Why Do We Use Drones In Fighting Terrorism?

Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...

Drones already carry a negative, political connotation. The breaches in sovereignty are a major political issue for involved countries. Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are examples of the United States’ willingness to conduct military strikes without the consent of the governing body within the country. Furthermore, targeted killings are essentially a means for assassinations, which were prohibited under the Reagan administration. However, this fact is abated, as the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (US Citizen) demonstrated. Given all this information, would the usage of US drones in Iraq only perpetuate more violence, or bring stability to the region? This report will seek to answer this question. Utilizing an interview with an Associate Professor of Homeland Security at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), Professor Bonner, as a primary source of research, along with secondary sources from accredited cites, this report will explore the dynamics of the drone program as it pertains to the current situation in Iraq.

In President Obama’s speech on drone policy, given on May 23, 2013 in Washington D.C., he asserts, “dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield... Simply put, those [drone} strikes have saved lives.” Many American’s support this view. According to a July 18, 2013 Pew Research survey, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Drake). However, this belief that drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks around the world is widely contested. An opposing viewpoint is that these strikes create more terrorist than they kill. There is a common misperception that drones are precise, killing only the target and entourage. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed are civilians (Sing). People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone

The CQ Researcher article “Drone Warfare” discusses the usage of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles or, more popularly known as, “drones”. The primary focus of the article is to illustrate how the United States government is using the drones and discusses whether or not many of the drone attacks have been legal. Since the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency, has such influence over what goes on, they have been able to declare the drone strikes as “lawful acts of war and national self-defense in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” While some people accept this,whether they believe it as fact or simply accept it as a national defense claim, critics have said “the intelligence agency's

To develop the Department of Defense’s (DoD) position on the reevaluation of the operation and regulations regarding drone warfare. This paper addresses the importance of understanding the risks involved with drone strikes, to include the important violations of international law, the consequential casualties incurred during the strikes and the overall moral issues at hand.

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

In our country we see aircrafts in the sky every day and rarely fear an attack from above, however, for people in Middle Eastern countries this is not the case. In countries such as Somalia and Yemen they live in constant fear of dying from a bomb being dropped from above. Usually, Americans see themselves as heroes and view Middle Eastern groups as terrorists for these Middle Eastern people though, Americans are the terrorists. This essay will research the United States use of drone strikes in Middle Eastern countries, using scholarly articles to portray what a drone is, the types of drones the US uses, a history of their use, the legality of strikes on foreign soil, and their overall use in the war on terror in order to persuade readers that

“Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives." These are the words of President Obama as he spoke on the effective use of the United States drone program. Drone operations have been in effect since our nation was targeted by al Qaeda in 2001. In today’s society, our nation is threatened by foreign and domestic attacks by anti-American terrorists. The government’s use of drones have drastically reduced this threat by decimating terrorist cells abroad. Anything that threatens American

While drones have proven to be effective at killing many terrorists, questions remain about their relative effectiveness and legality.

Drone warfare is a relatively new approach military leaders are using to eliminate people who have been deemed “threats”. This new approach of warfare allows for the development of a new version of ethics. This approach develops the notion that allows for the throwing out of what is right and what is wrong, and dictates that cost is more important. By this it assumes that the killing of a potential terrorist is more important than the lives of the innocent. The consequentialist concept and the ethics of duty give two approaches of how ethics view this new approach of warfare. The similarities and difference promote a version of ethics that can be viewed as the more modern approach. The relations of these two concepts determine the overall

When the U.S. unexpectedly faced the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks which left thousands dead and millions dealing with dread and anxiety, the nation’s capital and the Bush administration decided to begin using the comparatively new technology of UAVs more frequently to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. These unmanned aerial vehicles (also known as combat drones) are weapons of war that transport bombs and missiles for precision strikes (“Drones: What are they and how do they work?”). But it wasn’t until President Obama took office that the usage of these drones turned over-excessive; the Obama administration has killed more individuals with UAVs than those civilians who have died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an approximate and confirmed number of 3,674 including innocent civilians (Zenko). Even though some of the drone strikes that the U.S. has carried out have been successful in eliminating high-profile terrorist suspects, there still

A man walks into a government facility, screams, “This is your fault!”, before aggressively shooting at them. Some effects of drones in warfare are the creation of terrorists, trauma, insecurity, and murder of innocent civilians. Drones have many uses, in warfare and common life, but almost always there are consequences, therefore, drones should not be used in warfare. By defining the necessity to understand the effects that make drones dangerous, by refuting counterarguments of the safetyness and importance of drones, and by presenting documented evidence, and expert opinions, the reader will be persuaded to be against the use of drones in warfare.

Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and

While President Bush issued a call to arm’s to defend ‘civilization’ against terrorism, Obama has waged his war on terror largely in the shadows. This covert war against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic networks is conducted using drone strikes, sophisticated surveillance, and special operations. This war has grown considerably in scope and size, as the United States has increased the number of drone strikes six-fold in Obama’s first term and now uses a CIA-run drone program outside active theatres

International law regulates the relationship between nation states in the world. Violation of international law makes the whole world hazardous as the violation of national law throws a nation into social anomalies. Drones are the weapon of 21st century, the century which is marked by the development of technology. It is thought-provoking and horrifying that the international law is being questioned by the drones attack throughout the world. It is said that the target of these Unnamed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is the terrorist, but media reports unveiled that most of the victims are civilians, and their abodes. The civilians cannot be butcher in the name of the war on terror. However, it is seen that drones attacks have threatened the norms of sovereignty of different independent countries; it is an important matter of concern. The legitimacy of drone strikes is also questioned. Many questions regarding the drone strikes are coming in, it has made a situation of dilemma, paradox and intricacies. Thus, the jurisprudential panorama needs to be revisited to overcome the legal loopholes from the perspective of legal realism. The paper will explore the implications and long term effects of drone attacks on the international law.