Are We Safer?

A few years ago, I read The United States and Torture, a collection of essays by lawyers, historians, journalists and scholars edited by Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. I had kept abreast of the news and thought I was up to snuff on the subject, but The United States and Torture showed me there was more to learn than I had ever imagined.

The same is true of Drones and Targeted Killing, a new collection of essays Professor Cohn has assembled to address the legal, moral and geopolitical issues raised by the United States’ embrace of assassination as a central, go-tool in combating terrorism. Just out, Cohn’s book may not sound like light reading, but the 14 chapters written by legal experts, journalists, policy wonks and activists are readable and absorbing and, like her book on torture, highly informative.

Advertisement

Since coming to power, the Obama administration has dramatically increased the use of targeted killings, chiefly, though not exclusively, by unmanned drones. Though it claims drone attacks are highly accurate, causing little collateral damage, it has yet to document that or to provide any accounting of the number of people killed. Studies of specific attacks by independent monitors find a higher number of civilian deaths than the government acknowledges.

Are drone strikes serving a strategic purpose? A study by the Stimson Center released in June says it is doubtful. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that of the estimated 3,000 people killed by U.S. drones, the vast majority have not been Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders but low-level anonymous insurgents engaged in attacks against their governments, not international terrorism plots. The New American Foundation tracks drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen and reports about 2 percent of those killed by U.S. drone strikes are militant leaders. These are figures that should make Americans wonder about the other 98 percent, but as Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., notes, “People are a lot more comfortable with Predator strikes that kill many than with a throat-slitting that kills one.”

Drone attacks not only kill individuals, they terrorize whole communities and affect the fabric of daily life. A chapter in Drones written by Medea Benjamin after a trip to Yemen and Pakistan to investigate the effects of drone strikes there describes the fear and helplessness people feel on seeing drones hover overhead for days at a time. People do not attend community events for fear of being attacked; many children are afraid to go to school. The use of “double taps” to target rescuers going to the scene to help victims is a war crime and has had a chilling effect on aid workers. Members of one humanitarian organization told researchers their policy was to wait for six hours before going to the scene of a drone strike.

Like torture, extrajudicial assassination is illegal, a violation of both American and international law. In the post 9/11 era, Americans seem complaisant about both. But unmanned drone attacks are another step toward normalizing war, making continuous war appear remote, risk-free and acceptable. Fully automated drones capable of choosing targets without human involvement are in the pipeline; this will make killing even more removed from public concern and thus control.

Do drone strikes make us safer? Many Americans assume so, but Cohn quotes a former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, on the hatred they engender, fueling radicalization and leading to the recruitment of more terrorists.

Terrorism by state and nonstate actors is symbiotic. The one encourages the other. Drone strikes have proliferated because of their relative cheapness in terms of dollar cost and loss of U.S. lives, but drones are a tactic, not a solution. Much as Americans might like to, we cannot kill our way to tranquillity and peace. To reduce terrorism, we have to address the conditions that give rise to it, including, as it happens, the expanding use of extrajudicial killings that violate our laws, our notions of justice and our religion.

South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written a fine foreword to Cohn’s book. But where are the moral voices in this country—particularly those of church leaders—condemning a policy that places assassination at the heart of U.S. foreign policy?

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Beth Cioffoletti
3 years 8 months ago
You're not on my Facebook or Twitter feeds, Margot. I have a couple of people who daily send out information about drone attacks undertaken by the United States. They are not church leaders, but Catholics who have "lapsed" over the last couple of decades (probably, in part, because of the silence of Church leaders.) I expect something from Francis on this topic. Hopefully American bishops will follow. On the eve of the 100th anniversary of Thomas Merton's birth, I can only wonder "what would Merton say"? http://www.nukeresister.org
John Placette
3 years 8 months ago
One must make a clear distinct between terrorism and the just response to terrorism. Ms.Patterson's opinions are just that - opinions.
Paul Ferris
3 years 8 months ago
John, your comment is also just your opinion is it not? What's your point ? Ms. Patterson's opinion in this article are backed up by different agencies and sources including former CIA employee now teaching at the naval academy and another high ranking military officer. Just because you say drones are a just response to terrorism does not make it so. If more civilians are being killed 98% according to one report, then this is indiscriminate bombing condemned by the Catholic Church at Vatican II. Read the document, The Church in the Modern World, the section on war. So John beyond your opinion can you cite any sources for it ?

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018