In terror fight, ‘drones are not a silver bullet’
Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance this week came out in favour of modernizing Canada’s armed forces with drones, including ones capable of striking at enemies abroad. The unmanned vehicles have been used increasingly by the U.S. as a way of limiting military and civilian casualties.
But critics say that such a move needs a down-to-earth assessment.
“First you need an ethically defined foreign policy. Then you have to know what kind of interventions you expect that you can realistically make,” says Prof. Derek Gregory of the University of British Columbia, an expert in aerial warfare. “If you’re going to join the big boys, you have to know why.”
There are also doubts about the value of drones against terrorism. “All the evidence we’ve gathered is that they killed large numbers, and the remaining population is terrorized and traumatized,” says Kat Craig, legal director for the counterterrorism team at the London-based charity Reprieve.
“Drones are not a silver bullet.” Some factors for Ottawa to consider: Loss of control It’s unlikely Canada will decide on its own drone targets as Ottawa has always worked closely with NATO and the U.S. in “coalitions of the willing.” But taking the initiative from the U.S. in a program of deadly force could have unintended consequences.
For one thing, U.S. President Barack Obama, who has expanded the drone program, will be out of office soon. A new president, warn Jameel Jaffer and Brett Max Kaufman, of the ACLU, in the New York Times, “will inherit a sweeping power to use lethal force against suspected terrorists and militants, including Americans.” And, possibly, Canadians. It could also lead to wider “collateral damage” to civilians. Targeting If Canada adopts U.S.-designated targets it will be in murky territory. The CIA maintains a covert program that only came to light through leaks and freedom-of-information requests. But strikes are also carried out by the military under the similarly secretive Joint Special Operations Command. Nor is it clear who is being targeted — only terrorist kingpins, or fellow travellers? In Somalia this week, rank-and-file fighters from the terror group Al Shabab were also killed in larger numbers than ever before. If Canada goes it alone, it would have to sort out the same issues of who should be targeted and by what lines of command. Intelligence Drone targeting relies heavily on intelligence from the ground. In countries such as Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that means developing trusted sources of information whose reliability is difficult to test. Spotters may be subject to local pressures or executed if they are discovered. They may also be acting on information based on local resentments. Although satellite surveillance of suspects can be highly accurate, without deep knowledge of the region, it may be impossible for command and control personnel to be sure they are aiming only at “high-value” targets. Civilian casualties The debate between the ethics and effectiveness of aerial bombing from warplanes, versus drone strikes has taken off since the beginning of the drone program in the early 2000s. Obama chose drones as a way of limiting civilian casualties and sparing U.S. military personnel. But monitors of drone deaths have noted hun- dreds of dead civilians, although counts are notoriously difficult as the U.S. has classified drone casualties as militants. The numbers may or may not be clearer soon when the U.S. tables promised figures for those killed in strikes, including civilians. Blowback “Civilians have died, but in my firm opinion the death toll from terrorist attacks would have been much higher if we had not taken action,” said former CIA director Michael Hayden in the New York Times. But for people living under the threat of drones, witnesses say there’s more grief than gratitude. People arrested for foiled terrorist attacks have cited drone warfare as a motive. “In my overwhelming experience in countries where there is a secret drone war, there’s little benefit and a huge amount of destruction, despair and death,” says Craig of Reprieve. Recruiting and training Canada would need to hire “pilots,” who are likely to be young recruits familiar with the technical side of targeting and carrying out strikes, but unprepared for the stresses of a job that involves the life and death of strangers. In spite of their safe distance from the battlefield, pilots are under psychological pressure from isolation, secrecy, guilt and the boredom of long hours of surveillance. They will need psychological support and monitoring to prevent leaks of classified information. Liability and rule of law In the U.S., Obama has used constitutional responsibility to protect Americans from terrorism and the national right to self-defence as legal justifications. That still leaves vexed legal questions — such as the option to capture and try suspects instead of killing them without recourse to due process. It could also leave Ottawa open to prosecution, such as a case against CIA officials for wrongful civilian deaths in Pakistan in 2009. And it would make Canadian leaders responsible for individual life-and-death decisions. Cost Drone warfare is far from cheap, including repairs and maintenance. Experts say they’re more expensive than manned F-16 fighter jets to maintain, and take up to 170 personnel to keep one combat mission in the sky at a time. “You can’t just buy one,” says UBC’s Gregory. “Combat air patrol is four drones because they have a short range. They’re also susceptible to weather, even clouds. Confusing a military drone with a hobby drone is a mistake. This is big kit.”