Reasons Why U.S. Should Discontinue Drone Strikes against Terrorists
The U.S. government has received a lot of condemnation from individuals, local and international community on its use of drone strikes as a mode of fighting terrorism. A lot of questions have cropped up on the effectiveness of the drone strikes, and the fact they’re going against the international human rights and laws-of-war. Despite the advantages associated with the use of the program, investigations from different studies have revealed the demerits outweigh the merits of the use of the program.
Referred to as Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs) or Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems (RPAS), the first drone was initially designed to gather intelligence through surveillance.
…show more content…
believes the terrorists are hiding. The people in the majority-Islamic countries are always on the lookout never knowing when another air strike will occur. They no longer lead a normal life considering the damage that results when a bomb or missile strikes an area. Thereby, the aim of the U.S. to wipe out all the terrorists is undermined by how many innocent people it is killing through the use of the program.
What’s more, it is believed the rise of prolific terrorists is attributed to the U.S use of the program. Whenever a missile hits a place, not only does it cause damages to buildings but also leads to loss of lives. A person, whether he loves or loathes U.S., who witnesses his friends or loved ones killed as a result of the drone strikes is likely to revenge. The only possible way the person can avenge the killings of his people is by enlisting as a terrorist. The Democracy Now, a non-profit news organization, interviewed Richard Clarke who worked as a top official in counter-terrorism unit during President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush’s rule. When asked whether the program has become problematic, Clarke said, “You cause enemies for the United States that will last for generations. All of these innocent people that you kill have brothers and sisters and tribe – tribal relations. Many of them were not opposed to the United States prior to some of their friends or relatives being killed. And then, sometimes, they crossover, not only to being
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...
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
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
Robert Greenwald’s documentary Unmanned: America's Drone War focuses on the effects of America’s drone operations on the citizens of Middle Eastern countries, such as Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while also offering insight into the public opinion of people in those Middle Eastern countries on America’s drone policy. The film seeks to convey that the operations carried out by the U.S.A in Middle Eastern countries are callous and irresponsible. The film features interviews from many citizens and leaders from Middle Eastern focusing on the impact that drone operations have had on families and communities, making the assertion that the majorly of those killed by American drone strikes have been nonmilitants showing, and calling for a more humanized approach to drone operations by American leaders.
Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been using drone strikes, against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. The U.S. Constitution requires that the government must go through a due process before making the decision of attacking and killing a number of people. Drone strikes are usually based on doubtful information, which takes the lives of innocent civilians. In the Middle East, civilians are being killed because of mistaken identity, and for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Drone strikes are unlawful because they kill innocent civilians, violate due process, and result in blowback.
Terrorism is extremely sensitive subject, and rightfully so. I believe the United States has attempted to help form some form of defense in order to combat the growing threat of terrorism. Although I agree something must be done, I tend to disagree with the strategy. Yet, I will admit I really do not know what I would do if I was in a leadership positions and was forced to make a decision or come up with a plan. One such problem was spoken about by the NPR, in the debate about the US Drone policy. In one manner, Drones provide a safe way for the killing of dangerous individuals without ever putting a US solider in danger. However, Critics are likely to point out these Drone Strike occasionally have civilian causalities. My point simply being
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.
Counterterrorism policies prove to be quite perplexing to draft due to the fact that there are many aspects to consider when making them. Cronin’s article, Why Drones Fail, and Jordan’s article, When Heads Roll, argue that state responses to terrorism have shown to be ineffective in many aspects. Jordan’s article explicitly argues that killing leaders of terrorist groups will not always lead to the demise of the groups especially if they are religious based and decentralized. Cronin argues that misusing drones in an attempt to kill members of terrorist groups may have the long term consequence of further aggravating security issues for the United States . Thus both articles show the need for heavy caution and counter analysis when creating counter terrorism policies.
A life lived in fear of death can do only harm. Thousands of people live like this because of the United States of America and the attacks they carry out. For example, in 2009, the United States of America targeted a man named Qari Hussain, an extremely dangerous militant. The United States executed countless drone strikes in hopes of killing Hussain. Finally, in 2012, the death of Qari Hussain arose, along with the death of 128 other civilians, 13 of which were children. The United States murdered over one hundred helpless bystanders to kill a single man. The easily-avoidable deaths encouraged much outrage in Pakistan (Ackman par. 3). These civilian deaths due to drone strikes occur more often than many choose to believe, which furthers the idea of abolishing the use of such deadly weapons. Although they benefit the United States of America’s military, the government should discontinue the use of drone strikes abroad.
Recent US strategy in fighting terrorism with military force revolves around three central ideas – a counterinsurgency (COIN) philosophy recognizing the importance of civilians, covert operations and investigative work, and the use of drones. The COIN philosophy today recognizes the importance of civilian attitudes and casualties. As such, American air attacks have been curtailed, despite the military
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
People have increasingly been joining anti-American groups because they are so traumatized and so terrified of these drone strikes. These people feel they need to fight back to keep their homes, families, and friends safe from these dangerous drones. "America's drone warfare has traumatized whole areas of Pakistan and Yemen, probably feeding anti-American fervor and possibly boost terrorist recruitment efforts"(Source I). Because so many places have been traumatized by these attacks in Pakistan, anti-American activity has been
Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.