Time and time again, there is one military strategy that has proven itself in its sheer destructiveness: shoot first, ask questions later.
Whether seen in the trenches of the Western Front or rural villages of Vietnam, it has been shown throughout history that simply trying to kill the other side without considering a larger strategy produces some of the most horrific consequences of war.
And yet, even after its own traumatic experiences with shooting first and asking questions later in Vietnam, the United States has failed to give up this reckless strategy. Instead of the humid jungles of Southeast Asia, however, we have taken our fight to the arid highlands of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. And the means of this attrition do not come from the rifle of a soldier on the ground, but from the wing-mounted missile of an unmanned drone flying thousands of feet overhead.
It is these drone strikes, which the Obama administration and the military have tried to paint as precise and legal, that help perpetuate some of the greatest abuses of our military power in recent years. Unless we take more care in their use, our drone policy will only add to a growing list of problems that jeopardize human rights and foreign policy alike.
In some limited cases, drone strikes certainly constitute a legal means of warfare. However, in a number of cases their use is marred by a deplorable track record of civilian casualties. Between 400-900 civilians have been killed in drone strikes since the program began, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Among them are community leaders, grandparents and even children-- all innocent bystanders that pose no threat to the United States.
All of them were killed by a weapon system lauded as precise and legal. But the abuses of the drone program are not simply limited to unintentional civilian casualties. In some cases, our drone policies have targeted militants and civilians alike, all for the sake of attaining higher body counts.
Often, in the moments following a drone strike, a number of first responders rush to the scene to assist the wounded. The last thing these responders expect is to become a target. Yet this is exactly what happens when, several minutes after the first strike, a second missile is fired to kill anyone drawn to the scene.
This technique, dubbed the "double tap" method, is a key aspect of the CIA's drone program. For years the technique, which makes no distinction between militants and civilians, was allowed to continue without public oversight. And, in all likelihood, it continues today. Evidence suggests that, despite a brief hiatus caused by public outrage, the CIA has continued to use this technique, targeting people simply due to their urge to help the wounded and dying.
Even civilians not directly targeted by drones suffer from their negative effects. Constantly terrorized by the sound of aircraft buzzing overhead, entire communities are forced to live with the fear that their homes could be the next one targeted by a missile. The results of such fears are profound. Children are kept home from school, community leaders avoid holding meetings and people avoid congregating in public, all out of fear that they will be the next ones in the drone's crosshairs.
Though our administration may be comfortable to wage its detached war of attrition and ignore the consequences, we won't be alone forever. Drone technology is becoming increasingly accessible, and in a matter of years it will likely be found in the arsenals of many major militaries. It is these nations that will be looking to international precedent to determine how drones can be used in the future. As of now, the precedent we have created is anything but ethical.
Our government must look to the future and understand the long-term implications that the drone program has created. If we continue to practice drone warfare haphazardly, with little regard for civilian life or international law, we can only assume that other nations will eventually follow our example. In order to prevent such a future, we must reform our drone practices to adhere to the ethical and legal standards of combat. Otherwise, when the dust of our wartime fervor settles, we may be faced with even more questions than when we began.
-Gordon is sophomore intern at the Prindle Institue for Ethics from Carmel, Ind.