Should Christians in American Support
President Obama’s Drone Policy in Pakistan?
Background and Introduction
In response to the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration launched a
series of targeted attacks against suspected Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan,
Yemen and, in June 2004, Pakistan. By
employing “predator drones”, the administration capitalized on technology that
had been existent since World War I, but prior to 2001, was primarily used for
surveillance. Virtually every target has
been a suspected terrorist or terrorist associate, however the death toll has
affected countless civilians throughout the region. Nek Muhammad, a Taliban commander, was the
first to be targeted in Pakistan, a region that has experienced the brunt of
United States drone attacks over the past twelve years.[1]
A
drone is an unmanned aircraft operated by remote control. While these drones have been utilized in a
number of locations, for several different purposes, the focus of this paper
will be to look at the use of predator drones in the aforementioned country of
Pakistan. Drones vary in size and
capability, but predator drones are primarily used to attack, “the enemy”, by exploding on site and
relaying a recorded video image via satellite, documenting the event and its
success or failure. These drones weigh
upwards of 1,300 pounds, and can remain at a height of twenty-six thousand feet
for nearly twenty-four hours at a time.
Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have utilized this
technology as a means of fighting terror with systematic precision, and their usage
in the Middle East has increased from 147 strikes as of 2002, to over 7,000
strikes recorded as of 2012.
Statistics
While
the intent of these drones is to target terrorists in the region, their usage
has not come without casualties.
According to an analysis of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004,
337 CIA strikes have been launched within the country. Although these strikes have killed anywhere
from 1,487 to 2,595 militants, civilians and even children have been caught in
the middle of these devastating attacks.
The analysis reports that somewhere between 188 and 315 “unknown”
persons have been killed, and somewhere between 257 and 310 civilians have also
lost their lives. Statistically, upwards
of 19% of drone strike killings are brought upon innocent civilians, although
this percentage has declined significantly since 2004.[2] Under the Bush administration, nearly 50
drone strikes occurred in Pakistan.
Since the inauguration of President Obama, these strikes have increased
by more than 5 times that number, with 292 strikes occurring in the first three
and a half years of President Obama’s first term. Perhaps the most troubling statistic of all
is the estimated 147 children that have been killed by these strikes since
2004.[3]
Of course these statistics only reflect the death toll, neglecting injury,
property, and emotional damage inflicted upon the people of Pakistan.
Just War Theory
According to the Just War Theory, seven criteria must be
met in order for war to be justifiable.
These include: Just Cause,
Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Probability of
Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality.[4] These criteria weigh the motivation, cost,
and perceived result of violent activity against the enemy. From a Christian perspective, the question
must be asked: Does the United State’s drone
policy constitute a just war?
In
an article written for, Christianity
Today, Paul F.M. Zahl
writes, “…it is wrong to conduct war when one side in
the fight does not see the mortal results.”[5] Dr. Zahl articulates that drone strikes are
unjust because they are a one-sided affair.
Considering Dr. Zahl’s position, it is difficult to even implement the Just War Theory, as a war requires two
participants. Nonetheless, this begs
questions concerning Just Cause and Last Resort. It is difficult to conclude that drone
strikes are a last resort, when the enemy is not only in a distant country, but
in a whole other hemisphere!
Looking
specifically at Comparative Justice, drone strikes become even more
problematic. According to this
criterion, a war is only justifiable if the injustice on the side of the
aggressor significantly outweighs the injustice committed against the recipient
of the attack. Considering the civilian
casualties and human damage, as well as property damage, of Pakistani people,
it is difficult to conclude that the injustice experienced by the United States
significantly outweighs the injustice she is creating. An article from the May 2010 edition of, The Christian Century, argues, “According
to just war principles, it is better to risk the lives of one’s own combatants
than the lives of enemy non-combatants.”[6]
However, perhaps some might suggest that the entire War on Terror should be the
basis out of which Comparative Justice should be evaluated. Broadening the scope would certainly
illustrate the tremendous cost American troops are willing to pay, but also
opens to further discussion as to the loss of civilian and non-combatant lives. In a June, 2007 essay, Dr. John Williams of
Durham University writes, “Insurgency in
Iraq and Afghanistan may have done something to restore the vulnerability of
Western troops, but even here the number of civilians being killed dwarfs the
number of troops.”[7]
Though the focus of this paper will continue to be on Pakistan, the argument
that the war is broader than the drone strike policy is valid, yet lacking in
that it fails to justify the loss of innocent lives, and remains questionable
under the criterion of Comparative Justice.
Considering the criteria
for just war, I confidently conclude that, though the drone strikes in Pakistan
may be beneficial to our country, they are not justifiable under the Just War Theory, and thus should be
opposed by Christians living within the United States. The drone strikes against Pakistan violate at
least three of the criteria under the Just
War Theory, and therefore must be opposed by those who adhered to the
theory. While is impossible to estimate
the potential victims of prevented terrorist strikes against the United States,
and this should not be ignored, it is difficult to defend policies that remove
all risk from the aggressor while levying heavy burdens upon the recipient, and
most importantly the innocent. While all
Americans do not adhere to the Just War
Theory, the theory is inline with Christian teaching and thus should be
held in high regard within Christian communities. If violated, Christians must seriously
consider the moral implications of remaining silent.
Moral Norms
In a 1983
letter, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops lays out a 339-article
reflection on war and peace in the midst of the nuclear arms race between the
United States and the Soviet Union.
While the circumstances were different in 1983 than they are today, many
of the principles of this letter apply directly to the current situation in
Pakistan, such as the attempt to remove risk to the aggressor through the use
of nuclear warfare. Considering this
overlap, it is important to note the priority of love in the bishops’ remarks. Article 49 reads,
Most characteristic of Jesus' actions are those in which he showed
his love. As he had commanded others, his love led him even to the giving of
his own life to effect redemption. Jesus' message and his actions were
dangerous ones in his time, and they led to his death - a cruel and viciously
inflicted death, a criminal's death (Gal. 3:13).[8]
At the foundation of the Christian faith is a
Savior exhibiting what Dr. Ellen Marshall terms, “unconditional love”. In her book, Faith That Transforms Politics,
Dr. Marshall writes, “I believe that Christians should engage politics with a
love that risks not being reciprocated, an unconditional love for all, a love
that makes no distinction between friend and enemy.”[9]
Though problematic to self-preservation at times, the priority of love is
consistent with Christian authorities ranging from Scripture, to Tradition, to
Catholic and Protestant leaders, to the example of the Founder Himself. For Christians discerning the moral
implications of President Obama’s drone policy, the moral norm of love must be
at the foundation of ethical discernment, and the innocent Pakistani people
must be considered through the lens of Christian love.
A
second moral norm that deserves the attention of Christians engaged in ethical
decision-making is that of responsibility. In conclusion to an essay entitled, The meaning of Responsibility, H.
Richard Niebuhr poses the question, “To whom or what am I responsible and in
what community of interaction am I myself?”[10]
In answering this question, the Christian must consider to entities to which he
or she is responsible: God and the
community. Jesus’ parable of the Good
Samaritan serves as a Biblical example of the appropriate response to both of
these entities. The parable reads, “Jesus replied, “A man was going
down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and
beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going
down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise
a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he
had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and
wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care
of him.”[11]
Additional instruction found in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis
suggests that humanity is responsible for the care of the earth and all that is
therein.[12]
According
to Niebuhr, human responsibility in response to God and the community is
inseparable. It is,” …to seek guidance
for our activity as we decide, choose, commit ourselves, and otherwise bear the
burden of our necessary human freedom.”[13]
We find ourselves responsible to God through God’s commandments in Scripture,
as well as responsible to the human community to which God has made us a
part. Like love, it is impossible to
practice responsibility without a response to both God and the community. This therefore begs the question, “Do we hold
ourselves responsible for our brothers and sister in Pakistan and, how do we
then exercise that responsibility?”
Turning
back to the Just War Theory, one can
easily recognize the inseparability of love and responsibility within the
criteria for just war. To practice
justice is therefore to incorporate love and responsibility in an effort to
exercise all three in the global community to which we belong. It is neither loving nor responsible to
sacrifice the lives of innocent Pakistani citizens while violating such tenants
as Just Cause, Last Resort, and Comparative Justice. Justice cannot exist without love and
responsibility, and these moral norms must be taken into account when
discerning the ethical response of Christians in America. That is to say that love and responsibility
are necessary components, without which justice can never be achieved.
Moral
Evaluation
After all
of the statistics, theories, and norms have been evaluated, an answer to our
moral question can be achieved and must then been implemented. With high rates of civilian casualties,
minimal risk, and the absence of moral norms such as love and responsibility,
President Obama’s drone policy in no way falls under the criteria for a just
war. It thereby must be opposed by
Christians in America, in an effort to minimize and eliminate the significant
damage being done in Pakistan. To affirm
an unjust action of war is to reject the moral obligations that the Christian
has voluntarily taken upon him or herself and is to authorize the exercise of
injustice on behalf of our own country.
Conclusion
In conclusion,
this paper has attempted to illustrate that President Obama’s drone policy does
not meet the criteria for just war, ultimately causes catastrophic damage to
innocent people, and thus must be opposed by Christians in America. From an ethical standpoint, Christians in
America have the obligation to oppose President Obama’s drone policy in
Pakistan, and this obligation must be the responsibility of all Christians, and
ecclesial leaders in particular. At the
same time, it is important to understand that the Just War Theory does not hold as much weight in some circles as it
does in others. Christians cannot expect
non-Christians to hold to every particular of a Christian theory of war, though
many of the tenants do reflect universal norms of ethics and morality. At the same time, the criteria for just war
under the Just War Theory seems
congruent with Scripture and Church teachings, and thus should be valued and
appropriated within Christian communities.
While Christians cannot expect all Americans to agree with this stance
on President Obama’s drone policy in Pakistan, they must nonetheless voice
their opposition to it, in the hopes that their voice may be heard and war may
cease.
While I stand by
the conclusions derived from my evaluation of U.S. drones strikes under the Just War Theory, there are two
misconceptions that could be discerned from this paper. I wish to avoid both. The first is that this paper in someway undermines
the work of the United States Armed Forces, and suggests that putting their
lives at risk is a preferable alternative to drone strikes. While I may not be in agreement with the
CIA’s approach or the Administration’s policy on drone strikes, I do recognize
that it is a preferable alternative to employing ground troops in these
endeavors. My suggestion is that, as a
last resort, drone strikes could be justified, but at this juncture there is no
imperative to issue such attacks.
We
live in a country that affords its citizens with freedoms and liberties absent
in many parts of the world, and for this we should all be grateful. Of course, as we all know, these freedoms and
liberties would be impossible without the sacrifice of our soldiers and military
personnel, and for that they deserve our utmost thanks and support. While this paper serves as a critique of
particular policies, it is in no way intended to critique the efforts of our
brave men and women of the Armed Forces.
A
second pitfall I would like to avoid is that of political party
affiliation. While the current
administration receives the majority of my critique, as we live in a country
governed by it, this is not a policy unique to President Obama or the Democrat
party. As mentioned, these strikes were
first implemented under Republican president George Bush, and my critique of
that administration’s approach would be the same. This paper is not written from the
perspective of a particular political party, but from that of a seminarian bound
to the tenants of the Just War Theory. Cheers!
Bibliography
Hoye, Monsignor Daniel F. The Challenge of Peace: God’s
Promise and Our Response. United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington D.C. 3 May 1983. Reading.
"Just War Theory”. [The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy]".
Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-
10. Retrieved
2010-03-16.
Marshall,
Ellen Ott. Christians in the Public Square.
Nashville, TN: Abbington Press,
2008.
Niebuhr,
Richard H. The Meaning of Responsibility.
“Remote-Control
Warfare”. The Christian Century. May
18, 2010.
Stanford Law and NYU Law. “Living Under Drones:
Death, Injury, and Trauma to
Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan.” September
2012. <http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf.
September 2012>.
"The Year of the Drone." http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones. 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2012.
Williams,
John. The Borders of a Just War. 2007.
SGIA Research Working Papers
Series
Zahl, Paul
F. M. “It’s an Unfair Fight”. Christianity
Today, August, 2011.
[1] Stanford Law and NYU
Law, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians
From US Drone Practices in Pakistan,” September 2012 http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf.
September 2012.
[3]
“Living Under Drones”
[5]Paul F. M. Zahl, “It’s an Unfair
Fight”, Christianity Today, August,
2011, 64.
[6]
“Remote-Control Warfare”, The Christian Century, 7. May 18, 2010, 7.
[7]
John Williams, The Borders of a Just War.
2007, SGIA Research Working Papers Series
[8] Monsignor Daniel F. Hoye, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our
Response, United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, Washington D.C. 3 May 1983.
[9]
Ellen Ott Marshall, Christians in the Public Square (Nashville,
TN: Abbington Press, 2008) 3.
[10]
Richard H. Niebuhr, The Meaning of Responsibility, 204.
[11]
Lk.10:37, ESV.
[12]
Gen. 1-2, ESV.
[13]
Niebuhr, 195.
