Drone Strikes & Just War: One of these things is not like the other

by Guest Columnist: Sarah Rosier

Thanks to Rand’s Stand, a critical look at the use of drones on American soil has been brought into focus. But what about drone use in general? I would like to think that even in the post-Bush era, Americans would still give some consideration to Saint Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologicae, in which he expands upon Augustine’s idea of a “Just War.” If we took a critical look at this theory, should drones have a place in any modern war or conflict?
Just War, as summed up by Aquinas, must meet three qualifications [side note: many readers of this blog may not agree with all three of these, but, these provide some semblance of a need to justify aggression]:
1. [War requires] “the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.”
2. “Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.”
3. “Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.”
It can be argued that all of the wars in recent memory will have a hard time meeting any of these three requirements. But, for now, let’s look specifically at the use of drones.
Aquinas points to a verse that can be applied to all three of these considerations:
Psalm 82:3-4 (“Come, give redress to the poor and the friendless, do right to the afflicted and the destitute; to you need and poverty look for deliverance, rescue them from the hand of the wickedness.”).
Now, at first glance, that may seem like a George W. Bush, or compassionate conservative / policemen of the world, reason to invade Iraq. However, when coupled with Augustine’s conception of a just cause, it makes it much more difficult to find an actual just war in the 20th century: “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”
Do drones attack the nation or state? Do they give redress to the poor or do right to the afflicted? In Pakistan alone, 15% of drone strike victims have been civilians since 2004. So, for these 15% of drone victims, how could we possibly argue that we were helping the poor and friendless?

For one, let us remember that we are not in a declared war with Pakistan, so, right off the bat, we fail the first tenant of just war– we have never been commanded into war with Pakistan.. Secondly, much of Pakistan, like Afghanistan, is a tribal community, meaning that they have whole cultures independent of any centralized system. How would attacking citizens damage the Pakistani nation or state? And, finally, what rightful intention as belligerents can we claim to have against the Pakistan government? I see it more from what Augustine described as the “unpacific and relentless spirit” which seems to have permeated the US government for decades now. What wrongs have been inflicted on us by Pakistani subjects? What has been seized from us unjustly? Nothing. And yet our drone strikes are killing Pakistani citizens.

Even if we were to engage in a conflict which met the above criteria for a just war, we would still have to answer the same question: do drones achieve the goal of rescuing people from the hand of the wicknedness? No. We become the hand of wickedness when we accept the collateral damage that is unavoidable with drone strikes.

Hey, Eric Holder, can I get a memo in response to this?

Sources:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-campaign-pakistan-idUSBRE8A70A020121108