Predator Drones in Afghanistan: Deterrence and Just War Ethics

Introduction

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 (UAVs) such as the Predator drone is intended to minimize loss of life among military personnel. However, even as this tactic takes American soldiers out of harm's way, it blurs the lines between military and civilian targets on the ground. The result is pressure to scrutinize this approach to warfare within the context of a comprehensive research discussion, with a primary intent of examining this method of warfare through appropriate theoretical models.

Research Question and Hypothesis

The primary research question driving this discussion considers the Predator within the context of the War in Afghanistan and attempts to determine whether the Predator serves effectively enough as a deterrent for enemy combatants to justify the various ethical drawbacks that also surround its use. As such, the primary research question is: How has the use of the Predator in the war in Afghanistan supported a decrease in roadside 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 (IEDs). 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 only a practical way of intervening in the planting of roadside devices, but also as a means of imposing a psychological threat upon the enemy. The fear of being targeted by an unmanned vehicle from overhead might sufficiently prevent the enemy from risking the planting of such devices.

Theoretical Models

In order to answer the research question and evaluate the hypothesis, it is valuable to consider a number of applicable theoretical models. In many ways, the two theoretical models that best apply to the current research question are counter-intuitive to one another.

The first theory considered is Rational Deterrence Theory, one which the United States has actively pursued as a matter of declared policy since the end of Cold War hostilities. The U.S. has relied on the stockpiling of arms, various powerful international partnerships, and fast-advancing technological progress to this end. The Predator drone 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. 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 that might otherwise trigger roadside devices. Using drones to monitor these areas may deter the use of such devices by simply reducing the number of viable targets available to enemy forces.

By contrast, the theory of Just War must also be considered. This theory asserts that any tactic used in a military setting must be cognizant of the demands imposed by its principles. Where the use of the military drone is concerned, it is appropriate to acknowledge and adhere to the principles of just war — including fairness, precision, and proper usage. While deterrence theory, in its sometimes inevitable appeal to preemption, would seem largely contrary to the theory of just war, if deterrence is executed properly so as to minimize the need for actual engagement, it may in fact represent a substantial benefit in abiding by just war standards.

Conclusion

The tension between deterrence effectiveness and just war compliance remains central to evaluating U.S. drone policy in Afghanistan. Both theoretical models reveal important dimensions of the debate: Rational Deterrence Theory supports the strategic logic of drone deployment, while Just War Theory demands scrutiny of how that deployment is carried out and how its consequences — particularly civilian casualties — are measured and justified. Further empirical and qualitative research is needed to determine whether the Predator drone's deterrent value truly outweighs its ethical costs.

Works Cited

Bird, S.J. (2006). Research Ethics, Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics (12), 411–412.

Hahn, N.G. (2012). Time for a Just Drone Theory. Real Clear Politics.

Moore, W.H. (2001). Evaluating Theory in Political Science. [University].