A recent article in Defense News discussing the ways that drones have been incorporated into USAF training exercises caused me to consider the troubling expansion of U.S. defense policy that is reliant on remotely piloted aircraft. If the use of these devices in faraway south Asia is any guide to what the future may hold for their deployment, thinking defense analysts (or anyone concerned with U.S. foreign policy) should be asking particular questions of the defense establishment and the politicians who pay for and direct them. Here are a few for starters:
One must assume (or to borrow a somewhat hackneyed word, hope) that there are limits to the use of these devices, however there has really been little to no public discussion of the ways that they might be deployed in particular, specific circumstances going forward. It seems their deployment in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa has emerged over the last decade as a tactic in response to both budgetary and demand imperatives with little public discussion about the ways this has represented a fundamental break and a shift in how we, as a society, defend ourselves and make war on our perceived enemies. The consequences of this have been many. Whether there are geographic limits to their use likely depends on the whims and wills of present and future administrations - the technology has quickly become a Pandora's Box of ethical, legal, and political concerns that are weakly- or under-specified in public discourse.
- What are the limits for the use of these devices, ethically, tactically, and geographically?
- Are there particular geopolitical situations which might be considered "national security concerns" - either current, impending, or hypothetically likely - which have been or might be considered as possible theaters for their deployment?
- Where is the appropriate place for a public discussion of UAV/ drone policy in the United States, and why is this not an issue in the 2012 election cycle?
One must assume (or to borrow a somewhat hackneyed word, hope) that there are limits to the use of these devices, however there has really been little to no public discussion of the ways that they might be deployed in particular, specific circumstances going forward. It seems their deployment in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa has emerged over the last decade as a tactic in response to both budgetary and demand imperatives with little public discussion about the ways this has represented a fundamental break and a shift in how we, as a society, defend ourselves and make war on our perceived enemies. The consequences of this have been many. Whether there are geographic limits to their use likely depends on the whims and wills of present and future administrations - the technology has quickly become a Pandora's Box of ethical, legal, and political concerns that are weakly- or under-specified in public discourse.
There most certainly are contingencies in current DOD planning which would become candidates for UAV deployment and use, globally, and one must assume that these are under consideration. For instance, the current turmoil in Mexico and Central America, that occasionally has spilled into the southwestern U.S., most certainly qualifies as a concern for the national security establishment. UAV's are in use for border surveillance and as real-time intelligence for interdiction of illegal immigration and drug traffic. The recently-conducted USAF training exercise "Red Flag" is intended to simulate engagement with a "near-peer" adversary or, in Air Force jargon a "World War III scenario" - Iran is the most likely boogie-man, as the exercise included "search for Scud missile launchers". Whether Pakistan-style use of Predator drones in future worst-case scenarios has or will be considered should be a top question in this year's election season - as yet it has not.
There are numerous possible fora for public discussion of these contingencies before they happen. The most obvious would be one of several committees in Congress that deal with defense appropriation, strategic policy, border surveillance and security, and defense technology. Whether any political will exists, either in the executive or legislative branches, to undertake a discussion of what has been raised here is doubtful - we seem to be more easily distracted by cultural and social concerns in 2012 to consider whether our apparent love of robotic killing machines can or should be called into question.
