Drones and the Separation Factor

Despite the arguments in favour of the use of drones, counter-arguments can be made to demonstrate that drone strikes do not comply with the principle of distinction as has been claimed. Brunstetter and Braun argue that although drones help in reducing collateral damage, there is the problem of “separation factor”.671 The authors do not define separation factor. However, from their discussion of the concept, it can be deduced that separation factor relates to the fact that the personnel who control drones and conduct airstrikes are far removed from the battlefield where the drones will be carrying out airstrikes.672 The learned authors argue that while separation factor “increase control over decisions that ought to reduce errors, the removal of drone operators from combat zone may have psychological effects that magnify the challenges of adhering to the principle of discrimination”.673 Since drone operators operate in a safe environment, where he/she receives the information and make assessments, his/her ability’s ability to assess threats may be affected.674 The authors give an example of a drone operator in Nevada controlling a drone that is providing cover to United States troops. If the operator “sees a video feed of an oncoming truck, the principle of distinction does not require the operator to fire at the vehicle or give an order to the person in the field to fire unless it represents a threat to the soldiers in the area”.675 While the lack of risk to the operator should lead him/her to be more cautious in assessing the danger, the authors argue that this is not the case.676 Major Matthew Morrison of the US Air Force states that “when you’re on the radio with a guy on the ground, and he is out of breath and you can hear the weapons fire in the background, you are every bit as engaged as if you were actually there”.677 The authors further argue that drone operators may be affected by the “same psychological stress as their comrades in the battlefield”.678 Since the lives of the people on the ground depend on the decision of the operator and the operator is of the view that there is a danger, which troops in the battlefield are facing, the operator may be induced into erring

671Ibid. 672Ibid. 673Ibid. 674Ibid. 675Ibid. 676Ibid.

677 Associated Press, “Predator Pilots Suffer War Stress,” August 8, 2008 www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots suffering-war-stress.html?cpl=1186032310810&wh=news (accessed 20 March 2016).

678Brunstetter and Braun 2011 Ethics & International Affairs 349. 120

on the side of protecting one’s troops thus striking the perceived danger without making thorough assessments.

The effect of the separation factor is that the psychological stress that drone operators suffer from will likely lead them to make mistakes resulting in drone strikes being directed on wrong targets. For example, it has been reported that 90 percent of the people that have been killed in drone strikes were not the intended targets.679 More so, cases of drone strikes targeting civilians going about their normal lives such as attending weddings, funerals or anything that involve gatherings have been frequent.680 Such incidents demonstrate the fact that drones as weapons are not always capable of distinguishing civilians from combatants as has been claimed. Instead, the absence of the operator in a battlefield where drone strikes are carried out appears to cause more collateral damage than previously thought thus violating the principle of distinction.

Another reason why the drone program may fail to comply with the principle of distinction is that the drone operator and those in charge of taking the decision whether to strike or not may not have an incentive to take all precautionary measures before striking their target. This is because in some instances, the party carrying out such attacks may not have its personnel in the battlefield.681 Brunstetter and Braun argue that the “the separation factor removes one of the biggest handicaps in carrying out aerial attacks that minimise civilian casualties which is the risk to one’s own soldiers”.682 When parties to the conflict use drones in areas where troops have not been deployed, there is no risk of mistakenly striking their own troops. More so, since drones are unmanned, there is no danger of any personnel being killed during the strikes as compared to manned warplanes.

679“Nearly 90 Percent O f People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target” The Buffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes us 5 6 1fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff (accessed 20 March 2016)

680“Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says” CNN September 26, 2012 http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/ (accessed 22 July 2016).

681Brunstetter and Braun 2011 Ethics & International Affairs 350. 682Ibid.

Bellamy concurs that since the USA has not deployed enough ground troops in the combat zone, it is not making every effort to avoid civilian casualties.683 This point can be illustrated through the example of United States of America’s pursuit of Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahari. Attempts to kill Zawahari have been carried out unsuccessfully since 2006 and until now, seventy-six children and twenty-nine civilian adults, have been killed.684 Furthermore, the USA’s attempt to kill Qari Hussain, deputy commander of the Taliban who was eventually killed in 2010 resulted in the death of 128 people who were not the intended targets.685 It is submitted that the USA could have taken more precaution in its drone strikes had its own personnel been involved in the battlefield where the strikes were carried out. The ability of drones to carry out strikes without own personnel being put on danger takes away the incentive to exercise precautionary measures from the drone operators. One can therefore conclude that the use of drones directly affects the requirement for belligerents to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Since there is no danger of accidentally bombing own personnel on the ground where the war is being fought, drone operators may be tempted to exercise less caution when carrying out air strikes, thus increasing the danger of targeting civilians.