America's Drone War Analysis

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.

The “Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars” is a documentary that discusses more in depth what are the effects of drone strikes on the society, victims and their families. It shows a story of killing innocent children like Tariq and his younger cousin who were hit by a drone strike on their way to a soccer match. In Tariq’s case there was an

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

Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong? This familiar bumper sticker reflects a fundamental issue America faces as it strives to eliminate the terrorist threat around the world with the use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles or drones. The use of drones in the attack on terrorists has dramatically increased in the past decade and shows no sign of slowing down. Drones have long been used to spy on foreign lands, but it is only since 1995 that they have been outfitted with weapons and advanced sensors that make possible the targeted strikes we see today. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the resulting War on Terror, the use of drones for attack purposes has increased dramatically. They are designed and used to hunt down individuals or small groups and eliminate them without the need for sending in soldiers. Drone strikes are effective in efficiently eliminating terrorists without risk to American lives and therefore reduces terrorist activity around the world. However, there

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You hear a drone hovering in your backyard, invading your privacy, what do you do? Many choose the illegal path and decide to shoot or swat it down. With the rise in drone sales, more and more Americans are losing their privacy, and for this reason, the federal government needs to take action and regulate the purchase and flight of drones.

In the article “10 Ways to Fix the Drone War” by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, wrote that, “The president should publicly acknowledge all targeted killings outside traditional battlefields within a reasonable time period, identifying those targeted, laying out the legal factual basis for the decision to target, and identifying, to the best of available knowledge, death, property damage, and injury resulting from the strike(s)” (Brooks). In addition, the article stated above, Holenwinski and Lewis write about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s method of making his troops get a civilian mindset, they state that“[U.S]commanders drilled this mindset into their troops, understanding that civilian harm and anger crippled the mission. Better training and doctrine on avoiding civilians and responding properly to harm followed for all deploying forces….The isolation of drone pilots from this shift in mindset means that new pilots do not benefit” (Holenwinksi and Lewis). When the president has the information needed this will be given to the pilots who will be more aware of what the results of the strike will be. The pilots will be more cautious on how to execute the strike as they will be knowledgeable and have a civilian mindset. When they get a civilian mindset they will know that there are families they are killing. This connects to my definition of justice of how it will create limitations to drone strikes as it will take longer to coordinate an attack that will not kill civilians. The process of mapping out the attack will be checked on by congress thus limiting the

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

Drone Warfare; Summary and Overview This essay consists of a thorough analysis and overview on the book titled Drone Warfare by John Kaag and Sarah Kreps. Drone Warfare covers the political, juridical, and ethical aspects of remotely piloted aircrafts known as drones. The book touches on the political ramifications that the United States’ drone program causes and the general public’s opinion on drones. Drone Warfare also talks about the relationship between the drone program and international laws.

In 2002, the CIA used a predator drone to conduct the first targeted killing. The strike was meant for Osama bin Laden; instead, it wound up; killing numerous civilians that were gathering scrap metal at the time. At the time, the government skirted the issue, claiming that the other individuals killed would prove to be ‘interesting’ once their identities were revealed. They weren’t. However, drone strikes occur today with civilian casualties, and there’s little to no public outcry. The public has grown numb and complacent due to prolonged exposure to a type of warfare that most academics agree is illegal at best.

Zubair the son says that drones’ threaten everyone in his community. He says children refrain from playing outside because they fear of being mistakenly thought of as a militant and killed. He goes on to depict the day his grandmother died “I helped my grandmother in the field that day. I could see and hear the drone hovering overhead; I did not worry, because we are not enemies. When the drone fired the whole ground shook and black smoke rose up. We started to run, several minutes later the drone fired again.” Zubair was injured from the blast; shrapnel had tore through his leg. He had to be operated on and thankful was able to keep his leg. If Zubairs’ sister could say anything to President Obama she would say, “What happened to me and my family was wrong. I would ask him to find a peaceful end, to what is happening.” Zubairs is not the only child to suffer from this issue. There are thousands of families who are mistaken for terrorists and in return lose their lives for

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

“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” (Gerdau 1). 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. Anything that threatens American lives is undesirable; therefore, drone strikes against terrorists should continue to be utilized by the American government. In today’s society, our nation is threatened by foreign and domestic attacks from anti-American terrorist organizations. The government’s use of drones has drastically reduced this threat by decimating terrorist cells abroad.

Strikes conducted by remotely piloted aircraft may undermine counterterrorism efforts or enhance them depending on the nature of the violence, the precision with which it is applied, or the intentionality attributed to it. (Kalyvas, 2006; Downes, 2007; Kocher et al., 2011) . Existing research has studied the effects of coercive airpower, (Pape, 1996; Horowitz and Reiter, 2001) , targeted killings (Jaeger, 2009; Jordan, 2009; Johnston, 2012; Price, 2012) and civilian victimization (Kalyvas, 2006; Lyall, 2009; Condra and Shapiro, 2012), but social scientists have conducted little empirical analysis of the effects of drone strikes.

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