Chaplains and the legitimacy of drone warfare: experimental evidence from the US Army

Abstract How do military chaplains perceive the legitimacy of US drone strikes? Though chaplains are entrusted to shape the moral use of force, scholars have not studied what accounts for their perceptions of legitimate drone warfare, and whether these relate to legal-rational or moral considerations. To understand these dynamics, we field a survey experiment among a rare sample of US Army chaplains. We find that while chaplains’ perceptions of legally and morally legitimate strikes largely covary, they can also deviate. Chaplains discount the legality of strikes in undeclared theaters of operations, even when they are tightly constrained to minimize civilian casualties. Though chaplains may perceive strikes as legitimate, they can also support them less. Finally, other factors shape chaplains’ perceptions, with combat experiences exercising the greatest effect on perceptions of legal versus moral legitimacy. This first evidence for chaplains’ attitudes toward drone warfare has implications for policy, research, and military readiness.