FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Lament of the Drones

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

Frogs in the marsh mud drone their old laments.

— Vergil, Georgics

It is wonderful how a new weapon can rejuvenate a word that has long been something of a dullard.  The reinvigorated word is “drone.”

In days of yore among its more accustomed uses was to refer to a deep humming sound or monotonous speech.  It has now been promoted to one of the most discussed pieces of armament in the modern arsenal.  And a wonderful addition it is.  Its importance was highlighted by Senator Rand Paul (R. Ky.) who, in a refreshing moment of historical significance, engaged in a filibuster of the old fashioned variety.  Instead of saying he was filibustering, he actually filibustered and in so doing brought badly needed attention to the use of drones in modern warfare.

One of the drone’s problems (although this was not addressed by the Senator) is that like the bastard child, it is not always clear to whom it belongs and that may eventually lead to awkward international moments.  The sorts of moments to which I refer were most recently on display following drone strikes that took place in Pakistan in early February. On March 4 a New York Times headline read:  “U.S. Disavows 2 Drone Strikes Over Pakistan.” March 5 the headline was:  “Pakistan Rejects U.S. Disavowal of Drone Strikes.”  Pakistan did not want to take credit for these strikes even though, apparently successful, they killed two senior commanders of Al Qaeda together with seven other people who may have simply been incidental beneficiaries of the strike.

Senior Pakistani officials gave all the credit for the strikes to the United States but in an unusual display of military modesty, the United States declined to take credit.  A spokesman for the United States who spoke anonymously (because the drone program is secret and anonymous speech keeps it secret) insisted on giving all the credit to Pakistan.  The official said:  “We haven’t had any kinetic activity since January.”  (Those words are not meant to suggest that the military is moribund although it is not altogether clear what they do mean.) The Pakistanis were not pleased at being given credit for the strikes. That is because Pakistanis (whom we have favored with 330 drone attacks in the last five years) do not like manna from heaven when delivered by drones.

The United States did not want to take credit for the drone strikes even if it deserves the credit since it is not at war with Pakistan and there is little justification for going around using drones in countries with which it is not at war just because there are people in that country whom we consider enemy combatants whom we hope to kill employing drones.

The Pakistanis said the United States’ modesty about the successful strikes was “a distortion of the facts” and suggested the purpose was to dilute “Pakistan’s stance on drone strikes.”  That stance is officially one of not being appreciative of drone strikes by the U.S., believing that these strikes infringe on their sovereignty and are a violation of human rights.  (There is apparently a way that the United States can launch drone strikes in a country with which it is not at war without violating that country’s sovereignty.  In a discussion of drones that was reported in the New York Times we are informed that lawyers analyzing the legality of drone strikes in friendly countries explained that Yemen has “granted permission for Drone strikes on its soil as long as the United States [does] not acknowledge its role, so such strikes would not violate Yemeni sovereignty.”  Go figure.)

Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster pertained not to the use of drones in foreign countries but in the United States.  Its purpose was to obtain assurance from the administration that it would not use drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil even if it considered them enemy combatants.  In the manner of a dentist dealing with a stubborn tooth, he was finally able to extract such an assurance from the attorney general of the United States.

Not everyone is as concerned with drones as Senator Paul.  An editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal observed that the use of drones is limited to “the remotest areas of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen” (with neither of which countries are we at war) and went on to conclude that a U.S. citizen designated an enemy combatant could be targeted if found in the United States, presumably, although not articulated in the editorial, by a drone strike.   The writer suggests that if U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, an acknowledged terrorist, killed by a drone strike in Yemen had been living in Virginia, he could have been targeted there.   The writer pointed out that that’s what happened to the Nazis who landed on Long Island during the Second World War.  They were, said the writer, captured and executed.  One minor fact was left out of the editorial.  The Nazis were tried before they were executed.  The Journal obviously considers that a minor fact and its omission from the editorial is of no moment.

It is nice to know that we won’t use drone strikes on American soil.  Perhaps some day we won’t fly drones over countries with which we are not at war.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney based in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail