Drone Strikes Against Terrorism

It is important to analyze the historical implications of UAVs. Would the United states have entered war with Persian Gulf, Kosovo or Iraq if there was potential for retaliation on U.S soil. Would the the United States have entered those wars, if those countries could choose to counter attack with UAVs? A question of proportionate response also creates reasons to believe there are moral downsides to count against using drones. The increase of asymmetric warfare techniques by one side of the conflict leads to the rise of a response in asymmetric warfare by the other side. It is not difficult to see similarities between drones and suicide bombers: one is high tech and the other low tech, neither gives the other

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

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).

Drone strikes are incredibly damaging to the United States’ international image and prestige; without a step away from remote killing, the leadership on high will continue to be met with resistance when attempting to establish military ties with countries that have a clear view on the violations and atrocities associated with drone warfare.

In response to the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush declared an all out war on global terrorism. To fight this war, the Bush administration introduced a new weapon, creating the highly secretive US Drone program, pushing the bounds of technology, giving UAVs the power to take life with impunity. In 2009, Barack Obama became president and the rise of the killer drones began. His campaign in the Middle East and abroad would usher in a new age of warfare, one fought not in trenches or fields, but from small air-conditioned rooms, while great Birds of Prey rain Hellfire down upon enemies half a world away; one where powerful men decide who will live

Imagine sending out a remote-controlled, unmanned, aerial vehicle equipped with missiles and bombs that can hunt and kill a wanted target along with their army in remote countries. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists, the “War on Terror”begins. The “War of Terror”, or Global War on Terrorism, refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States (War). To break or control terrorism better, the government sends in drones to take out their leaders in Al-Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or other major terrorist groups from afar (Miller). There are many reasons why drones are a popular choice in the government instead of using ground troops; for example, it is safer for the United States to send a drone to kills terrorists instead and it if a drone strike plan backfires, the worst that can occur is the drone gets destroyed.

The US increasingly relies on drones for its counterterrorism efforts, and the world has been watching the manner in which the US employs this new instrument of Airpower. The use of drones has raised concerns over state sovereignty, human rights, and extrajudicial or extraterritorial killings. While US drone strikes are undoubtedly projecting US power and eliminated terrorists, the question has arisen as to whether or not these killings are doing more harm than good. This question is rooted in the concept of US prestige. Whether or not these strikes are “worth it” saves for another debate, but for purposes of this discussion, these drone strikes have contributed to a loss of US prestige in the international community. Pakistan and Yemen, although secretly authorizing US drone operations, publically condemn the US for violating their sovereignty. A survey in 2012 found that 74% of the Pakistani population views the US as their enemy. The execution of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki by a drone strike in Yemen received considerable criticism from the US population. Despite the fact that Awlaki had been radicalized and had recruited western individuals for terrorist acts, there was debate as to whether or not he should have been granted a fair trial. A study conducted by The International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School found that “The significant global opposition to drone strikes also erodes US credibility in the international community. In 17 of the 20 countries polled by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the majority of those surveyed disapproved of US drone attacks in countries like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.” As with Kosovo, the astounding potential of Airpower for achieving effects is attractive, but the long-term consequences of its misuse should not be

One hot summer evening in 2009, in a small village in the remote Pakistani tribal agency of south Waziristan, a pair of hellfire missiles fired from an unmanned predator drone slammed in a house, killing the chief of the Pakistani Taliban. Now imagine looking up into the bright blue sky all around the world realizing what only a few people do; drones are up there and are keeping a watchful eye on Americas interests. Governments are using unmanned drones as a way to successfully carry out dangerous missions without having boots on the ground in harm’s way. The impact of drones on the world have grown exponentially over the course of a few years, with the future in sight more and more information must be known about

While the debate over the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts has intensified, the arguments, both for and against their usage, although informed by plausible logics, are supported primarily by anecdotal evidence and not by systematic empirical investigation. This lack of attention is unfortunate: unmanned aerial vehicles, and

Imagine living with fear on a day to day basis with the expectation of a missile having the capability of obliterating where you’re standing right now by a single man on a computer in a matter of seconds without the slightest warning. The use of drone strikes in military operations is unacceptable. Accidental aftermath and the murder of innocent lives outweigh the desire to kill a few radical terrorists which can be achieved with ground soldiers lessening the amount of innocent bystanders killed in the process. To the stop this recklessness it is necessary that all drone strikes are ceased until suitable policies are implemented. Although drone strikes play a key role in fighting the war against terrorism the fact that military is striking fear into the hearts of the natives affecting their day to day lives in a negative way in reality makes us the actual terrorists.

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.

With the development of technological drone warfare, the United States people have been barely kept in the loop of what their country is doing. This being said, it is impossible to deny that drones have protected the United States troops. Because of this, there will always be an argument for the use of drones. However, there has been even more evidence of heavy costs; such as pilot mental health, casualties, military funds, and the transparency of the government. To begin, the government (especially President Barack Obama) has had to compromise their integrity to keep the drone program running. For example, it is believed that the “Lethal Presidency” has been hidden through proxy leaders – people who announce the news of the drones in order to keep civilians distracted from the President’s calls. Ultimately, the drone program started with somewhat good intentions but has been proving to be a deadly investment.

Eleven years ago, the United States Air Force launched a missile from a drone for the first time at a test range in the Nevada desert (Drone Test) . The use of armed drones has risen dramatically since 2009. Now drone strikes are almost a daily occurrence. In 2011 the use of drones continued to rise with strikes in (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia. Proponents of armed drones argue that their ability to watch and wait, with their highly accurate sensors and cameras gives increased control over when and where to strike its both increasing the chances of success and