Drones In The Middle East

This statement is in fact a myth, drone strikes ARE legal under United Nations Charter 51 which states the strikes are legal if allowed by the country’s government, or if the group being targeted is responsible for an act of aggression and they can’t be controlled[Source J]. Just to give some examples Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have all been recipients of drone strikes and they all consent to these because they have terrorist organizations within their borders such as the Islamic State, and Al Qaeda.

Byman continues with this argument, stating that drones achieve their intended goal without risking American lives. Because drones only require a remote control to pilot, they do not put a member of the US Air Force at risk. This not only reduces the amount of military deaths in foreign countries, but it allows drones to travel to places that are deemed too dangerous for actual US pilots. Byman states that in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “the government exerts little or no control over remote areas, which means that it is highly dangerous to go after militants hiding out there. Worse yet, in Pakistan and Yemen, the governments have at times cooperated with militants” (Byman 2). The majority of the time, sending in an actual military force is simply too dangerous. Instead of sending people, the US military can send robots.

military personnel, comparatively little financial expenses, and a minimum of civilian casualties. It is effective in the fight against international terrorism as it puts terrorist groups on defense. It forces these groups into hiding by targeting their safe havens. With the killing of key figures, the internal structure of these terrorist groups is attacked which not only shatters their sense of predominance in the region, but also compels them to find new ways of communicating and

I believe that the drone’s ability to minimize casualties is unmatched by any aircraft we have available. Drones have a unique ability to hover over a target for long periods of time. According to in “Ready… Fire… Aim! A Case for Applying American Due Process Principles Before Engaging In Drone Strikes” states that drones can, “hover above a target for up to forty hours before refueling” (59). Being able to hover over a target for such a long time is good because the drone can wait until all other variables are gone than it can take out its target with minimal casualties. Sweetman author of “Fighters without Pilots” says, “since no one is aboard, an armed drone could be designed to loiter for 24 hours, or to evade missiles by a 20-G escape maneuver, well beyond the 9-G blackout limit of a human pilot” (12). A drone has the capability to evade missiles in which a fighter pilot doesn’t. Drones that are outfitted with weapons are also given new lazier guiding technology to ensure that the weapon only hits the target and nothing else. The military has other airplanes that can drop a bomb like the F-16 which has a payload of 500 pounds, but when it comes to taking out targets, the F-16 is completely unnecessary. According to Byman author of “Why Drones Work” drones are precision weapons, “drones create smaller, more precise blast zones that decrease the risk of unexpected structural damage and casualties.” He goes on to say, “Drones,

Most Americans are in favor of drone strikes. A 2013 survey suggests 69% of Republicans, 60% of Independents and 59% of Democrats support the use of drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen (ProCon). The next president of the United States will have to decide if our country will keep using drones and improve the drone program. It has been said that drone strikes are used as a “recruitment tool” for terrorist organizations such as the Taliban and the Islamic State (Pilkington and MacAskill). Even though most civilians in the Middle East hate drone strikes; the United States collaborates with local governments in the Middle East who gives us jurisdiction to carry out these strikes. For example in Pakistan where most drone strikes occur; they have decreased violence in that region. The Pakistani President even admitted to asking the US to conduct more drone strikes in his country (ProCon). If drones were not effective foreign government officials would not ask for more drone

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

This brings into question the magnitude and price of the collateral damage from these strikes, that these drones are meant to minimize in the first place. As reports and interviews about the drone strikes are released by the press, more and more information is gathered and more statistics can be developed. An example is the Obama Administration’s “targeted killing”. Many argue that this killing is not so accurate. A report released stating that throughout a specific time frame, that attempts to kill 41 combatants ended up costing the lives of 1,147 people (Friedersdorf 1). This means that the Obama Administration’s supposedly “accurate” drones only have a 4% accuracy (for that given period of time).

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

Drones have several advantages over manned aircraft: they can be flown for up to thirty hours at a stretch without needing to land, can track militants over remote and rugged terrain without risk to their pilots or ground troops, and can pinpoint and strike targets, reducing the time lag between identification and response. These attributes make them especially effective in unconventional warfare, such as counterinsurgency operations in Iraq or the pursuit of al-Qaeda militants into remote and inaccessible areas, such as the Pakistani tribal areas. Drones are also cheaper than manned aircraft.

Analyze the use of drones in the war on terror. As the United States enters into the 21st century, facing strategic challenges that will define its place in the world, many new policy decisions will have to be made on how the United States attempts to conduct its foreign policy and national security objectives around the world. One of the most definitive characteristics of this new era is the growth of weapons technology with special regards to the use of Unmanned Ariel Vehicle (UAV) also known as a Drone. Over the past five years the term drone has become synonymous with the fight against terrorism.

In our country we see aircrafts in the sky every day and rarely fear an attack from above, however, for people in Middle Eastern countries this is not the case. In countries such as Somalia and Yemen they live in constant fear of dying from a bomb being dropped from above. Usually, Americans see themselves as heroes and view Middle Eastern groups as terrorists for these Middle Eastern people though, Americans are the terrorists. This essay will research the United States use of drone strikes in Middle Eastern countries, using scholarly articles to portray what a drone is, the types of drones the US uses, a history of their use, the legality of strikes on foreign soil, and their overall use in the war on terror in order to persuade readers that

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.

First, there is the ethical issue of how targets are determined in drone strikes. There are two different types of drone strikes: personality and signature strikes. A drone strike can be defined as a personality strike when the strike “targets known terrorist leaders…” (Entous, Siobhan, and Barnes, “U.S. Tightens Drone Rules”). This is a drone strike on an individual that is backed by significant intelligence showing that they are directly involved in the operation of terrorist organizations. A signature drone strike is against an individual or group believed to be militants by their pattern of behavior or possible associations (Entous, Siobhan, and Barnes “U.S. Tightens Drone

The Russians captured Gary. Gary’s incident shows just how dangerous sending our troops over really is. After Gary’s plane crashed, the U.S. Air force developed the satellite. The satellite was the biggest step forward for drones. Satellites used GPS which helped drones on the ground navigate and become precise. Having GPS, drones were able to advance extremely. The article, Unmanned Military Aircraft, states that “GPS utilizes satellites circling the Earth to establish the position of a building or person to within a few feet. Drones equipped with GPs, therefore, can be directed with great percussion.” The article’s statement explains shows how far drones have come in advancement since it’s first development in World War I. Today, the U.S. Air Force already has much of the technology needed for drones. The B-2 Stealth bomber is a prime example. A B-2 pilot states that, “Guess how long we are actually flying the B-2 out of the 34 hours it takes to go from Missouri to Baghdad and back? About two minutes. The rest of the time is spent playing cards, eating, or sleeping.” Today’s aircraft already fly themselves. Technology has advanced to the point where today, pilots are unneeded. The Boeing 777, a commercial jet, can take off and land without any input from a pilot. The new Boeing 777s can take off from a designated spot and land somewhere else without a pilot even in the cockpit. The era for drones is here. The Global Hawk few from

Are a unique addition to the military arsenal. Unbound by the subsistence needs of the human body and designed for refueling in midair, drones are capable of remaining aloft for days at a time. Their surveillance imagery is state of the art, and they can be equipped with laser-guided missiles. They offer precise air power in almost any environment and, used effectively, are capable of targeting terrorists and insurgency groups across international borders, protecting soldiers from harm's way, and (in theory) minimizing the risk of civilian