We shouldn’t mistake a modestly better policy for a truly legal, moral and ethical one.
"Ino longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer gray skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are gray.”
That’s what a young Pakistani boy named Zubair told members of Congress at a hearing on drones in October 2013. That hearing was during the Obama years at a time when the government had barely even acknowledged that an American drone warfare program existed.
Two years earlier, however, a Muslim cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, both American citizens, were killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen just weeks apart. Asked to comment on Abdulrahman’s killing, Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs said: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”
Those are two of all too many grim tales of the brutality with which the United States has carried out its drone warfare program. Post-9/11 reiterations by the government of the danger we now live in (because the U.S. was attacked), have made the collective responsibility of Muslims and the callous dismissal of their deaths a regular occurrence.
In 2023, this country’s drone warfare program has entered its third decade with no end in sight. Despite the fact that the 22nd anniversary of 9/11 is approaching, policymakers have demonstrated no evidence of reflecting on the failures of drone warfare and how to stop it. Instead, the focus continues to be on simply shifting drone policy in minor ways within an ongoing violent system.
They just causally ignore the fact that Al-Awlaki was rapidly rising up ranks to try and become the face of jihadist organizations?
Like yeah, I get it, let’s not bomb innocents, but Al-Awlaki was not a kid walking home from school
Idk that they ignored it but mentioning the 16yo son as collateral damage (ie murdered for no reason other than proximity?)
PS: sorry if this sounds like gibberish. I didn’t get the impression that Al-awaki was innocent. I assume they brought him up because his 16yp son was killed along with him.
Do you think Al-Awaki would care if you’re 16 year old son was killed in a suicide bombing in the name of Jihad?
Doubt it but I don’t see that as relevant. You’re saying we should not worry about killing bad guys’ kids ? Why stop there? Why not indiscriminately kill people in case it might stop a “bad guy”? Oh wait we already do that.
But we shouldn’t. Besides being deplorable it also results in more blowback. All our fucking around in various countries has done is bitten us in the ass over and over again.
Collateral damage happens. If you kill one to save the many, that’s a trade off that has to happen.
Meanwhile casually ignoring the extradjudicial assassination of American citizens too. So much for our legal system and rights.