SYNDICATED COLUMN: Will the Next 9/11 Arrive via Drone?

Aggressive Drone Wars Set a Dangerous Precedent

There’s no denying it: we Americans, we have a lot of nerve.

We love to pick fights, but when someone punches back, man, the whining never stops. And boy, do we love to escalate. Nuclear weapons? We invented the suckers, used them not once but twice – the only country that ever has – the only anybody who ever has – yet we have the balls to slap economic sabotage on the Iranians and North Koreans and smear them as “rogue states” for even thinking about trying to get their own. Which these nations only want – irony alert – because they’re afraid of us.

You know the pattern. We escalate the arms race with some nifty new gadget devilishly designed to kill and maim more efficiently and effectively, then we deploy brute economic and military force (along with wildly hypocritical propaganda about how we’re nice and peaceful and the most trustworthy bunch around) to keep those fancy new weapons all to ourselves for as long as possible. Like cyber warfare. We started it.

The first major state-against-state – completely unprovoked – first strike in cyberspace was the Stuxnet virus unleashed against Iranian nuclear power facilities. A joint American-Israeli effort, it wasn’t enough for us to mess with the Iranians. We had to gloat.

Now it’s drones. Beginning in 2004 with George W. Bush, the drone warfare program against the peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia and God knows where else was greatly escalated by an Obama administration marketing itself as a regime ending two wars in public (though not really) while it secretly expands America’s military footprint.

And jokes about it.

Operating as usual in full-on bully mode, the U.S. blithely acts as though it’s entitled to the perpetual exclusive right to invade other nation’s sovereign airspace at will. Rather than assume the dignified posture of silence or the embarrassed sheep business of a kid who got caught in the cookie jar, Obama officials even had the gall to get all sassy and file a formal diplomatic protest after the Iranians shot at one of their spy Predators in November. In a different world, one where Iran had the world’s largest military and was the world’s undisputed number-one arms dealer, the Islamic Republic could have made a credible case under international law for war against the U.S.

In an ideal world – i.e., the kind of society people of goodwill work to create – these devices would be illegal under international law. Like landmines, drones do a lot more harm than good. You’d might as well declare the First Amendment dead and gone now that private corporations, the FBI, CIA, local police and just about anyone else can scan the crowds at antigovernment protests and identify demonstrators with facial recognition software. Who is going to dare to make a radical statement now? As it is, you can’t count on cops not to shoot unarmed African-American men. How many more innocent civilians are going to die due to the faulty judgment of a drone pilot miles away? As the first country to develop drone technology, the U.S. had the chance to keep this genie stuffed inside its bottle; instead, we let the monster loose and told it to run wild.

It doesn’t take a genius military strategist to worry about drone weapons proliferation. The technology is relatively simple and cheap, so cheap that soldiers occupying Afghanistan use throwaway six-pound mini-drones slightly larger than paper airplanes to see what’s around the next mountain.

The FAA is rushing to approve licenses to “tens of thousands of police, fire and other government agencies able to afford drones lighter than traditional aircraft and costing as little as $300,” reports The New York Times, including everything from “remote-controlled planes as big as jetliners to camera-toting hoverers called Nano Hummingbirds that weigh 19 grams.” Police departments from Seattle to Gadsden, Alabama have already bought these creepy devices. And it’s now possible for a private citizen to buy his own drone for $300. A peeping Tom’s dream!

It was only a matter of time – not much time – before other countries followed suit. Which prompts two questions.

What’s to stop a hostile nation-state from attacking the United States with drones?

What if terrorists get drones?

Answer to the first question first: Nothing can stop a nation from Hellfiring us. While there are practical and economic barriers to entry that reduce nuclear proliferation, even the poorest nations can develop a scary drone program. Israel and its American ally claim to be terrified of the prospect of an Iranian nuclear attack against Tel Aviv, but the threat of a conventional weapons attack via drone is really what should be keeping policymakers up at night. Iran unveiled its Shahed 129 drone plane, a device that can fly 24 hours in a row, in September. That’s the one they plan to export. In September an Iranian drone launched from Lebanon successfully took pictures of Israeli military facilities.

The trouble isn’t just the drones themselves. It’s how the United States uses them: aggressively, prolifically, violently and with little concern for legal or diplomatic niceties. “Skip the drone debate, just kill the terrorists before they kill us,” reads the headline of a FoxNews piece by Erick Erickson, one of the Right’s most reliable cretins. But it’s not that simple. When the United States, the first nation to develop and deploy drones for surveillance and military attack purposes, asserts the right to “defend” itself by looking anywhere it wants and blowing up anyone it feels like, including its own citizens and people who have never expressed the slightest desire to attack the United States, it sets a precedent.

“More than 50 nations have or are trying to get [drone] technology,” notes The Times. “The United States will set the standard for them all.” Osama bin Laden said he wouldn’t have hesitated to use a nuke against the U.S. because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets. Using the same reasoning as the Obama administration, why wouldn’t the government of Yemen be legally justified to deploy Yemeni drones over American airspace and use them to blow up any Americans or anyone else they felt like?

We don’t hold back. Why should anybody else?

While a nation-state might feel constrained by the international community, its allies or domestic public opinion from attacking civilian targets in the United States, an underground resistance organization would be far less likely to refrain from using drones to make a political statement and/or wage remote-control guerrilla warfare. Even terrorist groups care about PR – but, like bin Laden, they could easily make the case that we have it coming.

Though some commentators – mainly and interestingly, liberals aligned with the Obama administration, which makes one wonder if they’d change sides after a GOP electoral sweep – pooh-pooh the terrorist drone threat, this is one time when the smoke rising from the ashes of buildings in an American city isn’t a remote (no pun intended) possibility created by a fevered theorist but rather an absolute certainty. It isn’t a matter of if we’ll get hit by drones. It’s a matter of when.

(Ted Rall’s website is His book “After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan” will be released in November by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.)


3 thoughts on “SYNDICATED COLUMN: Will the Next 9/11 Arrive via Drone?

  1. Nations are NOT a threat. It is absolutely clear that the US can destroy most nations with no fear of reprisal. And MAD means that even nations that could retaliate for a drone strike within their borders would never dare. Anyone who thinks the US isn’t MAD is clearly mad.

    But Mr Rall is partly right: when organisations that are NOT nations get drones, they could use them against the US, knowing the US does not punish the guilty, but the convenient. Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt know they cannot attack Israel for the same reason, but Hamas and Hezbollah can and do.

    ‘Thrift, Mr Rall, thrift.’

    After 9/11, the guilty were deceased, but SOMEONE had to be punished, and Bush, Jr first chose a very convenient target, and then a target that put trillions in his own pockets and the pockets of his friends (the US didn’t steal the Iraqi oil, it just disrupted the supply, so those who held oil and oil futures profited obscenely, as they deserved for getting themselves into positions of power). Since all the money from the Iraq war was contractually obligated to Bush, Jr and Friends, Obama called it quits, but Afghanistan was not so well wrapped up, there are still a few bucks to be stolen, and so the war continues.

    And, obviously, there is profit in pommelling Libya, the Yemen, and Pakistan, and nothing anyone can do to stop the US from doing it.

  2. Well, let’s see, a couple of points here anyway…

    If a thing is physically/scientifically possible, then it will be done. Thank goodness it was us who unleashed the nukes and drones first, or else we would have been subjected to them by others.

    I am reminded of the the “you can’t handle the truth!” speech by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. Ted, we live in a world of walls, and those walls are guarded by men with guns. You are protected by men with guns right now and 24/7. (What is on the other end of a 911 call? Men with guns.)

    While I am militantly anti militant islam, I agree with you about our Iran and North Korea policies. Hypocritical, absurd, expensive. Let the Israelis worry about (and pay for dealing with) Iran, and let the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans worry about (and pay for dealing with) the North Koreans.

  3. Ted,

    The drones are simply the fancified version of Ye Olde suitcase bomb. Tim McVeigh improvised an explosive device that took out most of a building. He didn’t need rockets or any fancy devices. There is simply no way to make us safe. All the airport screening in the world won’t do it. All the machine-gun-toting cops on every corner won’t do it.

    What the drone represents — and what scares the hell out of me — is the sanitization of war. Soon, we’ll have cubicle farms from which just-above-minimum-wage employees will operate drones. On occasions, they’ll detonate those drones, killing people, on the orders of supervisors. And they’ll do it because performance reviews are coming up and the whiteboard shows that Team Blue is ahead this quarter, and the winning team gets a day off with pay, so come on, Team Green, let’s kill some brown savages!!!!

    War will be (at least for us) the equivalent of going to the supermarket to buy meat. You mean meat doesn’t grow on a tree in a little styrofoam package wrapped in plastic? Golly. Who knew? Why doesn’t the media ever show us videos of how it is for the cow at the last few minutes of its life? What’s that? They’ve asked politely and the slaughterhouses have declined? Oh. Well, that’s good enough for me. Time to read some more Ayn Rand.

    Once we turn the entire thing into an Xbox game, why would we even bother to feel anything about it? Why would we feel we need to stop drone war or ever even consider using anything else in the first place?