The preeminent Princeton Professor Robert P. George has written an uncharacteristically droning piece about drones. Writing in First Things, George takes issue with the increased use of predator drones in the prosecution of war. These airborne killers aren't "inherently immoral," he writes, "but the risks of death and other grave harms to noncombatants are substantial and certainly complicate the picture[.]"
Well, yes. Noncombatants always -- and should -- complicate warfare, especially when combatants aren't readily identifiable and blur the distinction between the two. Specific to this case, non-state actors like al Qaeda deliberately muddy the waters. We'll come back to that later.
Next, George argues that there are some cases where "considerations of justice to noncombatants" prohibit a drone attack, "even if that means that grave risks must be endured by our own forces[.]" Translation: proportionality, proportionality, proportionality. Yes, proportionality is a valid criterion of the just war tradition, but it does not supersede deliberations before war.
This is a common mistake just warriors make when working through the tradition, but it wasn't always this way. For centuries, those in rightly constituted authority asked jus ad bellum questions first, lending them a particular weight. The jus in bello criteria were therefore inevitably satisfied in light of the previous questions. A just prosecution of war couldn't be separated from the circumstances of how the ad bellum criteria were fulfilled.
A wholly misguided pastoral letter by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1983 reinterpreted this tradition. "The Challenge of Peace," authored by the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, begins the just war theory, "in every case with a presumption against war." This presumption, colored by a then-topical aversion to nuclear weapons, effectively placed in bello concerns ahead of ad bellum criteria.
Who would have thought that Robert George now finds himself in Cardinal Bernardin's company?
Also in First Things, papal biographer and just war theorist George Weigel argued that the Bishops -- and now, Professor George -- had inverted the tradition, such that "questions of proportionality and discrimination take theological precedence over what were traditionally assumed to be the prior war-decision." The correct "presumption," Weigel maintained, is the "moral judgment that rightly constituted public authority is under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom it has assumed responsibility."
And so, this moral obligation ought to weigh heavily on any attempt to answer in bello questions, especially proportionality.
Professor George concludes with a call for all Catholics to oppose "the wholesale and indiscriminate use of drones[.]" But, who actually favors "wholesale and indiscriminate" use of anything?
Let's give Professor George the benefit of the doubt. A glance at some other criticism of President Obama's increased use of predator drones revealed a nugget that the Professor may have been gnawing on. The New York Times reported that the White House has "embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties" where "all military-age males in a strike zone" are considered combatants "unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
To date, the White House has not confirmed this policy as true. If it were, at first read, it looks like some fuzzy math. Yet, in returning to distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, the kind of non-state actors subject to a drone attack don't make a distinction -- as evidenced by the September 11 attacks. What's more, jihadists don't clearly identify themselves as combatants and don't inhabit places traditionally considered to be military targets (densely populated residential areas and mosques, for instance).
This is not to say that noncombatants aren't mistakenly victims of drone attacks. Each innocent loss of life is a tragedy. But, in correctly understanding proportionality, consider the alternative: boots on the ground. George thinks we ought to endure this disproportionate risk. He is wrong.
In the end, no President wants any loss of life -- especially his own citizens' lives. A predator drone attack is one just exercise of that responsibility.
Read Full Article »