Priscilla Tomaz
On the 7th of October Biden signed off a highly classified policy limiting counter-terrorism drone strikes, tightening rules that President Donald J. Trump had previously loosened.
The policy comes as a response to criticisms of civilian casualties because of drone strikes. Although such criticisms have pervaded the US administration for decades, the most recent military strike in Afghanistan, which killed ten civilians (seven of whom were children), heightened calls to limit the rules on drone strikes.
The new policy will mean the US will launch fewer drone strikes and lead raids away from non-conventional war zones. It largely follows Biden’s reprioritising the US’ presence abroad following new international challenges, including those involving cybersecurity, China, and the coronavirus pandemic.
The policy requires Biden’s approval before a strike is authorised. Under Donald J. Trump, the CIA and local operators could make the decision, hence delegating strike decisions.
Tactics that increase the risk to civilian populations can be minimised by limiting approval to targeting operations. These so-called ‘signature strikes’ kill based on perceived suspicious activity or behaviour, sometimes without the knowledge of the victim’s identity.
This new policy of “near certainty” that no civilians will be killed applies equally to all, independent of gender or age, according to a senior official.
When masculinity equals guilt
The ways in which targeting decisions are made have been a matter of much criticism to the US administration. Gender is also largely used to separate possible combatants from civilians.
The gendering of signature strikes was institutionalised under Obama. Under his policies, the killing of ‘military-aged men’ was authorised. In such cases, USA officials were unable to identify the target’s identity or if the target was part of terrorist organisations.
The policy gives the CIA authority to target individuals in Yemen and Pakistan; places where the US had not declared war. The ways in which people are targeted are based on place of residence, community socialisation and behaviours associated with combatants.
A senior official gave insider insight that under Obama, that there were assumptions made by officials surrounding possible terrorists. The C.I.A. saw “three guys doing jumping jacks” and the agency identified the three as a terrorist training camp.
Claims have been made about rules allowing targeted killings. They were said to be too vague and carried a high risk of killing innocent civilians. When Obama spoke out against such criticisms, he further emphasised the gendered separation between men and women as combats, respectively civilians.
“But what we have been very cautious about is making sure that we are not taking strikes in situations where, for example, we think there is the presence of women or children, or if it is in a normally populated area,” said Obama.
The term “military-aged male” is not mentioned in international law. This is used by the US military to designate someone who is guilty or a perceived combatant based on gender.
The attack on Abu Ali al-Harithi
Drone attacks where this gender separation has happened before. A predator drone operation to kill presumed terrorist Abu Ali al-Harithi took place in 2002.
Al-Harithi was accompanied by a group of men and women when departing in two Toyota SUVs. The group was separated into two cars dependent on gender. The male car was targeted and killed all present. The women were safe from being targeted. According to an unnamed U.S. official, “If the women hadn’t gotten into another car, we wouldn’t have fired”.
In conflict and counterinsurgency, gender is assumed to prescribe guilt or status. There was little evidence the men in the car were connected to terrorist activity.
Looking beyond gender
The gendered separation of combatant and civilian can be traced beyond drone strikes. In certain Afghanistan regions, all “fighting-age males,” aged between fifteen and seventy, may be required to undergo a compulsory biometric scan by U.S. soldiers.
This can cause civilian protests in many countries. Yet, the Afghan citizens had to follow US forces’ in order to maintain a level of freedom of movement within their communities.
“Solid, lawful policies are public,”
Biden is yet to confirm if the new policy will elicit considerable change to how gender is used to assign combatant or civilian status. The administration must show discretion about targeted killings and killer drone operations. However, for Mary Ellen O’Connell, an international law expert, the information currently available shows no significant improvement.
“Solid, lawful policies are public, ” says O’Connell.
The administration shows no signs of revealing the new policy’s details. A limited number of legal experts can put their hands on the policy.
Featured image courtesy of John Loo via Flickr. Image license found here. No changes were made to this image.
Priscilla Tomaz
I am a third-year student of Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary University of London.