Villagers comb through the rubble left after a
US drone strike in Pakistan killed 18 people,
including 10 women and children - but no
Al Qaeda or Taliban fighters.
|
Do
American drone attacks on family compounds within Afghanistan and Pakistan,
believed to be occupied by members of the Taliban violate Article 25? A focus on this question ignores some other key issues raised by the Drone War, including the
legality of strikes executed by civilian employees of the US government (ie,
the CIA) on US citizens and non-citizens, and whether an on-going air campaign where 1/3 of the casualties are civilian can be considered discriminate and
proportional, but one has to begin somewhere.
So let’s start by considering the nature of the targets. In his book TALIBAN: Islam, Oil
and the New Great Game in Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid describes exactly what US
Hellfire missiles slam into on a regular basis - “mud-brick homes plastered
with more mud and straw… built behind high compound walls.”
It
is difficult to imagine how such a building, located in a village full of
civilians could be construed as being defended, especially against an unmanned
aircraft flying 25,000 feet overhead. Adequate defense against such an attacker would have to consist of air-defense artillery or missiles with a sophisticated tracking system to locate and engage the small, quiet drones.
Let's consider a couple of justifications that might possibly be made for what appears, on the surface, to be an egregious violation of the Laws of Land Warfare. First, someone might claim that the building wasn't the target - it was only a particular person or persons inside the building who were the targets, and the nature of the structure they were occupying was immaterial. But using that logic, such persons could be legitimately targeted anywhere, including schools, mosques, hospitals, and any other building.
It’s also possible someone could claim that
just because there were people in the house who possessed guns, the
building was “defended.” Such an argument rings hollow on several counts.
First, inhabitants of Pakistan’s tribal areas are allowed to have weapons,
precisely for the defense of their persons and property. Second, simply because
the occupant of a building has a weapon, it doesn’t mean they will use it
defensively. If approached by military or police forces they may choose to run
away, to surrender, or to fight. Only in the latter case would the building
become a “defended” position and thus merit bombardment.
So,
it appears that in those cases where ground forces have approached a compound
and been engaged by defensive fire from within, aerial bombardment (by drones
or manned aircraft) would certainly be appropriate and legal. However, where no
such evidence exists that a compound is defended exists, any bombardment,
including drone strikes, would be a war crime and should be prosecuted as such.