It is a matter within the public domain that the advent of terrorist acts and their continued escalation across the globe has remarkably caught the attention of not only major players in the security sector, but also the ordinary members of the society. In the case of the former, such attention has necessitated advanced security measures otherwise not existing before, with such security measures including but not limited to drone strikes due to the seriousness of the acts and the dangers posed by them. In the case of the latter, the security measures undertaken by security sector players, most notably the drone strikes, have called attention on the ethicality of the measure. This dilemma has in the course of time resulted in a two-fold debate with a section of the public regarding drone strikes as an unethical measure, and the other section regarding it as ethical. This paper purposes to take the side of the latter. For clarity purposes, the argument in the paper will utilize the principle of double effect, refer to normative and meta-ethics, defend the argument from multiple oppositions and apply the catholic view in parts of the argument.
While a number of individuals across the society have argued against the ethicality of drone strikes since the advent of the technology, the reality on the ground is that the usage and application of drones in striking combatants are ethical. There are two ways to shed light on this particular picture; one, from the perspective of the country sending the drones and executing the strikes, and the other from the view of the country targeted by the strikes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
From The Perspective of the Country Targeted by The Drone Strikes
In conventional military operations, the aggressed state out to carry out a strike against the enemy most often has the choice of attacking the enemy through manned aircraft or sending ground troops composed of boot soldiers. In both cases, certain elements of psychological aspects and outcomes are usually notable. The elements of psychological aspects, in this instance, are two-fold. Foremost, sending soldiers on the ground to carry out military strikes against the enemy on the enemy’s home ground not only results in unprecedented deaths in the long run but equally, results in aggravated stresses for the soldiers in the course of their military operations. This kind of development compared to that of sending drones to strike enemy targets gives drone strikes a comparatively better advantage. While the underlying reasons in this context are numerous, the most dominant is the fact that exposing soldiers to combat in the form of ground troops makes them susceptible to committing atrocious acts to the enemy combatants and other innocent individuals finding themselves in the battlegrounds. In the mindset of Enemark (2013), exposing soldiers to situations where the dangers involved are comparatively grave, such as the geographical areas in the middle east and other Arabic countries mostly known for acts of terror, leads to an increase in the adrenaline levels in the body system of the soldiers. Ultimately, this makes the soldiers highly susceptible to showcase their inbuilt anger and frustrations on enemy combatants and civilians caught in the crossfire.
Situations such as the one explained above in most cases raise the question of ethicality regarding the deployment of ground troops in eliminating threats from enemy states or geographical regions. As visible in the above explanation, the alternative option available to aggrieved countries in combating their enemies, in this case, sending ground troops to combat zones, is unethical compared to sending drones to carry out the strikes. As the scholar argues, the adrenaline surge on the part of the soldiers distances the soldier from the professional ethics impacted during military training, thus diminishing his or her humanity aspect. This, coupled with the absence of surveillance and exposure of the soldiers conduct, results in more casualties and injuries that would otherwise be eliminated or reduced through drone deployment.
From The Perspective of the Country Sending the Drones and Executing the Strikes
Even though the actions of the aggrieved country sending drones to strike enemy locations may be viewed as unethical in some quarters, the reality is the exact opposite if such actions are viewed from the spectrum of the aggrieved country. As stated above, military operations often involve deaths, body injuries and psychological stresses on the part of the soldiers carrying out the military strikes. In the case of ground soldiers, such impacts are in most cases more pronounced compared to situations where drone strikes are used as an alternative. Throughout the many wars carried out by major combatant countries affected by terrorist acts, there has been public outcry regarding the deaths and injuries of their citizens who have volunteered to participate in their country’s wars and conflicts.
According to Billitteri (2010), the advent and application of drone strikes against aggressor states commonly associated with terrorist activities such as those in the middle east act as the reasonable antidote to the ethical questions raised against such deployments and the massive deaths and injuries resulting from them. The operation of drones in ordinary circumstances involves a single technically trained soldier executing his commands from the comfort of a chair in the front of a screen. This situation, compared to ground deployment, means that the soldier operating the drone from the comfort of the chair while seated in front of a screen, is susceptible to less psychological impact regarding his action and the outcome of the action, besides a reduction in chances of casualties on himself or herself. This by extension translates to a general decrease in the aggregate stock of psychological stresses that would have otherwise been realized within the military, and the family members of the military personnel upon ground deployment.
The scholar additionally argues that massive cases of deaths and injuries are always reported in the cases where the aggrieved state opts to send the military on ground-based operations and attacks. Coupled with sending manned aircraft to bomb targets, the casualties resulting from such actions on the part of the state or geographical location under attack are usually high and enormous. Such operations, especially aerial bombing using manned aircraft additionally result in loss of property belonging to innocent civilians otherwise not taking part in the war. The application and usage of drones as an alternative to such acts of aerial bombing and ground-based troop deployment is therefore helpful in reducing the number of casualties on the part of the attacked state or geographical location, in addition to reduced damage to private property. There are various reasons why drone strikes are capable of ensuring a reduction in loss of private property and lives, both civilian and military personnel.
Foremost, drone strikes are often known to be precise in their strikes. Prior to the deployment of the drones, tedious reconnaissance is done to establish the exact location of the target to be attacked. This is usually done with a view to ensuring that any chances of the unintended destruction of property and human lives are reduced. Secondly, drones are programmed to alter the cause of their actions such as aborting a predetermined mission in the event that the number of casualties or destruction of innocent lives is high, or if the information provided about a target is false or misleading.
In Reference to Normative and Meta-Ethics
With the continued escalation of terrorist acts across the globe, those in its support have in many circumstances cited justice and morality as the central premise of their support towards such activities. In the case of the former, the underlying line of thought has been the call for demand for justice for individuals whose lives have been lost through the acts and dominance of certain countries such as the United States against the doctrine of Islam and its teachings. In the thoughts of the adherents to the doctrine of Islam and its teachings, it is the duty and responsibility of any adherent to the teachings of prophet Mohamed to wage war against those who fail to follow and adhere to the teachings. As such, the acts of terrorism as has been seen in the current settings of terror are tailored towards the attainment of justice to the Islamic religion, a perception considered to be the moral duty of every Islamic adherent due to the dominance of Christianity and other spiritual forms distant from Islam in enemy countries.
While the above pattern of thought continues to impact the mindset of those adhering to the teachings of Islam such as fighting for justice in the interest of the religion and considering it a moral authority to eliminate contradicting religions such as Christianity, the adherents of the Islamic faith mostly targeted by the drone strikes fail to factor into consideration certain things. First, issues of morality and justice tend to differ in most circumstances depending on the circumstances at hand and the culture upon which such matters are raised. That is to say; what is considered to be moral in one culture does not necessarily translate to being moral in another culture (Copp, 2006). Again, the perception of justice in the mindset of an individual born and raised in the middle eastern part of the continent where drone strikes are prevalent, may not be similar to the perception of the same in a European or American setting where drone strikes commonly emanate from.
The above observation calls for a support of drone strikes as ethical for the very reason that imposing the teachings of Islam by individuals from the countries targeted by the strikes to other people of different geographical locations and cultures, is itself unethical. A deeper explanation, in this case, will suffice. Given that the teachings of the Islamic religion indoctrinate its adherents to view perceptions otherwise different and conflicting to those of Islam as immoral, the reality is that moral values tend to differ across different societies. As such the need to eliminate the exportation of moral values dominant in a particular culture or geographical region towards individuals brought up in a different culture and living in a different geographic location becomes necessary if not inevitable. Moreover, the teachings of the religion whose adherents are mostly targeted by the drone attacks has in most cases resulted in deaths of innocent lives not concerned with the conflicts existent in the region in addition to the destruction of property. Drone strikes against the perpetrators of the killings and destruction of the property thus serve as justice for the individuals whose lives have been lost through such acts of terror, hence making drone strikes to be ethical.
Ultimately, while there has been a raging debate regarding drone strikes in the current moment regarding its ethicality, it is sufficing to say that the application of drone strikes against the intended targets, in most cases Islamic countries and adherents, is ethical and justified. The reasons in this case range from conflicting interpretation of moral values on the part of the targeted enemies, to the advantage of using drones compared to its major alternatives such as ground-troops deployment.
References
Billitteri, T. J. (2010). Drone warfare: Are strikes by unmanned aircraft ethical? . Congressional Quarterly.
Copp, D. (2006). Introduction: Metaethics and normative ethics.
Enemark, C. (2013). Armed drones and the ethics of war: military virtue in a post-heroic age . Routledge.
