set of ideals, they both assert it would be unjust to commence war on the general public that has no intention of retaliating. (35,37) In other words, the only lawful war would be the counter initiation of the affected party. (35) This justification of self-defense, as well as empirical evidence, tell me that many believe it is innate within a person to defend themselves from an outside force. This means that it may be possible to have a just war on one side of the spectrum as long as one is not the aggressor, but what does this mean for the aggressor? Can the initiator of an altercation create a lawful war if they believe they are ones being infringed upon? Can one chalk a possibility up to confusion? After going over the argument noting the negatives of drones, the only logical route progressing further into the topic of drones in a just war would have to be the one in favor of liberally using drones.
The following article that I found in the custom reader represented Michael W. Lewis’ view that drones should have the ability to seek their target out wherever they may be, and this does not infringe on international law. (107) In his argumentative essay, Lewis explains to his readers that drones are a just and legitimate means of warfare, as the hostiles opposing America, such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban, do not participate in conventional warfare, so it is only fair that drones could be used to combat these groups in unconventional warfare. (110) I agree that Lewis’ idea will definitely serve to be quick and effective based on convenience, but the idea seems to ignore the immediate safety and well-being of the surrounding citizens. Although the argument that Lewis puts together is very straight forward, I couldn’t help but take into account Lewis’ 7-year experience in the US Navy as a pilot and strike planner, as well as his involvement educating others on proper protocols and empirical knowledge regarding anti-terrorism. (110) One can make the argument that he understands the opposing side’s methods and actions. However, to play devil’s advocate, would he not have too much history fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda to propose an idea that would reflect the expectations of the nation to remain good? Why should a nation on the offensive be allowed to decide what happens to another nation? This immediately brought me to think about Thomas Hobbes excerpt from “Leviathan,” where he mentions that if there is no social doctrine to determine what is allowed, there will be no rules to stop one from committing atrocities to another. (5) I understood this to mean that if everyone was able to do what they want without boundaries, the world would become engulfed in chaos and the world may know nothing but irreverent war. If Hobbes is right in his assumption that people would run amok without limitations, this falls into the argument of Hsun Tzu, assuming that the nature of man is originally evil. (100)
In Hsun Tzu’s essay, he states that each man is born evil, holding qualities such as greed envy, and hate, with only desire for personal gain. (101) Tzu believes that the only way that man can become good is if they actively participate in attempting to be good, while hanging around and learning from good people. (101) I think that Tzu would agree with Hobbes vision that a formal doctrine must be applied into the values of a being so that a man has the ability to become good. (2,108) Regarding drones and just war, I could not decipher that out of his text, but if my understanding is correct, I believe that Tzu would agree with Grotius and Hobbes that there should be a set of universal rules to follow as Tzu seemed like a stickler for discipline. (5,35,100) While these beliefs somewhat converge, I do not believe each being is conceived evil, or good for that matter. Beings are made with the ability to make sense of their surroundings, and they will learn from what is around them. The question arises that is it possible to rid of these attributes that harbor ill-will? This leads to my final source who represents the epitome of non-violence.
According to Mahatma Gandhi, non-violence always trumps the pressure of violence.

(39) Gandhi suggests that if people halted killing, there would be more room to discuss and understand our enemies, rather than react with the quickest, yet most selfish means of gain. (41) Based on his comments, I believe that Gandhi would be incredibly against drone warfare, as the very concept invoking the use of drones requires malice between both sides of the equation. It creates a lifeless barrier that separates the two entities in a greater fashion than ever before. Gandhi believes that any hatred or ill-will towards an opposing party would eventually lead to the self-undoing of either party. (41) I believe that this is entirely true as both sides of the conflict tend to have a higher body count as the altercation continues. Most of my previous sources never seemed to acknowledge the avoidance of war, but just recognized war as a definite and deduce the best course of action to deal with the situation. Gandhi however believed that the only just war are those which are not fought at all.

In conclusion, I have learned that drones create an inhumane disconnection between two parties as physical altercations have before that. To answer the question if just war with drones possible, the use of the drones represents the beliefs of one party for personal gain, so it is not possible that drones can accomplish becoming a just war. Regarding just war in general, I have not found the answer to that

question because as long as the theory of ethics is instilled into one’s beliefs, and unless an altercation appears without an initiation from either side, there can be no just war.