A month after removing all troops from Iraq, the United States could still be considered quite involved in the ongoing conflicts taking place there. The State Department has recently placed unarmed drones in the country to ensure safety within the United States Embassy and its members. Officials have claimed that the goal of the drones is “to provide real-time surveillance of fixed installations, proposed movement routes and movement operations” (The New York Times). I feel it’s very relevant to question whether this action is not only necessary, but is it even justified? As expressed in the first paragraph of The New York Times, this is very close to infringing on the Iraqi’s political sovereignty, which is considered to be one of states’ universal rights according to Walzer. The drones are also infringing on Iraq’s territorial integrity, by invading the borders, which is another of a state’s assumed rights.
I feel torn on this specific subject. On one side, the United States should keep self-interest in mind and protect it’s own citizens. Walzer makes arguments that each state should look out for their own wellbeing and ensure the safety of their own people first. However, on the other hand, we must think of the rights that the Iraqi individuals are entitled to and the boundaries that the US is potentially crossing by continuing to “keep watch” in the country. United States officials assure that these drones are essentially harmless and that they have no possibility to be armed and are not planning an attack in any sense of the word. Regardless, they are still violating the political sovereignty and territorial integrity granted to the country, which is typically considered an act of aggression.
No comments:
Post a Comment