Article Review : Why Drones Fail, And Jordan 's Article, When Heads Roll

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.

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.

During Clinton’s presidency the CIA borrowed “a gangly, insect-like airplane called the RQ-1 Predator” from the Air Force which allows Clinton to view what is known as a “live drone feed” (Mazzetti 61). Some were impressed by the “insect-like” drone but felt like it would be a waste of time to sit and watch the feed. Those opposed felt that it had no use to it, but only to realize later on how great of an impact it would have for the government (Mazzetti 61). Drones would be the key weapon for a “secret war” since “it was a tool that killed quietly,” and would allow strikes in restricted areas where publicist couldn’t go (Mazzetti 99-100). This weapon created a whole new meaning behind wars and assassinations as some view them as inhuman others view it as success. Many believe citizens should have trust in the government and adhere that drones are being used to “”find, fix, and finish” terrorists” (Mazzetti 77). The CIA use of the drones makes them

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

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.

Following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 President Bush inspired the term War on Terror that expressed the fight against terrorist groups. Subsequently, the use of armed aerial drones has become the United States signature attack for counter terrorism. After the attack the Bush administration began the target killing of suspects involved in terrorist attacks (Rowman& Littlefield 2016 p.13). A variation of target killing is signature strikes in which suspected militants and anyone considered a “possible” suspect is targeted based on their behavioral characteristics. In the case of a signature strike the target is unknown. Although drones are not new, the emergence of armed drones remains the topic of many debates. The application

Indeed, in the last years, few States have adopted politics on targeted killings even in the territories of other States. This trend constitutes one of the major issues to be addressed at international level. Such policies have been justified as legitimate response to face the unlawful way of fighting of terrorist groups. However, new technologies – and especially drones – changed the old practice of killing, making it easier for the ones possessing them. The outcome of this situation has been “the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum.” The aim of this paper is to analyze the legality of States ' new practice of targeted killings, providing it with a legal framework and estimating the impact of such policies in the new warfare system.

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.

Today’s new military technologies are often developed in covert labs, with the public only learning of them after they have fulfilled their violent purpose, which too often is questionably unethical. To demonstrate why this covert development is dangerous, and to show how almost all involved find a way to deny responsibility, this paper will focus on the Predator drone. An investigation of this topic will be shown best through a chronological investigation of what led to the Predator becoming an unmoderated weapon. This investigation will establish just how many people are involved in making a drone, and help to inform an opinion on the moral foundations of unmanned warfare. It may also help to clarify which people are responsible for the unintended deaths in many drone strike. The military industrial establishment in the United States is often driven by a regard for money, and is slowly turning what should be considered dangerous weapons, into merchandise with more marketing budgets than some fortune 500 companies. Friedrich Nietzsche’s thoughts on how humans develop their moral code from our surroundings gives shows the society is generally fine with the kind of distanced killing drones allow, as few people are vehemently against the use of Unmanned Drones in warfare. The Predator drone has effectively put great distances between the pilot and death, this new form of killing has been taken advantage of by our own mind, with the Id gaining greater releases of violent

As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it” (Likable Heroes 26). It is essential to fight to end terrorism and the effective means used to wage this battle is to use drones. Like all wars, the War on Terror is fraught with actions that in hindsight may be clearly justified, terrible mistakes, or hotly debated forever. Despite the difficulty, it is still necessary to do everything in our power to stop terrorists, including using drones to target and kill the terrorists. Despite the hypocrisy of going to war to end war, it is the only way when diplomacy fails. Ulysses S. Grant stated that “I have never advocated war except as a means of peace” (Grant 205). Although drones have their faults, they are the best tool we have available for targeting terrorists. Presently, the most practical approach, in terms of American lives and the lives of innocent civilians in other countries, is the use of drones to target terrorists for assassination. This practical advantage justifies the continued development and use of this

In today’s day and age, the fear of terrorism is not only a common sentiment, but is also a rising subject of debate. In order to keep troops out of harm’s way, the United States has looked for alternate means of combatting terrorist organizations. Since September 11, 2001 the United States has relied heavily on its men and women in uniform to prevent terrorism abroad. Technology of today and the use of intelligence offer the United States alternate means of addressing terrorism. For instance, drone strikes were called by former US CIA director Leon Panetta, “the only game in town in term of confronting or trying to disrupt the Al Qaeda leadership” (ODLE, 2013). With the use of typology, socioeconomic assistance, drones, diplomatic engagement and enhanced airline security services, the use of military force is not the only way to prevent terrorism.

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

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – better known as drones - to target these terrorists during the war that’s now winding down in Afghanistan, have proven very effective. Drones have a number of advantages that could fundamentally enhance the US’ counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, but first their use as a weapon of choice needs to be put into policy.