Until World War II, battles were waged on the ground. The advent of the fighter jet and aerial combat changed that, adding a whole new dimension to war.
Fast forward to 1995. There was the rise of a new school of killing machines known formally as unmanned aerial vehicles, and known colloquially as drones.
UAVs made it possible for the military to carry out airstrikes from remote locations with the push of a button.
It really is as easy as “Call of Duty” suggests.
Along with the elimination of top terror suspects comes scores of collateral damage.
Recognizing mounting vocal opposition to the use of drones, the White House announced March 7 it would release drone strike data dating back to 2009 Politico reported.
After President Obama’s 450 strikes as of January 2015 with a reported 1,000 civilian casualties in the Middle East, Africa and southwest Asia, it’s about time the administration made progress toward increasing transparency.
Oversight on drone strikes is severely deficient. Despite a 2013 promise to institute “strong oversight on all lethal action,” the nonpartisan Stimson Center graded the administration’s policy, or lack thereof, at an F, citing a “legacy ... that is based on secrecy and a lack of accountability.”
The system is fundamentally flawed. The vast majority of strikes are conducted by two agencies: the Defense Department’s Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA.
The government cannot legally acknowledge the CIA’s, said Micah Zenko, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Even with available data, we can’t understand the full scope of the issue.
Obama’s 2013 promises included a stipulation that required all targets to be “imminent threats” to national security, a welcome policy for drone critics.
Following the institution of the new policies, however, the White House amended it to create exceptions for Pakistan and Yemen, which are two of the most frequent targets of drone strikes, the Guardian reported.
The new guidelines were nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to quell popular criticism of Obama’s policies.
As public distaste grows, drone spending does the same.
In 2015, the Pentagon allocated more than $2.2 billion on drones, $59.7 million more than the year before, and that number will only grow. Despite copious amounts of public spending, the public is left with little to no knowledge of the facts.
This is not to say that drone strikes haven’t been successful in eliminating some of the world’s most egregious terrorists.
Much of the anti-American sentiment in the region germinated from American interference in the daily lives of normal citizens, some of which came in the form of indiscriminate drone strikes.
Obama’s commitment to increasing transparency of drone policy has been met with skepticism, as it should.
Releasing drone strike data is a gesture of goodwill, but real progress will only be achieved with increased transparency and oversight.
dkilcull@indiana.edu
