Can Drones Be Just?

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.

The general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

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 war on terror is a never-ending battle. The United States has been in many wars since the day our country was founded. There has been an estimated 651,008 deaths in war battle, 1.2 million deaths during war. An estimated 42 million service men and women have joined the armed forces in protecting our country (Science Line). Every day our state and policy makers are finding new ways to protect the 42 million service men and women. In the early 1990s’ the U.S created the Predator Program (Woods). This program allows air force men and women to fly unoccupied aircrafts in remote locations for intelligence gathering as well as executing high profile terrorist networks. This program protects thousands of service

Picture your dearest family member out in the battlefield, struggling for dear life. Only being supported by a jug of water and a rifle until a drone appears with medical supplies or reinforcements. Every year technology advances at an increasingly hypersonic pace. The world has gone from the use of bulky telephones to six-inch touch screens. Soon the world will come from using innocent lives to fight for our country to the use of drones in warfare. Thousands of lives each year are cast away in order to protect our country. Drones could be the answer to finding terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen and stop them before they attack. The United States should continue the use of drones in warfare.

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

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.

It is important that, “The government’s power to kill must be carefully controlled or it could turn into a tyranny worse than terrorism.”(Suarez, Daniel. TED) that is why there are so many strict guidelines to the U.S. Armed Forces actions. In countries where conflict is present, the United States has jurisdiction to intervene with permission from the host state according to international laws of warfare and conflict. Countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have given official consent to the United States to use drone strikes within their countries, because they cannot control terrorist groups present. Most drone strikes take place in these countries too. There are strict military standards for review of combative situations, some read as follows: “(1) Near certainty that terrorist target is present [in the area of action] (2) Near certain that non-combatants are safe [from drone or similar strike] (3) Assessment that capture [of target] is not feasible (4) An assessment that relevant government authorities in the country of action is contemplated. (5) No other reasonable alternatives exist.” (Louise. Drones). These guidelines make it so that every situation is thoroughly examined while considering all options. This is very common in The United States’ use of drones. The drone operators hold a level of immunity because they are thousands of miles from the combat, that being said

Drones are not always the best way to go, and are most of the time an unnecessary and non-profit endeavor. This is exemplified by the fact that from 2002 to 2014 only 2 percent of target fatalities by drones have been important militants ("Should the United"). The other 98 percent have been unimportant and unnecessary targets that were not a serious threat to the U.S. This means that the 98 percent that were unnecessary were just a extra waste of resources and did not make enough of a significant difference to justify the endeavor. Also, drone strikes are not effective because they have been proven to be inaccurate. Out of 114 drone strikes issued by the CIA in the countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, 26 of the drone strikes targeted groups categorized as “other militants.” This means that the affiliation of the targeted groups could not be conclusively determined ("Should the United"). In conclusion, these strikes were with no special goal in mind, only executed to potentially harm terrorist groups. This in essence is another waste of resources which can have unknown consequences. In these types of drone strikes the U.S could be eliminating unimportant targets, or worse, they could inadvertently harm friendly factions or neutral civilians in the region of the strikes. This would again turn more individuals away from the U.S cause by building on the hate against the U.S that

Are military drones really necessary to fight terrorism? Is it the only way to resolve this issue? Drone technology appears to be increasingly popular as the need of “self-protection” against terrorists becomes more urgent. It is fair to conclude that drones are somewhat efficient. However, plentiful of instances and studies have proved otherwise. The usage of military drones promotes terrorism, violates international laws, and invades privacy. They are harmful rather than useful to our society.

Just imagine seeing those military drones fly over your house, and you see an explosion over in the field within walking distance of the house and hear the words, "Run! Get out of this town." That was a drone. The question is, "Are drones good or bad?" Although military drones give information about the enemy, they kill innocent lives, they are an invasion of privacy, and drone pilots could have a mental breakdown because of all the people dying in front of them.To begin, drones will kill more than the intended target 85% of the time. Predator drones are mostly known for anti-terrorist attacks. We disregard the paperwork that has to be done before a lethal attack. "Drones kill innocent lives" (PBS.org). When drones kill, they also will kill

Drones use smaller bombs than F-16’s and have more precise strikes. “ And compared with a 500- pound bomb dropped from an F-16, the grenade like warheads carried by most drones create smaller, more precise blast zones that decrease the risk of unexpected structural damage and casualties” (Brookings). Instead of sending troops or a fighter jet in to kill the terrorists, drones can more effectively kill them without destroying cities and killing innocent people. Also, drones target people on a “kill list” and are capable of following after the group and killing them without damage. In the article it states, “Drone strikes typically target individuals who have been placed on a “kill list” by the administration in a secret process that is not subject to oversight or transparency”(Understanding Drones). Drones can target and follow the person or group they want to kill instead of just blowing up a whole area, which means more civilian casualties. Furthermore, the United States’ allies support drone strikes because of fewer casualties. In the text it states, “It is also telling that drones have earned the backing, albeit secret, of foreign governments” (Brookings). U.S drone strikes help countries such as Pakistan and Yemen by targeting common enemies. Drones cause fewer casualties and damage than other military

“Legal, Ethical, and wise”: these are the three adjectives the Obama administration has used to describe its program of conducting targeted killings by drown strikes. (Jurecic, 2015) The question of whether or not and how to target individuals for killing, and the reactions of doing so, raise difficult issues. Drones violate international law, “which restricts when and how different states can engage in armed conflict.” (Memmott, 2013) Yet, as with domestic law, there is no conflict between two formal states. Also, most drone strikes are carried out by the CIA, which as a civilian agency and a noncombatant under international law is not governed by the same laws of war that cover US military agencies. Are drone strikes ethical? Having spent