Arguments Against Signature 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.

Since the events of 9/11, drone strikes have become a tool for the United States as it fights a global war against terrorist organizations. The advantages and disadvantages of this particular counterterrorism option continue to be debated. Instead of sending in warfighters to achieve specific objectives, many argue that unmanned combat aerial vehicles provide the U.S. military and government with low-risk and low-cost options as it engages in military operations in other regions of the world. Compared with manned fighter aircraft, some of these unmanned vehicles are able to fly longer without stopping, which affords the U.S. with better intelligence collection and targeting opportunities. Even if the aircraft were shot down, there is not

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

The fear of Soviet Russia has now long dissipated, however, the threat of decentralized terrorist groups now constantly looms on the horizon. Modern day terrorists aim to deliver ideological messages through inducing fear in the public. The platform of terrorism has evolved into technological, proxy attacks capable of causing critical damage to civilians and landscapes. The base case of aerial terrorism is 9/11, an incident in which terrorists hijacked a commercial aircraft to target the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The sheer terror induced by the 9/11 attacks resulted in the installment of more comprehensive air travel security procedures. However, newer aircrafts utilized by terrorists, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), present a threat operating on a larger scope than air travel security regulations. Through UAVs, terrorists can program guided explosives to target densely populated sites from remote locations. The threat of UAVs is augmented by the accessibility of low-cost drones available through the commercial market. Any technologically-minded terrorist can purchase mass quantities of drones at a low price, weaponize the device, and remotely direct the newly formed weapon through a computer. Furthermore, the operator of the UAV carrying out the act of terrorism incurs no risk to their livelihood,

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 has continuously advanced throughout the decades and we have seen advances in military weaponry, telecommunication, social networks, healthcare/medical, automobile engineering, and aerospace. In light of several technological advancements previously stated, the invention of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has evolved tremendously, and provided tactical advantages for both the military and law enforcement in numerous critical situations. The use of drones received both criticism and praise for what it is capable of. First and foremost, drones are not solely used as “killing machines”. A drone is a form of surveillance and dataveillance system, and is used for nonlethal purposes since the 1950s (Carpenter & Shaikhouni, 2011).

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

When determining whether or not drone attacks should be initiated, the attacks should be approved and have an legitimate reason for carrying out the attack. Everyday drones are used to pin-point "suspicious activity" as well as daily activities around many communities. According to the article half of the 170 strikes were classified as signature strikes. "...signature strikes against targets outside of named kill list, targeting individuals based on their pattern of life or suspicious behavior". Signature strikes should be reprimanded to have full approval when deciding whether or not someone might be a threat. The article states "The administration's first known Predator strike occurred Feb. 4,2002 in Afghanistan, when a CIA Predator drone

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.

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.

The main unknown and controversial discussion surrounding drone attacks is the ambiguity that coincides with who is made victim by these strikes. One of the main purposes of the military is distinguishing between combatants and innocent bystanders and as drone

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.

In order to combat the Terrorist organizations in Middle Eastern countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, American officials have employed numerous drone strikes on suspected terrorists. In order to determine the targets of such strikes, one of the main strategies used by U.S. has been the use of signature strikes. Signature strikes are drone strikes targeted at individuals or groups that exhibit what U.S. officials deem to fight the profiles or signatures of members of terrorist organizations. The issue with such an ambiguous method of selecting targets for drone strikes is that often it is not known who exactly will be killed, and, as Scott Shane points out, U.S. officials, “often do not know who they are killing, but are making

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