Biden’s Drone Policy: an Explosive Blast from the Past

President Biden had signed a new drone policy, said to limit counter-terrorism drone strikes which take place outside of conventional war zones. This policy departs from the previously loosened status of the former President Trump’s approach to the War on Terror.


The policy codifies the limits that the admin put in place following his inauguration in January 2021. These limits, namely in the form of requiring the CIA and military to obtain White House permission to attack suspected terrorists where there is limited ground troops, have been implemented in the hope of reducing civilian risks. 

Overall, this new policy calls for fewer drone strikes and greater consideration for civilians caught in the crossfire. A seemingly hopeful departure from Trump’s “take out their families” approach.

Although a promising step forward, there are a few things to consider: 

  1. Following the aftermath of Trump’s counterterrorism policy, where there was a certain free for all and a sentiment of “lower the precautions and higher the increase the suspicions”, any policy which places even the slightest of restrictions on drones will be seen as a strict cutback and a step towards protecting civilians. To conclude; the bar was on low to begin with.

  2. This new policy is said to require “near certainty” that the target is a member of a terrorist organisation and “near certainty” that there are no civilians. Chapters could be written about these phrases, but let’s summarise: by whose standard is “near certainty” to be judged? America, through its past three presidents, has already demonstrated itself to have a somewhat flexible standard of “near certainty.” To use a classic phrase, it has (once again) named itself “jury, judge and executioner.” Are we to expect that Biden will change this significantly? Think back to the drone attack in 2021 which killed 10 civilians, including 7 children, in the centre of Kabul. If this is the standard of “near certainty”, then we should be concerned. 

  3. This policy does not require White House permission for attacks carried out in self defense, including self defense on collective partner forces. This loophole once again opens the umbrella term of ‘self defense’ used to justify so many strikes during the Obama presidency. This further demands the question of by whose standards and by whose authority? America’s or International law? 

There is no denying that Biden has tightened the rules once more, and this should be welcomed as a step away from the dangerous parameters of the Trump era. With that being said, the more you read into this policy, the more you find yourself looking a reflections of the Obama era – where unclear standards and considerable flexibility were veiled behind claims of ‘near certainty’ and ‘windows of opportunities’.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Question of Civilian Casualties

Image
The U.S withdrawal from Afghanistan was said to have been the end of America’s fight in the Middle East. As with many endings however, no matter how unclear or dramatic, there always comes a need for reflection and a moment to assess where those involved fell short. America's use of drones are no exception to this. Air Force technicians prepare a MQ-9 Reaper for flight When a state engages in drone warfare, it opens a family sized can of worms relating to problems of international law and waging a just war. Another problem to consider however, is the question of civilian casualties. Drones hold the allure of removing boots on the ground in the immediate moment; thereby creating a safer and more remote war. When you remove in-person involvement however, and wage your war from behind a screen, the ability to assess and accurately identify who is a threat is minimised. Pentagon documents , obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that drone strikes conducted in Afgh...
Read more

$5 million vs $5: Getting Your Money's Worth

Image
When you create a weapon so efficient and precise that it has been said to put “warheads on foreheads”, it can be expected that it might come back and bite you at some point.   This is exactly the position that America is finding itself in following the proliferation of the use of drones. What used to be an advantage on the side of America – a safer war from the confines of a base on American soil – has now fallen into the hands of insurgent groups.   In an attempt to combat this, the U.S has become to roll out a number of strategies across the multiple military branches in the form of training, tools and sensors to jam or prevent unmanned aerial vehicles. Col. David Morgan, Joint C-sUAS Office Division Chief of Requirements and Capabilities has identified it to be a “systems of systems approach… there is no one silver bullet that is going to address this.”   The introduction of this ‘system of systems’ aims to become a natural part of training so that any war fighter...
Read more