TOW #5: "Drones and The Democracy Disconnect" (Written Rewrite of TOW #2)

As America transitions into a conflict with ISIS, drones begin to play an increasing role in America’s war strategy. This is exactly what Firmin DeBrabander, a professor of philosophy at the Maryland Intitute College of Art, explores in his NY Times article, Drones and the Democracy Disconnect. In his article, DebraBander uses quoting and comparison/contrast in order to encourage the limited use of drones in the upcoming conflict.

            Despite being a professor of philosophy, DeBrabander still needs to establish credibility with the American public. To do this, he uses quotes from qualified people in the field of political conflict. For example, when describing the issue surrounding the use of drones in a war, he quotes Machiavelli. He uses Machivelli’s quote that new technologies, “‘prevents men from employing and displaying their virtue as they used to do of old’” (DeBrabander par. 9). First, Machiavelli’s quote allows Debrabander to establish his credibility, since Machiavelli is a respected military strategist. Second, his quote shows new technologies prevent the display of courage and bravery on the battlefield, something that can be extrapolated to drones. In another part of his article, Debrabander describes the use of drones from the victim’s point of view. To do this, he uses a quote from George Monbiot, a writer known for his political pieces. He paraphrases Monbiot’s writing, stating that Monbiot called “…the United States’ drone strikes in Pakistan cowardly” (DeBrabander par. 6). This quote went further to show that Pakistani civilians were being affected, but the American people were removed from the brutality. This quote also establishes Debrabander’s credibility, since the quote was made by a respected political qriter, and it also convinces the audience that drone strikes are not a good idea in conflicts, due to civilian casualties and the removal of people’s emotions.

            Debrabander also uses rhetorical questions to solidify his case against drone strikes against ISIS in the upcoming conflict. For example, he asks these questions at the beginning of his article, when exloring the ethics surrounding the use of drones in conflict.He asks questions such as, "Are drones compatible with patriotism? ... Or do they, as I fear, represent - and exacerbate - a troubling, even obscene disconnect between the American people and the wars waged in our name?"(DeBrabander par. 5). Right from the start of his article, DeBrbander begins questioning the use of drone strikes against ISIS. These questions force the audience to think about his viewpoint as he explains the reasoning behind it. Towards the end of the passage, he asks similar questions, which reinforce his viewpoint and allow the audience to be convinced of it.

            Overall, DeBrabander makes a strong argument against drone strikes in the Middle East. He is able to encourage the limited use of drones because of his usage of quoting and rhetorical questions. His argument is very interesting, since it brings up a different viewpoint to the already common one: drones save lives. It is an interesting article, both because of the differing viewpoint and Debrabander’s skillful use of rhetoric.