Closure of Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti

Source: Department of the Navy; CIA World Factbook. Image source: 

GeoEye via Google Earth. Printed in The Washington Post Sept. 24, 2013. 

Last month, Djibouti requested that a fleet of U.S. drones relocate from Camp Lemonnier following several crashes. Although we don't know the details, Washington and Djibouti seemed to have reached this agreement amicably. For the most part, Djibouti, officials have been satisfied with the arrangement ($37 million yearly rent), and from the standpoint of base politics, relocating now rather than after some catastrophic accident seems like the wiser option.

Drones and Bases

Back in 2008 when I was rewriting the conclusion to my book on anti-base protests, there was a lot of discussion about AFRICOM and the possibility of building new bases in sub-Sahara Africa. As the Post reports, this is now becoming reality with the expansion of drone technology. Meanwhile, drone use is likely to expand in the Middle East Here's a brief about UAE purchasing surveillance drones from the U.S. Will we see protests against U.S. bases in Africa soon?

Update (2/28/13)

• Niger base confirmed. Media reported last week that about 100 troops are now in Niger. 
• Also, a symposium on the drone debate

Drone Policy Scrutinized

The media and blogosphere are abuzz these days on drone policy as Obama nominee for CIA director John Brennan, a strong supporter of ongoing drone strikes, undergoes his hearing.  The Diane Rehm Show on NPR hosted an interesting conversation on the subject yesterday. A colleague of mine at CUA also wrote a piece on the ethics of drone strikes while reflecting on just war tradition (this became an issue b/c a leaked Justice Department memo used just war theory as part of its legal basis for drone strikes.

The Administration touts the drone program as a success based on the number of kills and the assumed reduction in insurgent attacks which would have taken innocent lives. The truth is, counterfactuals are difficult to measure, and it's difficult to verify the effectiveness of a program when its mostly run under the radar. At the same time, the very success of the drone program may be related to its clandestine nature.

Activists, reporters, and human rights groups have been arguing that drone strikes, or more accurately civilian casualties associated with drone strikes, are creating more enemies (Brennan disputes this argument).  More awareness = more backlash = more legal, diplomatic, and PR obstacles for the CIA and military to clear. While the intelligence community might believe that such obstacles would hinder the effectiveness of drones there might be some argument for claiming that it could improve the program in the long run by a) developing strategy, technology, and operational doctrine which aim to further reduce collateral damage; b) providing greater clarity on rules which may protect our interests as other actors begin to acquire drone capabilities; c) give drone attacks greater public legitimacy here and abroad - it remains high among the U.S. public, but may drop with more attention.

Now that the "cat's out of the bag" meaning increased scrutiny domestically by Congress and public,  and more countries will acquiring or expanding use of drone technology internationally, it will be interesting to see how drone surveillance/strikes and its legal framework unfolds. Will other countries build their legal basis for strikes based on precedence set by the U.S. actions? Imagine a scenario where Mexico kills suspected drug lords in Tijuana; China conducts surveillance on Tibetans; or Iran attacks suspected U.S. military facilities in Iraq.

Some other interesting tidbits I learned from this week's burst of news: U.S., Great Britain, and Israel are the only three countries with armed drones. China is probably next. Also, Pakistan, which in the past publicly condemned but privately condoned drone attacks may be shifting its position. To date, the U.S. has conducted more strikes (347) in Pakistan than any other place. Washington post has a nifty tracker for this data along with data for Yemen and Somalia, the two other countries where drone strikes have been a regular occurrence.

Update #1: Washington post reports Obama Administration still has not revealed how drone policy would become more transparent.  As Karen DeYoung argues, "The question now is how much more the administration can say without violating secrecy restrictions on its own covert actions [or I might add compromising the security of missions involving drones]".

Another Drone Base...This Time Niger

Drone bases are proliferating. Most surveillance drones are housed in East Africa (around the Horn of Africa) but the U.S. is now scoping  out places in West Africa. Here's another link on the story from the NY Times.

U.S. Drone Policy: Establishing a Legal Framework

Rep. Keith Ellison on drone policy in the Post. He writes, "The heart of the problem is that our technological capability has far surpassed our policy." He argues that the executive branch exercises too much authority over drone strikes with not enough Congressional oversight. Like many others, Ellison is calling for a stronger legal framework guiding who we target and when we decide to pursue strikes.

In the U.S. drone strikes are perceived as effective, winning wide public support as the graphic to the right suggests. Two social scientists have also examined the impact of drone strikes and find merit in the program (although the authors caution against an expanded campaign). Can strikes be equally as effective with the type of oversight Ellison recommends: independent judicial review over "kill lists"; collaborate with other countries in developing legal standards for strikes? Nevertheless, an international legal framework for such drone strikes will have to be implemented in the near future for self-interested (if not moral) reasons as other countries begin to acquire drone technology. Given the unpopularity of drone strikes in other parts of the world, the U.S. might incur reputation costs. More importantly, U.S. citizens will not want to to be on the other end of another countries' kill list.

Code Pink and Drone Wars in Pakistan

The Post ran an interesting story about the peace march organized by populist former cricket-star turned politician Imran Khan. Apparently Khan organized thousands of protestors to join him at a rally in South Waziristan to protest the drone campaign being waged against Islamist militants in the region. Joining this effort was a small contingent from the U.S. women's peace group, Codepink.  Now that takes balls (yes, the irony) to walk into a region known best for breeding insurgents.

(Un)fortunately, the Pakistan military prevented Khan and his entourage from entering South Waziristan because it couldn't guarantee security for the peace marchers. I'm not surprised that Pakistanis would organize a rally against drone strikes in their own country. And we shouldn't be surprised that Pakistanis might be joined by other transnational peace groups also committed to ending drone strikes which carry questionable legal and moral implications. In fact, the Drone Campaign Network has declared this week "Drones Week of Action."  But the willingness of U.S. peace groups to march into region which saw fierce fighting before Pakistani forces subdued the insurgency only a year or two ago gives us reason to pause.

I was curious to see what comments readers posted on the Washington Post article. As usual, you had both supporters (of Khan's movement) and haters chiming in. What is striking here is the different assumptions and conception readers have about peace and security. Here are a few comments.

I had reactions similar to the commenter below:

“You hit people with these drones and you create instant enemies,” said JoAnne Lingle, a silver-haired Mennonite from Indianapolis. “It’s supposed to be increasing our national security and it’s doing the opposite.”"

Gee, I hope Code Pink told the Taliban, al Qaeda and their Pakistan Army masters that when you hit people with suicide bombers and IEDs you also create instant enemies. This protest is ridiculous. For the terrorist gangs like the Taliban and al Qaeda, civilians are the primary target. For the U.S., enemy insurgents are the primary target. Drones allow much tighter targeting of the enemy and greatly reduced civilian casualties. 

 Here's a comment siding with Khan and Codepink in support of world peace:

By all standards the current war in Afghanistan is quite ugly and the allied forces are in a morass; they are stuck in a quagmire and they do not see any way out. In 11-years old war the allied forces from 44 countries have failed to defeat these militants who are wearing sandals, turbans, and wielding AK-47 Rifles. Many see the use of the drones as a frustration tool as it's kill ratio is: 2% terrorists as they are called, and 98% innocent women and children. DRONES FLY CHILDREN DIE! 

As the march was taking place my mind flashed back to that brave American girl Rachel Corrie who in 2004 stood between a marching Israeli bulldozer and a Palestinian house. This innocent, angel-like girl thought that the Israeli bulldozer will stop because after all she was from a friendly brotherly country USA, but the arrogant bulldozer did not stop and crushed her to death. Later, the Israelis dubbed her as "terrorist" because she was trying to save "an enemy's house" from demolition.  

The delegation of 32 Americans headed by Mary Ann Wright had a conscience, they traveled all along from USA to Islamabad using their own funds, to stand with Imran Khan against the drone strikes because they felt that the drones are counter-productive and as a result of that the USA is facing more resistance and hatred. I think these individuals are the true Americans, they love their country, they love Pakistan, and they love the humanity. They certainly won hearts and minds of the people. And, yes, the struggle between right and wrong, between the good and the bad, between the Satan and the righteous, will go on! People were even ready to throw stones at Jesus Christ! 

Imran Khan is the leader not only for Pakistan but for the world also. With people like him there will be peace in the world. 

Let's unite to wage peace in the world!

 And here's someone calling on readers to take part in a virtual march against the drone wars:

Join the virtual march against the US drone war

Hundreds of thousands of people in my country, Pakistan, are under siege from US drones: robot weapons that indiscriminately kill children, and terrorise families every day. This weekend I am leading a peace march against this secret war, and if all of you join me virtually, we could create a public storm to stop this torment.

America’s deadly drones campaign is illegal and counterproductive -- instead of beating terrorists it is driving more people to anti-American extremism. Families across the border region in Waziristan, the flash point of this war, live in constant fear of being targeted, under the deafening buzz of these remote-controlled planes 24 hours a day. Extraordinarily, the US denies any civilian deaths, but will not reveal the names of those killed, while independent reports tell of the trauma and killing of hundreds of civilians, many of them children.

This weekend, if you join me on the march, we have the chance to bring global attention to this war zone and show the United States that people across Pakistan and the world want an end to this robot war. Sign the petition now and tell everyone. We will announce all those marching virtually to the media, we will carry a flag from every country where people have signed, and when we reach 500,000 signatures I will demand a meeting with President Obama to present the petition:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Join_the_virtual_march_against_the_US_drone_war/?tponBdb

-----------
Update #1: So who makes up the coalition against drone strikes.  In the U.S., probably anti-war, civil liberties, and international law groups in the U.S. Internationally, you have peace groups, local indigenous populations, and anti-American elements.