Arguments Against Drone Strikes

The US government has recently begun to send drones, silent flying machines, to counter the threat of terrorism in the Middle East, with the claim that these bombers will save lives. While some people may be swayed by these claims, stating that drones slowly weaken terrorist action, I argue that unmanned strategic bombing is inefficient, since first, they are only a bombardment, and will not be able to completely stop terrorism without invasion force, and also, their efficiency and accuracy rates are extremely low. If drones continue to be used limitlessly, instead of a defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda, the results will only be the destruction of the Middle Eastern land.

Much controversy surrounds the use of drone strikes to mitigate terrorism. Many believe it is effective in eradicating terrorists, however the aftermath of the situation is quite contradictory. Drone strikes “kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war,

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

Technology is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

The 9/11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000. According to the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Report on Terrorism 2015, 28,328 people around the world were victims of terrorists in that year. By killing terrorists with targeted drone strikes, the U.S. military disrupts and slows down terrorist organizations. In the War on Terror, it is difficult to determine how successful drone strikes have been. However, if we did nothing to fight or stop the terrorists they would be able to recruit, grow, and attack without fear. Despite potential downsides, drone strikes need to continue. It is impossible to estimate how many terrorist attacks have been stopped or how many lives have been saved due to successful drone attacks, but imagine the devastation of unrestrained terrorist

The US has conducted over four hundred drone strikes in Pakistan alone since. From these attacks, estimates state that between 700 and 900 civilians have died. This is almost one quarter of the total deaths from these strikes, and these people have died from no transgression. These people live in fear, earning small amounts of money, living small, innocent lives. However no life on our earth can be small enough to die for no good reason. Since 2004, there have been less than 50 recorded civilian deaths in the US that have been conducted by Islamic extremist groups, not just groups from Pakistan. These attacks do serve a purpose, however the cost of human life is too great. Those affected by drone attacks do not have the power to stop this. It’s down to me, it’s down to you and it’s down to us.

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

“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.

The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5).  In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel

Well, lets examine the operational model on the components of terrorism. First and foremost, using drones to kill military combatants is certainly an act of violence, this portion is relatively unambiguous. Next, do these drone strikes have political motivation? Of course they do, these strikes are carried out in the interest of the government and subsequently the American people, these aren’t acts that are performed just for the sake of doing so. Are these drone attacks carried out against innocent people? This is where the area becomes grey for most individuals. Some individuals may say, yes innocent people are involved in these drone attacks, although they are “casualties of war.” I don’t personally believe the United States military would intentionally target innocent civilians, whether the logic was politically motivated or not. Therefore, while these attacks may involve innocent bystanders, the attacks themselves are not specifically aimed at this group of

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

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.

(SIP-B): This devastating drone strike has roots in reality. There have been several incidences in which towns were destroyed and people were killed as a result of a drone strike. (STEWE-1): In 2012, American forces were trying to hit an al-Qaeda militant, Abd al-Raouf al-Dahab, in a drone strike. However, the man was nowhere nearby and the drone strike “hit a passenger van and killed 12 people returning from the market,” (“Rights Groups Decry US”). When their family members arrived, they found their “charred bodies in pieces on the roadside, dusted in flour and sugar that they were bringing home to their families,” (“Rights Groups Decry US”). (STEWE-2): In addition, the deaths of two hostages, one American and one Italian, as a result of drone strikes verify the type of drone strike that destroys Najmah’s village. “The deaths of Warren Weinstein, an American development expert, and Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian aid worker, were a disturbing reminder of the unintended consequences of an execution programme of questionable

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