Drones: Up in Arms

Instinctively, most would label republicans as “hawks” when it comes to national security, aggressively approaching foreign policy with military force, whereas democrats are usually considered “doves,” who advocate for more peaceful means to resolve disputes.  Yet Mr. Obama has shattered this stereotype, composing a “kill list” of terrorists to be taken out by drone strikes.  This is indeed an interesting paradox, given that Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo bay, but allows drone strikes without a problem.

Unarmed aerial vehicles, also called UAV’s or drones, have become quite popular in the US military since President Obama took office.  The appeal? A drastic decrease in risk for American soldiers.  Drones resemble a remote controlled airplane, equipped with weapons.  Though this is an aircraft, the pilots sit safely inside an operating room, hundreds and thousands of miles away from his target. Though at first glance, one would assume drones are the way to go, it is important to think deeply about the moral implications of using such a weapon. 

For one, drones, though said to be extremely accurate, have killed many civilians when attempting to take out a target.  In one case, in 2011, a drone strike was said to have taken out around 42 innocent Pakistani civilians, many of them important elders of the community (Living Under Drones, 2012).

And what about sovereignty? Of all people, President Obama should recognize the legal implications of using drones, constantly impeding on the sovereignty of other countries, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan.  When it comes to drones, respecting sovereignty has become a mere trip line to step over.  New York Times writes: “justly or not, drones have become a proactive symbol of American power, running roughshod over national sovereignty and killing innocents.” 

Another fear is a drone-led retaliation on the United States.  Given the simplicity of the technology, an adversary who gains the ability to create drones themselves may be able to easily use it against America, endangering citizens across the country.  Drones could also serve as a perfect tool for terrorist attacks.  Given the fact that terrorists largely have to bypass the military in order to make attacks on their target, a drone could serve as a perfect weapon, enabling terrorists to make strikes without nearly any costs involved.   

Drone strikes, without a doubt, need to be perfected.  With the morality and legality of drones in question, the US must be very careful about how to use such weapons.  Killing civilians during drone strikes, though usually effective in taking out the target, is a major cause for concern.  Not only is this morally troubling, but the international community frowns upon this type of action, causing contention between the United States and other major international actors.  Although I approve of the use of drones, the Obama administration must be careful about the way in which drone strikes are used.     

The Glorification of Suicide Terrorism

Suicide terrorism has been on the rise.  It is a daily occurrence in the war-ridden Middle East, and has been seen in countries such as Argentina, Europe, Russia, and the United States.  In Hoffman’s paper “The Logic of Suicide Terrorism”, he discusses the daily life of people in Israel.  Patrons in Israel cannot simply enter a café, for example.  Instead, before they walk through the door, they are met by a guard who will pat them down in order to look for explosive devises.  In a post-9/11 world, US citizens have also become accustomed to rigorous security checks at the airport. 

Suicide terrorism has impacted daily life all over the world, be it intensified security checkpoints, or a constant worry in the back of one’s head when riding the subway, that a terrorist could be sitting next to you with explosives. 

Suicide terrorism is different from more traditional modes of terrorism.  Hoffman explains that they suicide terrorism is inexpensive, reliably deadly, and the terrorist act is guaranteed media coverage.  And perhaps the most surprising part about it all? Suicide terrorism often works. 

Kydd and Walter in their piece “The Strategies of Terrorism,” explain that between 1980 and 2003, “Half of all suicide terrorist campaigns were closely followed by substantial concessions by the target governments.”  Democracies are often targeted because of the fact that democratic leaders must respond to the desires of the people.  Because suicide terrorism “tears at the fabric of trust that holds societies together,” (Hoffman) societies that are affected by suicide attacks are more than likely going to request from their government that they stop the attacks.  Often times, that means conceding to terrorist demands. 

Suicide terrorism continues because the terrorist organizations get what they want from the attack: mass chaos, which translates into a scared society that is likely to concede to terrorist demands. 

And the media might not be helping either.  In Carolyn Guertin’s article “All the Rage,” the author discusses that “the attraction of becoming a suicide bomber is not the fantasy of being rewarded with virgins in heaven, but the intense feeling of being noticed in a world where being noticed—preferably on video—has somehow become the sole crowning achievement in and of itself.”  A suicide attack is likely to gain 24/7 media coverage and intense analysis of the event.  Not only does this glorify the attackers and the terrorist network from which they came, but may also act as a recruitment tool for other potential suicide terrorists, hoping to one day live up to the actions of those before him. 

Suicide attacks, more recently, have been seen not in the context of war, but in mass shootings.  Terrorists such as the “joker” who fatally shot twelve people in an Aurora movie theater, or Adam Lanza who shot 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, have gotten intense media coverage during and after the shootings.  Does the media unintentionally “set the stakes” for potential mass shooters, glorifying every detail of the shooting so as to set the bar for the next shooter?  Perhaps.  Dr. Par Dietz, an expert in forensics stated: “I’ve repeatedly told CNN and other media, ‘if you don’t want to propagate mass murders, don’t start the story of sirens blaring.  Don’t have photographs of the killer.  Don’t make this 24/7 coverage.  Do everything you can not to make the body count lead the story ad to make the killer some sort of anti-hero.” 

Though a difficult policy prescription to follow, perhaps the media should lessen its media coverage of terrorist attacks.  They should dig deep into the killer’s life, analyzing his every move.  Instead, they should cover basic information about the shooting, and give advice to those in the area or those affected.  By doing so, perhaps we can lessen the “glorification” of mass killing by suicide terrorism and, in turn, lessen the amount that suicide terrorism occurs.    

The Mental Battle

It’s easy to talk war statistics: 891,903 soldiers hospitalized from October 2001 to June 2012; 161,385 of those soldiers were hospitalized for mental health injuries alone.  Though these numbers do sound extremely high, what is the difference between 161,385, and 161,386?  Statistics are just numbers.  But what’s more heart wrenching is to hear even one of these soldiers’ stories.  When one begins to put a face with a statistic, things become a bit more real.

One marine, who was wounded in Iraq, told his story in an article published by The Atlantic in 2011.  In October of 2006, the marine was performing an on-the-ground inspection when he was suddenly shot through the mouth.  He would have surely died if it were not for the assistance of his fellow soldiers.  Among many other life debilitating injuries, the marine now suffers from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  PTSD is a disorder that occurs after a person has experienced or witnessed a life-threatening event.  This event is often so distressing that the person will re-experience the event in dreams, recurring thoughts, hallucinations, or flashbacks.  The person will also likely avoid certain stimuli related to the traumatic event which may heavily affects one’s ability to function in everyday life.  For soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, PTSD is tremendously common.    

This former marine is now calling for other marines to seek help rather than simply “tough it out.”  However, seeking help for PTSD is more difficult than one might suspect, as the Department of Defense does not offer “off hours” for PTSD treatment.  Veterans must find time in their busy days to schedule an appointment, as the Veteran’s Center is only open 8 to 4:30.  The marine writes:  “And what about all the service members struggling with PTSD who work two jobs to make ends meet, or who are single parents without flexible schedules?  This is, unfortunately, a tragic circumstance faced by far too many of our young veterans.”    

For those who have not been deployed, understanding the how the trauma of coming home can be worse than the actual deployment may be difficult to comprehend.  Post-traumatic stress disorder has become a major problem in the military today.  Suicide is now the leading cause of death in the army (Rosenurg).  This means that it is absolutely essential that we take a closer look at taking care of our veterans not only on the battlefield, but also with the battle they experience after coming home. 

Though many soldiers experience PTSD after returning home, the stigma associated with seeking help for the disorder deters many from therapy.  The lack of therapists employed by the military, and the incentive to under diagnose due to expenses doesn’t help either. 

                                           

Luckily, psychologists and researchers are paying more attention to the treatment of PTSD, coming up with new and innovative treatments in the past few years.  For example, the “Mind Body Program” focuses on treatments that emphasize group therapy, breathing exercises, acupuncture, yoga, and self-expression.  Though at first glace this type of therapy might seem unlikely for a soldier who have just returned from war, the results may surprise you.  Many who have tried this therapy, have seen improvement in PTSD symptoms.

So, what can be done?  Though we can’t necessarily protect our soldiers from getting PTSD in the first place, more resources must be allocated in the treatment of PTSD.  This means the military employing more psychologists.  Those psychologists should also perform more research on effective treatments for PTSD.  This also means removing the stigma associated with the disorder so that veterans may seek help without feeling ashamed.  The military should encourage veterans to see a psychologist after returning home, and should perhaps even require a few sessions. 

We protect our soldiers on the battlefield, shouldn’t we protect them at home too?         

The Rhetoric of Democracy

Kellner argues that Bush’s Axis of Evil speech, and his general rhetoric and actions toward Iraq and Afghanistan, was a manipulation of the American people in order to push through a “right wing agenda”.  He contends that Bush elicited fear out of American’s in his discussion of foreign and dangerous regimes, in order to push through his own agenda.  Kellner believes Bush manipulated the essential components of democracy, controlling the American people and drawing support out of panic.

Osama bin Laden’s letter to America is a description of why the Muslim world is in opposition to American actions.  He cites reasons such as American support of Israel, and attacks placed on Muslim countries by America. 

Bush’s response to 9/11 in the “Axis of Evil” speech, is a hawkish reply to those who do harm to the American people, and that terrorists and dangerous regimes will be brought to justice by America. 

In all of these readings we see the discussion of democracy.  In Kellner’s piece, it is ways in which leaders can manipulate citizens in a democracy in order to push through their own agenda.  In Osama bin Laden’s letter to America, he writes that the American people have “chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, and punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. “ Bin Laden, then, sees American democracy as a threat to the Muslim world, in that because the citizens can choose policy, and since that policy is often perceived as being anti-Middle East, that all Americans must feel the same.  George Bush in his Axis of Evil speech paints democracy and freedom as something that must be defended against evil. 

Being American, it is difficult to view democracy in a negative light.  Often, to Americans, Democracy is the most free and fair regime choice.  It should be spread to countries where the people are oppressed by dictators.  However, it is interesting to understand other viewpoints, in which democracy is used as a tool to manipulate the people who subscribe to it. 

Bin Laden even discusses American tax dollars, arguing that because American’s pay taxes, and since those taxes are going towards bombing Afghanistan, the American people are in complete agreement with their government’s actions.  In America, we know that we cannot always control where our tax dollars go, despite being required to pay them.  Though American’s can see this is a major misunderstanding of democracy, we must also recognize that we misunderstand Islamic values.  Bin Laden views the US as the aggressors, and themselves as victims.  However, it is obvious that Americans felt themselves to be the victims after the 9/11 attacks and felt that the invasion of Afghanistan was warranted, as only about 6% felt it was a mistake to send in military forces (gallup.com).  There is an obvious disconnect between Islamist fundamentalists and the American people in understanding the demands and feelings of each side.  Something as simple as democracy, a regime type that enables citizens to choose their own government, can be viewed completely differently depending on an individual’s values. 

In relations with other nations, it is important to keep in mind that a difference in cultural and religious values will sometimes mean a fundamental disagreement on select issues.  We, as Americans, must make greater efforts to understand Islam and the values associated with the religion.  They too should make greater efforts to understand ways in which American society functions and our cultural values as well.  Though this is not a silver bullet to solve conflicts between the two civilizations, it is a starting point.