Drones : Fighting The War On Terror

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,

Who is then responsible for the death of civilians? It is not an easy question to answer because the person who operates drone is “middle man” taking orders from the government. Also, the president does not make every decision when to strike because the CIA have power to make decision whether to strike or not without presidential approval. There was no case in which anyone was convicted of a drone strike that killed civilians and it is no surprise because the authorities would probably not openly admit to making a mistake.

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

Shortly after September 11, 2001, former president George W. Bush declared an international “war on terror.” He then sent troops to threatening countries such as Afghanistan; these troops personally conducted operations in order to honorably defend our country. Fast forward eight years and insert current president Barack Obama who continues the campaign against terrorism with a different approach. Instead of using real soldiers on the ground to fight terrorism he is essentially using robots. Obama’s counter-terrorism approach consists of targeted drone strikes where UAV’s are used to assassinate suspected leaders of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile these strikes don’t always work, and they can hurt innocent

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

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

The US has conducted over four hundred drone strikes in Pakistan alone since. From these attacks, estimates state that between 700 and 900 civilians have died. This is almost one quarter of the total deaths from these strikes, and these people have died from no transgression. These people live in fear, earning small amounts of money, living small, innocent lives. However no life on our earth can be small enough to die for no good reason. Since 2004, there have been less than 50 recorded civilian deaths in the US that have been conducted by Islamic extremist groups, not just groups from Pakistan. These attacks do serve a purpose, however the cost of human life is too great. Those affected by drone attacks do not have the power to stop this. It’s down to me, it’s down to you and it’s down to us.

Drones are an immoral counter-terrorism act that “violate international laws against summary execution” (Sluka 94). In other words the US might as well say they are trying to rid of Middle Eastern ethnicities in a rare form of genocide carried out by the use of drone and drone related air strikes. Thousands of war casualties fall victim to drone strikes, way more than the actual terrorists targeted by the

In the article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” by Daniel L. Byman many topics about the use and opinions of U.S. attack drones. U.S. attack drones are used in place of full raids or large bombings to take out terrorists. Most of the they the cost of an attack is greater than the drone itself. Many people have mixed feelings about the drones, but many people think that they cause many civilian casualties.

The two main tasks drones complete are surveillance and attacking. A majority of the time drones are used for surveillance and collecting intelligence. Using drones for surveillance is extremely important because it gives the government an ability to watch suspected terrorists or known leaders and gather the necessary intelligence to decide if the strike should be

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.

Drones can be defined as any unmanned vehicle, but many view drones as killing machines that fly over countries and eliminate the bad guys. Some may even see it as a way to spy on the American people.

When the U.S. unexpectedly faced the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks which left thousands dead and millions dealing with dread and anxiety, the nation’s capital and the Bush administration decided to begin using the comparatively new technology of UAVs more frequently to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. These unmanned aerial vehicles (also known as combat drones) are weapons of war that transport bombs and missiles for precision strikes (“Drones: What are they and how do they work?”). But it wasn’t until President Obama took office that the usage of these drones turned over-excessive; the Obama administration has killed more individuals with UAVs than those civilians who have died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an approximate and confirmed number of 3,674 including innocent civilians (Zenko). Even though some of the drone strikes that the U.S. has carried out have been successful in eliminating high-profile terrorist suspects, there still

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