During the third presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Romney, the two were asked about drones. Both candidates, shockingly, agreed and supported the use of unmanned combat vehicles to “fight terrorism.”

Apparently these politicians, and others who continue to support the use of drones, haven’t read their history.

Since the drone program under President Obama, it has nearly doubled in size and there have been over 300 drone strikes in six countries, killing over 2,000 “suspected terrorists.” The administration and military has admitted that occasionally, this means some civilian deaths.

Our not-so-distant past provides a comparable example.

During the Vietnam War, bombing preceded the ground troops in order to avoid U.S. deaths and costly logistics. The bombing of Northern Vietnam was aimed at “suspected communists,” hitting communities associated with Viet Cong forces.

Reexamining former decisions with a lens of 20-20 hindsight, it’s clear that much the bombing of “suspected communists” killed unsuspecting civilians. And historical accounts of Vietnamese civilians tells us that random bombing by the United States to “protect” Vietnamese against communists were more feared than the Viet Cong themselves.

The similarities between the current drone program and Vietnam bombing are unsettling. The objectives are the same. Attack the “enemy-infested” area with a show of military might to either intimidate or kill.

And, like the word “communist,” applying the word “terrorist” to the enemy incites fear, and is used to justify possible civilian deaths by assumed “terrorist” association. Because the attacks are based on location, civilians are put in harms way for the death of a few known terrorists.

The use of drones in place of ground forces prevents any risk of U.S. forces or casualties. While this is a positive, no doubt, it was also the reason the bombing of the Vietnam countryside was ordered (despite the fact troops were eventually sent in).

There are notable differences between the bombs dropped under Lyndon B. Johnson and those dropped under Obama. Technology has changed, and arguably improved. Pilots are able to operate the aircraft from miles away, sometimes even over the ocean, and the attacks are more specific. Also, drones now are used for surveillance, not just combat.

But while drones in areas like Afghanistan and Pakistan are killing thousands of potential enemies, they are creating many more. Civilians are living under skies that have flying robots observing and attacking. How do you think the people of these areas feel towards the country manning these aircrafts? Aggressive American presence should be very limited and well justified. Drones are neither.

And from a humanitarian standpoint, how do we know the “2,000 suspected terrorists” are really all terrorist? These vague numbers go unchecked, and because of the secrecy of the program, the little that we do know lacks credibility.

Drones have another argument against them: their cost and necessity. As we near the edge of the dreaded fiscal cliff, conversations are being made about areas of the government we need to cut back on. Our representatives, president and fellow constituents need to be honest about military spending, and seriously consider cutting back on programs like drone operation. Leaders like Republican Congressman Rand Paul are forcing questions about our unnecessary spending and the freedom we give the military when it comes to price tag requests. We need to listen.

Governor Romney had an opportunity to raise an argument against Obama’s extensive use of drones. But, unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats are nervous about limiting funds to the military. Yet at the same time, both candidates emphasized the need for “domestic” improvement. Drones not only strain our overextended budget, but harm American citizens by encouraging animosity towards us from the rest of the world. For something created for American protection, it seems to be doing the exact opposite.

We should learn from our previous mistakes, especially when it comes to foreign relations. In a world where U.S. enemies are becoming stronger, we must make smart decisions for not only ourselves, but also the rest of the globe.

Bombing in Vietnam only intensified our relationship, not to mention caused countless civilian deaths. The disregard for death count for the sake of “fighting communist” has become one of the darkest blots on our history. Yet, while is easy to look back and criticize, it is even easier to make the same mistakes again.

^

SoRelle Wyckoff is the Opinions Editor of The Crimson White. Her column runs on Mondays.