Since the 9/11 attacks, the US has been in a continuous state of war with certain states in the Middle East. This has been supported from a well-organized counterterrorism (CT) strategy that on the last years –especially after Obama became president- has had drones at its focus. Very few information is released from the security institutions, gaps of which are tried to be filled by the drops of information coming from whistleblowers such as Wikileaks or The Intercept. However, all the analyses of drone strikes are conducted on bases of three main elements: Legality, Morality and Effectiveness (LME). An immense amount of literature tries to explain why Obama’s beloved tool is neither legal nor moral or effective. Even why the drone strikes may not be moral it is very difficult to prove that they are illegal. In this case such oft-repeated discourses strengthen even more the social 'reality' that Obama administration has been trying to emphasize in the last years, legitimizing like this the drone warfare against terrorism in the Middle East.
In 2009, during his remarks at the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama stated that the instruments of war have an important role in preserving peace and as such sometimes states (collectively or individually) may find the use of force not only necessary but also moral. Placing this sentence in the current events, Obama claims that in order to fight an imminent threat i.e. terrorism, the use of force is necessary.
In a narrow sense, three main akin ‘security discourses’ have derived in the last decade and have overshadowed the discursive construction of the use of drone as a main counterterrorism strategy in the US politics. Realism, terrorism and geopolitics –each having their footholds on LME- are used to explain the drone strategy and its legality to the American citizens and the world. Most importantly, all the discourse is developed in bases of excluding the 'Other' which in this context is considered to be the contender of American values. Obama continuously stated that the threat by terrorists has diminished; however, it still persists. As such al-Qaeda and its affiliates remain an imminent threat that has no borders and does not abide any rules. While giving such a description of the 'Other', the US has created the image of itself as a strong state that should protect its own citizens from an imminent terrorist threat by upholding the American values at home and promoting them to the world. Moreover, this created image of itself is perceived to be antithetical to the acute personalization of al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Specifically, unless the fact that al-Qaeda does not abide any rules, the US will conduct a just war against terrorism abiding to the domestic and international laws. Considering this, -seen from the American perspective- all the terrorist actions confirm the American perception of terrorism and supports the social constructed reality regarding the divergences between them.
As stated above, the drone warfare is not analyzed through a political discourse. Instead, the discourse is mainly focused on three plank elements: legality, morality and effectiveness. The first speech was conducted by the legal advisor of the US Department of State Harold Koh, to be followed later by speeches of John Brennan (assistant to the President for the Homeland Security Counterterrorism), Jeh Johnson (General Counsel of the Department of Defense), Eric Holder (Attorney General) and Barack Obama himself. These experts on the field have replaced the political discourse with a specialized discourse, and have dragged the issue to a point where through the procedural discourse have been able to allege the legality, morality and effectiveness of drone warfare, making it somehow impossible to prove the contrary.
Realist Security Discourse
The first security discourse, realism, is constructed mainly on bases of the national interest. As Simon Dalby has argued this national interest is directly connected with the security, “understood in the sense of preventing a potential adversary invading one’s territorially understood space, which in turn relates to physical protection.” Obama in his speech in May 2013 argued that the terrorist believe that Islam is in conflict with the US and the West; and for this reason they conduct continuous attacks. Consequently in the National Security Strategy (2010 and 2015), while arguing how the US would lead the world, the main aim was the protection of the national interest and American citizens from any catastrophic attack on the US homeland. This emphasize on the protection of American citizens is more comprehensible while associated with the drone warfare discourse which legalized the use of drones on both domestic law (AUMF –which gave the President the right to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' in order to prevent any future terrorist attack) and international law (UN Charter preserves the right of self-defense against any threat to the national security). Considering always that al-Qaeda and its affiliates may undertake another attack on the US, keeping like this the fear among citizens alive, Obama administration has strongly argued that the use of drones is necessary to weaken their nemesis.
The War against Terrorism Discourse
The war on terror is the second security discourse which has triggered the drone warfare in the US. This discourse has created an image of a possible expansion of the terrorism and most importantly to a possibility that terrorist group i.e. al- Qaeda and its affiliates would possess and use Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Consequently, guarding against terrorist is argued to be the fundamental responsibility of homeland security. Creating the perception that terrorism threatens the American people due to an expansionist ideology and use of WMD, it also supports the realism discourses regarding the national security. Similarly, such a threat gives the US the right to argue that they will grow their investment in crucial capabilities like surveillance and reconnaissance, processes which are conducted from drones, even why it is not explicitly states in the National Security Strategy. Moreover, in case that the deterring of the ‘heinous deeds of terrorists’ is not feasible through capture –being this as a result of the danger posed to the American soldiers or the geographical conditions- the use of drones seems to be the only possible solution.
Geopolitical Discourse
Geopolitics adds an important dimension to the security discourses whereby the drone warfare is alleged to be legal, moral and effective. In this context, the US has created a spatial and human exclusion as the object 'Other' is defined in spatial terms located in the Middle East and North Africa. By creating an image of a region where weak government, widespread grievance, violent non-state actors, poverty, instability (elements these that mainly lead to the strengthening of terrorism) are present, the US is presented as the other side of the coin that can bring prosperity and stability is the region through its commendable values. Even why not in a direct way, this discourse has led to an analogy between Middle East and terrorism which is deeply entrenched in the Western perception of the Middle East. Despite a geographical separation –our territory/space and their territory/space, the discourse used by the US has led to a human exclusion –our citizens/American citizens and the others/terrorists and their affiliates. Therefore the war on terrors is directed against the individual itself rather than a state. In this way the drone targeted killings reasserts this exclusion, which is justified by the argument that the target killings save the life of many innocent people.
To conclude, through the politics of security discourse the US has constructed a social reality where terrorism is a threat for anyone and the use of drones is a necessity, legitimizing like this the use of drones without any geographical limitations. The US, by presenting terrorism as the dark side, has created the image of itself as an example of values and democracy that should be followed. Not only is terrorism the dark side, but terrorists posing an imminent threat to the American citizens as they abide no rules. However, the US, in some cases when the use of lethal force with drones as a tool is the only remaining option, has vowed to abide all the rules of international law and through specialized discourse has assured that not merely the drone strikes do not violate any international law, they are moral and effective in the sense that it saves the lives of American soldiers and citizens.
Legitimizing a Practice of Violence
It is important to state that this discourse instead of legitimizing a practice of peace is legitimizing a practice of violence by supporting drone strikes and such an action is triggering the violence even more. As Richard Jackson maintains “it is fundamental error to view 'terrorism' as primary a military threat which can be dealt through the use of force; 'terrorism' and violent insurgency is a political phenomenon that requires a political solution to resolve.” Therefore, instead of focusing on the legitimization of the ‘dronified’ warfare -which is backfiring on the US as more fighters are joining the terrorists organization- the US has to find a political solution for the quagmire that it has created especially after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
This article was published in Ortadoğu Analiz journal with the title of “Discourse of Drone Warfare: Legitimizing Drones as the Main Tool of Counterterrorism Strategy”
