If a Drone Strike
Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet
But after a dozen or more deaths at a Yemeni
wedding, don't expect anything to change.
Edited by:
Kanwal Abidi –
Pakistan Correspondent
Source: Reuters
I was recollecting few
moments when I got married and remembered the stage set aside for the exchange
of vows – if that precious moment of mine or be it yours was lot with a one “drone”
on our marriage ceremonies, what good is the life we are living for?
Likewise – let us for a
moment try to get into the shoes of the pain suffered by the Yemeni family upon
whom drone was struck when the precious moment was about to be captured in the
camera.
We can shrug off our honeymoon
dreams – to get into the depth of the latest nightmarish consequence of
America's drone war: "A U.S. drone mistakenly targeted a wedding convoy in
Yemen's al-Baitha province after intelligence reports identified the vehicles
as carrying al Qaeda militants," CNN reported, citing government sources
in Yemen. "The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured
nine in critical condition. The vehicles were traveling near the town of Radda
when they were attacked."
Can you imagine the
wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that
would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you'd
feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?
The L.A. Times followed up on
the story and found slightly different casualty figures: "The death toll
reached 17 overnight, hospital officials in central Bayda province said Friday.
Five of those killed were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, but the
remainders were unconnected with the militancy, Yemeni security officials
said."
More than a dozen dead,
many more injured, and an unknown number of survivors whose lives have suddenly
taken a nightmarish turn the likes of which we cannot imagine, and all for the
sake of five people suspected of ties to al-Qaeda. How many
actual al-Qaeda terrorists would we have to kill with drones in Yemen to make
the benefits of our drone war there outweigh the costs of this single
catastrophic strike? If U.S. drone strikes put American wedding parties
similarly at risk would we tolerate our targeted-killing program for a single
day more? Our policy persists because we put little value on the lives of
foreign innocents. Even putting them through the most horrific scene imaginable
on their wedding day is but a blip on our media radar, easily eclipsed by a new
Beyonce album.
The Obama Administration
dishonestly talks of "surgical" drone strikes, as if surgeries ever
result in double digit casualties. "Before any strike is taken, there must
be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest
standard we can set," President Obama promised back in May. The CNN story
about this latest strike says, "The convoy consisted of 11 vehicles, and
the officials said that four of the vehicles were targeted in the
strikes." Is attempting to pick off alleged militants while in a wedding
convoy with innocents the highest standard we can set to avoid civilian deaths?
If so, the results speak for themselves.
In that same May speech, Obama
said:
Remember that the
terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of
terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone
strikes. So doing nothing is not an option. Where foreign governments
cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary
alternative to targeted lethal action would be the use of conventional military
options. As I’ve already said, even small special operations carry enormous
risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and
are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage.
And
invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies,
unleash a torrent of unintended consequences, are difficult to contain, result
in large numbers of civilian casualties and ultimately empower those who thrive
on violent conflict.
Does anyone believe that,
if not for our lethal drone program, the United States would've sent the Air
Force or ground troops to fire on this wedding party? The thousands of drone
strikes we've carried out in recent years suggest that drones decrease the cost
of lethal action so much that the U.S. takes it more often now than we would if
we didn't have a drone fleet at the ready—and not, as their defenders sometimes
argue, that drones are saving us from air strikes and ground invasions.
Finally, Obama says that
drone strikes are ordered only against targets who pose "a continuing,
imminent threat to Americans." Is anyone else skeptical that the targets
in this wedding convoy would be imminently attacking us right now if not for
those Hellfire missiles? (For more on how Obama uses the word imminent in a
misleading way see here.)
Even if you disagree with
the growing global opposition to America's targeted-killing program, and
believe that the frequent use of lethal drone strikes is necessary, reflect on
the U.S. reaction to killing more than a dozen people in this wedding convoy,
including many innocents. The moral course, if we must have a drone program
that puts civilians at risk, would be to apologize for any terrible mistakes
that we make, pay reparations to the wronged survivors, and explain what steps
will be taken to insure nothing like this will ever happen again. Instead,
according to CNN, "U.S. officials declined to comment on the report."
Special Thanks to:
-
International Correspondent
of The Atlantic
No comments:
Post a Comment