Press "Enter" to skip to content

Drone killings – “legal, ethical, wise and conforming to the principle of humanity” by Boris Volkhonsky…

On the eve of the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s elimination, President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John Brennan for the first time officially disclosed the open secret that the U.S. is using drone strikes against its enemies. Among other characteristics Mr. Brennan ascribed to the use of drones, most notable are “legal”, “ethical”, “wise” and “conforming to the principle of humanity”.

In fact, Mr. Brennan hardly created any sensation by acknowledging what the rest of the world has known for years. The use of drones has become too commonplace for the Washington strategists to be able to conceal it any longer. But the logic used by the counterterrorist adviser is worth looking at it in detail.

The use of drones is legal, because “the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces…, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense.” Also, “there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose, or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield.”

Well, maybe the U.S. is at war with its own sibling, Al Qaeda, as well as with the Taliban, whom the U.S. indirectly supported via its allies in the region, namely Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, throughout the 1990s. But what about Pakistan whose territory has become one of the main targets of drone strikes? Or does Mr. Brennan want to say that the U.S. “is in an armed conflict” with Pakistan as well?

“Second, targeted strikes are ethical,” because “individuals who are part of al-Qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets.” Mr. Brennan is probably too shy to mention that much too often innocent civilians, including children, fall prey to the drone “targeted” strikes. Or, maybe this simply conforms to the ethics he is preaching.

“Targeted strikes conform to the principle of humanity, which requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.” Definitely, what suffering can be inflicted on the operators guiding the strikes from hundreds and thousand miles away as if playing some computer game? As shown above, Mr. Brennan hardly meant the sufferings inflicted on the civilians on the ground.

And this logically brings us to the next thesis. “They (the strikes) can be a wise choice because they dramatically reduce the danger to U.S. personnel, even eliminating the danger altogether.” Indeed, this is a Washington strategist’s golden dream – to be able to eliminate whoever wherever and whenever, while sipping morning coffee somewhere in Bethesda.

The only thing that surprises an outside observer is the fact that not everyone is ready to subscribe to this point of view. The Pakistani leadership has made it a point that the restoration of the strained relationship and reopening of the southern supply route for the NATO coalition in Afghanistan requires an unconditional end to drone strikes on Pakistani territory because they violate Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Mr. Brennan did mention national sovereignty twice in his speech presenting it as an “important check” and “constraint”, and stating that “The United States of America respects national sovereignty and international law.”

And if so, the U.S. authorities seem much more inclined to follow the guidelines presented by Mr. Brennan rather than listen to the objections coming from Islamabad. On Sunday, two weeks after Pakistan’s parliament officially demanded an end to the drone strikes, the U.S. carried out one in North Waziristan, thus prompting a harsh reaction from Pakistani Foreign Ministry which regarded the strikes as being “in total contravention of international law and established norms of interstate relations”.

It remains doubtful, how the U.S. is going to implement the strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan signed during President Obama’s overnight trip to Kabul without Pakistan’s assistance. But since the drone strikes have been classified as “legal, ethical, wise and conforming to the principle of humanity” by a renowned expert, maybe this will give the U.S. additional leverage in trying to persuade Pakistan that its sovereignty is being respected.

by Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies.


  1. admin Post author | May 2, 2012

    Bombs instead of a gun salute. Five explosions rocked Kabul right after U.S. President Barack Obama’s surprise visit to Afghanistan. Obama and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai sealed a deal that allows a limited U.S. continent to remain in Afghanistan after a planned troop withdrawal in 2014.

    Under the just-signed Kabul accord, the United States will help Afghanistan ensure domestic security and assist the war embattled country in its social and economic development for a whole decade after the withdrawal. Security cooperation and the anti-terror struggle were sited as a pretext for the extended U.S. military presence, but whatever you call it, as long as at least one foreign garrison remains deployed on the Afghan land, it’s inappropriate to speak of a troop withdrawal, says Oleg Kulakov, an expert with the Russian Military University.

    “What does the presence of a foreign troop contingent in Afghanistan mean? It means that the opposition will be constantly provoked to put up resistance and consolidate Afghans against the foreign contingent. In other words, even if just one garrison remains, this will still be a military presence. Thereby, it’s impossible to say that troops are pulling out. We can speak of a radical reduction of the foreign military presence, but not a troop withdrawal. In my opinion, if foreign military bases remain, it means there has been no withdrawal with all that this implies.”

    Viktor Korgun, head of the Afghan Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow points out that Obama’s visit to Kabul, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the killing of the number one terrorist Osama bin Laden, was in fact largely symbolic and therefore unable to produce any real shifts.

    “Obama’s visit will not create favorable opportunities for positive changes in Afghanistan. True, one more step has been taken, yet it appears to be largely symbolic. The visit failed to change the balance of forces or exert any influence on opponents of the regime. Nor was it supposed to do anything of the sort, being an unplanned visit, not included into the official schedule of U.S.-Afghan interstate contacts.”

    Obama’s visit to Kabul may also be regarded through the prism of his re-election bid as sort of a campaign trip since tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan will all vote in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

    Earlier, Obama vowed to bring 23,000 troops back to the U.S. by the autumn of 2012 and promised that there would be no permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan if Kabul allows the remaining U.S. troops to use its own bases. The newly-signed accord proclaims Afghanistan America’s top strategic non-NATO partner. Yet, judging by the multiple bomb attacks hot on Obama’s heels, the love has not been returned.

  2. Amazing May 2, 2012

    I’m no longer certain where you’re getting your info, but great topic. I must spend some time studying much more or understanding more. Thank you for great information I used to be in search of this information for my mission.

  3. papijump May 6, 2012

    It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d most certainly donate to this outstanding blog! I guess for now i’ll settle for bookmarking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and will share this site with my Facebook group. Chat soon!

  4. pupzzle May 18, 2012

    Yesterday, while I was at work, my sister stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a 40 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is entirely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

Comments are closed.

kKEETON © Windows to Russia… Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given...