Opinion | Biden offers smart rules of engagement for the drone war

These rules of engagement are included in a 15-page order that was issued last October but remained classified until a redacted version was released with little notice on a Friday night this summer, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the New York Times filed.

Mistakenly dropping bombs on noncombatants is abhorrent and counterproductive, and feeds anti-U.S. propaganda. Mr. Biden’s directive followed a horrifying August 2021 drone strike in Kabul that mistakenly killed 10 civilians amid a chaotic U.S. withdrawal. Yet collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable, particularly in a conflict in which the United States confronts a deadly enemy dispersed among civilian populations.

Transparency about drone policy assures U.S. citizens and allies that the country is employing this deadly technology with all due care. But it is also essential to avoid tying military and CIA operators’ hands too tightly as they pursue would-be terrorists. This grim balancing is not easy; the president appears to have gotten it mostly — but perhaps not totally — right.

After President Donald Trump delegated decision-making on such issues, Mr. Biden deserves credit for increasing presidential oversight. Ordering drone strikes outside normal combat operations should be a presidential concern. Presidents can consider each case in its proper context — the political, with reference to the nations involved, and the practical, with knowledge of the disposition of forces, people and buildings on the ground. Mr. Biden’s order creates a yearly process to review the government’s kill list to make sure the people on it still deserve to be there. The Biden team is also reportedly requiring State Department chiefs of mission to have input on drone strikes inside their assigned countries.

The Biden rules might go too far in places. U.S. forces should use high sensitivity in protecting noncombatants, but the “near certainty” standard could encourage terrorists to use civilians as human shields. It is hard to know just how substantial this restriction is, because the government’s definition of “near certainty” remains redacted in the released text of Mr. Biden’s order.

That leaves the public to rely on the assurances of administration officials who insist that, while their rules of engagement are rigorous, they won’t undermine national security because they include substantial flexibility. For example, the exception for protecting allied forces facing imminent danger has been used multiple times this year to launch drone strikes in Somalia against al-Shabab, an al-Qaeda affiliate. Yet key questions remain: What level of evidence is required to feel nearly certain that civilians aren’t in a building they’re about to bomb? Who decides and how?

For its part, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the rules “do not go far enough” to protect civilians and that they “further entrench unilateral assertions of presidential power.” The ACLU has at least one good point: Every president can rewrite the rules and keep the changes secret, at least until journalists or other parties compel public disclosure. Congress should be more involved in creating transparent guardrails to minimize wild swings in policy president-to-president, ensure that drone rules reflect the nation’s values and reduce the potential for them to become a confusing mishmash. For now, Mr. Biden appears to have crafted for the country a mostly sensible drone policy, if one that might require reevaluation as U.S. forces implement it.

Like any rapidly advancing technology of war, drone power deserves close scrutiny and rules tailored to its unique attributes. Drones are an inexpensive and low-footprint means of eliminating militants seeking to kill Americans. They have helped the United States strike at several generations of terrorist leaders and keep others on the run. Though the horrifying 2021 Kabul strike illustrated drones’ potential to maim the innocent, the approaching 22nd anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, should remind Americans of drones’ potential to protect and defend, too.