This article examines the strategic wisdom of the US Predator drone campaign in Pakistan, particularly in light of the dramatic expansion in the number of strikes that has occurred under the Obama administration. First, it examines whether there is a compelling rationale for any drone strikes in Pakistan by evaluating the justification advanced by US authorities and the three main criticisms that have been leveled against the campaign. With the help of an original database of drone strikes and their effects compiled by the authors of the article, it shows that the criticisms lack merit and that some strikes may be justified in principle. Second, it turns to the reasons explaining the dramatic increase in strikes over the past 2 years. On examination, it finds that the arguments supporting the expansion of the campaign are forceful but not necessarily decisive. In the third section it considers some objections to an expanded campaign. Finally, in the closing section, it weighs these considerations against the points favoring the expansion of the drone strikes. The article ends with the conclusion that on balance it would be prudent to shift back towards a more narrowly focused campaign concentrating on al‐Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and only leaders of the Pakistani Taliban.
Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin have recently argued for a revised principle of distinction under which states should prioritize the protection of their own soldiers over that of noncombatants in certain combat scenarios. The situations that they envision are those in which a state's army is forced to fight terrorists on terrain which is not under the state's effective control. Kasher dramatizes the argument that the soldiers' safety should be prioritized by setting up a hypothetical conversation between the state and a soldier who asks 'Why should my state prefer an enemy citizen over me?' Kasher challenges his readers to offer the soldier a morally compelling answer. This article responds to Kasher's challenge by presenting a dialogue in which a commander (representing the state) offers the soldier four arguments which together provide a convincing answer. The commander grounds his arguments in differences in the amount of choice exercised by soldiers and civilians, the divergent ways the operation can be expected to impact on them, the different obligations they each have to the state, and the likely consequences of emphasizing the safety of soldiers over civilians. The dialogue provides support for the 'double intention' reading of the principle of distinction championed by Michael Walzer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.