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,
It has been proven, and supported by facts that older, and/or more traditional methods of war such as mortars, or bombs do a larger amount of collateral damage historically, and in modern warfare. Since the September llth, terrorist attacks in 2001 drone strikes have only claimed 8-17% of civilian casualties[Source J]. Speaking of civilian casualties throughout the course of other wars such as World War II 40-67% of fatalities were civilian, and
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 “Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars” is a documentary that discusses more in depth what are the effects of drone strikes on the society, victims and their families. It shows a story of killing innocent children like Tariq and his younger cousin who were hit by a drone strike on their way to a soccer match. In Tariq’s case there was an
When a drone is put out on a Mission to make the world a better place and rid areas of terrorism, there is no chance of a US casualty. Not to mention the places where we use drones such as Yemen and Pakistan are notorious for capturing and torturing enemies (Byman 32-43). In the article “Good Bomb, Good Bomb!” the story of a drone saving one particular soldier is told. The soldier was under enemy mortar fire when a hell storm strike rained upon the enemy and saved the soldier’s life.
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
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
In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in
The use of drones for carrying out military attacks is an important current topic. While keeping our soldiers safe is a primary concern, sparing the lives of civilians and limiting the destruction of the local infrastructure is another concern from not only a rebuilding point of view, but also from an ethical point of view. In the article “The Drone Wars: International Law Will Not Make Them Humane” the authors discuss the history of technological advances in warfare and provide details of the factors that have keep these advances under control. This article was co-authored by two individuals, Arthur Herman who is a historian and John Yoo who is a law professor. Through the use of examples from history detailing the use of technology in warfare,
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 military’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are able to fly in the airspace for up to 17 hours providing Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors on the ground real-time images of the enemy for 24-hours 7 days a week. They were engineered for precision and power in order to eliminate the enemy without the need of endangering friendly forces. The technological advancement of the drone has furthered America’s military agenda in multiple ways for the better, however, hundreds of civilian lives have been caught in the blast zone of these military drones. Today’s society and engineers have deemed the use of drones as morally good, but what makes killing the enemy from a remote, safe location any different than chemical warfare, especially if civilian lives
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
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
Empirical studies of targeted killings and civilian casualties in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism show that drone strikes may obtain either of the following two outcomes:
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