President Obama’s Game of Drones

As chapter twelve of our textbook advances, the modern day presidency little reflects what the framers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution as the role has adapted and grown to changing times to include a wide-range of actions and responsibilities. With numerous roles such as the chief executive, chief of state, military leader, domestic policymaker, foreign policy leader, and head of their respective political party, the president has a great deal of influence over many aspects of the American government. This unique power was illustrated throughout Obama’s two terms as eight years and a total of 540 drone strikes, President Obama left the office of the presidency having enlarged and standardized the use of armed drones for both counterterrorism operations and close air support in non-battlefield settings.

Since 2001, drones have been used for the targeted killings of terror suspects in remote areas instead of having to send groups troops in, saving many lives in the process. Because Obama’s presidency relied heavily on drones in Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen, and served as an important cornerstone for American foreign policy. However, many critics have argued that Obama created a lethal bureaucracy in which drone strikes kill innocent lives and abuse the basic structure of human rights. Furthermore, some argue that the president has no legal rationale to conduct such operations and that the lack of regulations by federal agencies causes these strikes to become extrajudicial killings. Yet, data from a PEW Research poll conducted in 2013 shows that while 31% of Americans were “very” concerned with the legal aspects of Obama’s drone usage, 53% were “very” concerned about the loss of innocent lives. It is thus important to differentiate between the drones being morally wrong and illegal. While the use of drones does raise some moral dilemmas over its effects on innocent civilians, President Obama was legally justified to carry out all these operations because of his role and powers as President.

Article II of the Constitution confers power to the president by stating that “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” As chapter 12 of the textbook states, Article I, Section 8, grants the president the role of commander in chief of the United States armed forces while at the same time entrusting Congress with the ability to declare war. However, the way the Constitution is written is vital to understanding the commander in chief role because the articles create a bifurcation between waging an offensive war in which Congress must spearhead or a defensive war in which the president is the primary decision maker. Therefore, the president of the United States is in his/her full authority to use American forces to protect the United States in the face of a real or perceived threat.

Describing the drone campaign, Obama stated that it is “a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defence.” In addition, the Obama administration is further justified to use drones under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allows the use of United States Armed Forces to combat those responsible for the 9-11 attacks and “associated forces”. Giving the president power “to use all necessary and appropriate force”, AUMF serves as the domestic legal foundation for empowering Obama’s use of drone strikes. This parallels the concept of unitary executive made popular in the Bush administration that the office of the presidency has the power and authorization over the entire executive branch in total regard. The AUMF serves to legally intertwine this notion with a written foundation, enabling the president to use force despite protests from other governmental agencies or branches.

Drone Strikes under President Obama (Source: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism)

With an estimated 2,700 and 4,000 militants killed, Obama’s use of drones highlights an important aspect: they work. With senior leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban, al Shabaab, and other terrorist organizations now eliminated, the use of drones has greatly weakened these groups and their ability to conduct operations across the globe. In addition, without having to send in group troops on otherwise risky missions, the United States is saving not only American lives but also civilians who otherwise might get trapped in a brutal ground conflict. President Obama was in full constitutional authority to undertake these actions as he was defending the United States from terroristic threats under Article I, Section 8, the principle of unitary executive, and the AUMF.

Link to Drone Warfare Facts by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

Link to PEW Research Poll: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/obama-and-drone-strikes-support-but-questions-at-home-opposition-abroad/

5 Responses to "President Obama’s Game of Drones"

Katherine Fell says:

November 27, 2017 at 2:33 pm

You make very valid points defending Obama’s drone policy in the Middle East. One of the most important responsibilities of being Commander in Chief and the Presidency is ensuring the safety of the American population. Drone strikes in the fight against terrorism are integral to preventing death and suffering for Americans living both abroad and domestically, while limiting the participation of US soldiers in one of the most dangerous areas in the world. Our previous president faced criticism for abusing his executive powers overseas, however Obama’s most compelling arguments for the drone program was the importance of proportionality in America’s behaviors abroad. While the many drone strikes lead to a loss of civilian lives, sometimes even children, the consequences of allowing terrorist organizations to thrive due to less effective foreign policy measures from the United States would be unquestionably more deadly and destructive for the entire international community.
Proportionality also played an essential role in another defining moment in President Obama’s foreign policy: the killing of Osama bin Laden. The measures taken by the United States in this operation could have all potentially been damaging to the reputation of the United States and the President. The SEAL Team broke into a private residence to kill a non US citizen without a formal arrest. However, this response was proportional to the the terrorist attacks on 9/11 that led to much more innocent deaths and destruction. bin Laden’s death was hardly as controversial as the drone strikes because of the personal stake that millions of Americans felt against the head of Al-Qaeda, and many treated his defeat as a victory for Americans, as after the announcement of his death was made there were celebrations throughout the country. However, the death of Osama bin Laden would not have been possible without the same executive powers that allow for the President to carry out hundreds of drone strikes abroad.
Helen Spiller says:

November 27, 2017 at 7:38 pm

There is a lot of information backed up here with good evidence that certainly show your point of President Obama’s extreme usage of drones. It is certainly evident that president Obama used drones regularly to execute missions abroad. However, I think it is important to zero in that although it is legal for President Obama to execute the amount of drones that he did, I think it is significant to note if this should be legal and if these acts of killing should come down to the decisions of one man.
My opinion here is no. No president should have the sole ability to take these actions to implement mass murder among people. Just as you noted in your piece, the president does have legal powers however I believe this step is simply too strong a power for one man. While it is proven that these drones have killed horrible people; they have certainly killed innocent ones as well. In my opinion, it is absolutely crucial that any president has ample information before carrying out these attacks. Although war may seem “easier” nowadays without the trenches and muskets, it’s important to step back and remember that murder, killing, and war are never good. Ideally, we stop all this killing and take steps as a government together to prevent harmful drone attacks. It would be best if the president had a group that worked together to make decisions because of the modern world we live in today. Everything is automatic and fast meaning we need thought and expertise behind the button of more than just one man.
Diego Rayas says:

November 29, 2017 at 12:44 am

As the chapter explains, the size of the government has expanded exponentially since the country was created. With that expansion of size, so too is there an expansion in the amount of power that the president wields. As seen with President Obama, the ability to destroy entire villages could be made from the comfort of his own home. However, I completely agree with Helen when she states that the drone program may be too much power for one single person to be able to make full calls on. This can especially be seen in the case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, all of whom were American citizens that were killed in drone strikes done by the CIA and approved by President Obama. These cases, along with others, caused many civil liberties associations, such as the ACLU, in an uproar due to the strikes having “violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.” That was the major issue, the American citizens killed in these targeted drone strikes were never found guilty of any crime. They were never arrested, never received a trial, and never got the chance to defend themselves. In the cases mentioned above, President Obama acted as judge, jury, and executioner of citizens of the country whose Constitution he took an oath to uphold. While many can try to justify the right to use drone strikes on Americans accused of working for Al-Qaeda, it is a simple fact that they were never presented the right to defend themselves, and the President himself violated their 6th and potentially 8th Amendment rights. For people who believe that the government could become tyrannical in nature at any point, it is examples like this that fuel the flame of their beliefs.
Alexandra Friedman says:

November 29, 2017 at 8:48 pm

I think you make some really good points about the role of the presidency and what power he should have. In particular, I liked how you explained this point through the specific example of drone strikes. This was a good way to illustrate the confusing role of presidential power. The president is the person in the country we choose who believe is most qualified to represent our interests. Because of this system, our country needs to trust him. So, I think you are right in saying that the president does technically have the right to make these decisions. In the case of drone strikes, we need to instead focus on their morality in a case by case basis and when they should be allowed instead of who should be allowed to make the decisions.

In my mind, the scariness of drone strikes is how detached they are. They give us the power to engage and kill through the click of the button. There is no question that this is easier and safer than armed combat. But, it is clear that it also takes away some of the responsibility and in turn results in us killing people who should not be killed. When a country feels less guilt and responsibility for their actions, it can be a dangerous thing. I think the US needs to refine its strategy and have more restrictions on what qualifies a drone strike. In order to do this, we do need to make sure there are more barriers between the presidency and the strikes. This does not mean we have to doubt his judgment, instead we need to understand how busy the president is. He has to make these decisions along with countless others each day. He simply does not have the time to truly think through each strike as much as he should, and this is where the real danger lies.
Montgomery Thornburn says:

November 29, 2017 at 9:20 pm

This was a really interesting blog post backed up with a lot of good information. The chapter elaborates on how the modern presidency, as well as government as a whole has changed and evolved drastically since its inception in the 18th century. I think that the use of drone strikes in warfare is part of that evolution. In my International Relations class, we have talked a lot about how nations and their leaders are rational actors looking to promote their own survival. Presidents want to make progress in armed conflicts while minimizing casualties and drone warfare is a direct result of that want. Unfortunately, drones are not perfect but they are way more precise than carpet bombing tactics used throughout WWII as well as Napalm strikes used during the Vietnam War. Ideally, our armed forces would avoid civilian deaths entirely but civilian casualties are always going to be an unintended consequence of any war. Our “War on Terror” is by no means a traditional conflict and the increasing use of drones is a response to that. I recognize that the use of drones may seem effective as it decreases the need for U.S. troops to get directly involved in conflict but I think that it also is a way of dealing with the symptoms of terror rather than solving the issue as a whole. While killing one or two or even five members of a terror organization like Al Quaeda or ISIS may disrupt their operations slightly the deaths of a father or brother or child makes non-combatants more vulnerable to recruitment to the exact organizations the United States wishes to destroy. Before we even question legality and morality of drone warfare, we should question if it is the most effective way to approach terror.

Comments are closed.