Drones the Use of Predator

Drones

The Use of Predator Drones: Preliminary Research Engagement

Making war is a political and military process that challenges our assumptions about ethical orientation and the performance of justice. The United States' use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) such as the Predator drone are intended to minimize loss of life among military personnel. However, even as this tactic takes American soldiers out of harms way, it blurs the lines between military and civilian targets on the ground. The result is a pressure to scrutinize this approach to warfare within the context of a comprehensive research discussion with a primary intent being to examine this method of warfare through appropriate theoretical models.

Research Question:

The primary research question driving this discussion will consider the Predator within the context of the War in Afghanistan and will attempt to determine whether the Predator serves effectively enough as a deterrent for enemy combatants to justify the various ethical drawbacks that also revolve on their use. As such, the primary research question asks the following: How has the use of the Predator in the war in Afghanistan supported a decrease in road-side bombings?

The primary hypothesis driving the development of this research question is that the use of the drone in specific militarized zones is a visible and imposing deterrent for enemy combatants engaged in the act of planting improvised explosive devices. The use of these low-budget land mines in various locations throughout Afghanistan has been responsible for an indiscriminate loss of military and civilian life. As such, the use of unmanned and weaponized devices for monitoring at-risk areas is seen as not just a practical way of intervening with the planting of roadside devices but also as a way of imposing a psychological threat upon the enemy. Here, the fear of being annihilated but an unmanned vehicle from overhead might sufficiently prevent the enemy from risking the planting of said devices.

Theoretical Models:

In order to answer the research question and prove the hypothesis asserted thereafter, it is valuable to consider a number of applicable theoretical models to the subject matter. In many ways, the two theoretical models which best apply to the current research question are counter-intuitive to one another. The first theory we consider is the Rational Deterrence Theory, one which the United States has actively pursued by a matter of declared policy since the end of Cold War hostilities. Here, the U.S. has relied on the stockpiling of arms, various powerful international partnerships and fast-advancing technological progress. The Predator is a perfect example of the latter and echoes the policy of Deterrence by employing strategies of limited warfare and minimized military casualties as a way to discourage certain enemy activities. Certainly, for the enemy combatant, there is a distinctly disenchanting sense of futility when the United States is able to minimize the boots on the ground which might trigger roadside devices. Using drones to monitor these areas might deter the use of such roadside devices by simply minimizing the number of targets available to them.

By contrast, we must also consider the theory of Just War, which asserts that any tactic used in the military setting must be cognizant of the demands imposed by this model. Where the use of the military drone is concerned, it is appropriate to make appropriate efforts to acknowledge and adhere to the principles of just war. In this context, the use of the Predator must be tempered by efforts to assure its fairness, its precision and its proper usage. Indeed, while the deterrence theory -- in its sometimes inevitable appeal to preemption -- would seem largely contrary to the theory of just war. However, if deterrence is executed properly so as to minimize the need for engagement, it may actually be a substantial benefit in abiding the standards for just war.

Research Approach:

With respect to actually engaging the subject on a research level, the hypothesis could be evaluated using either a quantitative or a qualitative method. As to the former, it would perhaps be most sensible to gather data on the use of roadside devices in Afghanistan in regions where drone flyovers are commonplace vs. their use in regions where drone flyovers are not as consistent. Such research would require cooperation and the sharing of information on the part of the U.S. military.

By contrast, a qualitative approach might evaluate the conceptual implications of the use of Predator drones as they adhere or contract the standards of either of the selected research models above. For instance, a useful qualitative investigation might outline the key parameters of Just War and, consequently, survey military personnel and foreign policy experts on how the use of the Predator drone does or does not abide these parameters.