There is no common global enemy more threatening than terrorism; terrorism plagues the world; it threatens the lives and security of millions of families around the world! However drone strikes are ineffective in eradicating terrorism, drone strikes act as an incentive to unleash monstrous acts on the world and have high civilian casualties. To stop terrorism we must first stop drone strikes.
Drone strikes prevent us from gaining valuable intel that we get from raids. Unlike manned raids, drone strikes are unable to scout the site in detail. As a result, they are not able to search for information from laptops and phones, that can be utilized to uncover information regarding other members, locations, and future activity. According to the Research and Development Corporation “A successful raid will net human and material intelligence that can flesh out the picture of the enemy network, and thus enable development of a comprehensive strategy that will bring a lasting conclusion to the battle.” In essence, drone strikes can never be effective because no plan to end the war on terrorism has been put into effect. What this means is that once the drone finds its target it also destroys information about who will succeed him. As a result, we can never truly eradicate terrorism by means of drone strikes. The Obama administration avoids taking steps to gathering information. There doesn’t seem to be an actual plan regarding the future of using drone strikes to end terrorism. If the
In recent years, the number of terrorist attacks have increased since the use of drones. One terrorist attempted to blow up an American airliner in 2009, and another tried to blow up Times Square with a car bomb in 2010 (Source K). Both had stated that drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia motivated them to do this (Source K). A picture drawn by Paresh shows a drone dropping a bomb near a civilian; the next day, the victim rises from the grave, bringing with them radicalism and anti-americanism (Source E).
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
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
The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5). In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel
"Instead, we should accept the risk and live our lives to the full." (Starling) The issue of terrorism is that it doesn’t stop and it’s been going on for years now, and it seems that the people haven’t done much to stop this. The reasoning is that since terrorism has been a thing for a while they have probably seen everything that they can do, so by trying to fight it, it will most likely become even worse. Terrorists are attacking more religious people than non-religious people because they might be against that race of the person, or what they believe in. It has even been said all around the world, that Terrorism is a major problem in countries and something must be done or else people will keep on dying. To prevent this, there should be
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
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,
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
One reason why drones are such an obvious future trend is they weaken terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. During President Barak Obama’s term, an estimated 3,300 terrorists have been killed including 50 senior leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Byman 32-43). By March 2011 33 Al Qaeda and Taliban members killed and from 1100-1800 insurgent fighters (Sluka 89). Three hundred and fifty drone strikes have been made since 2004 (Cronin 44-45). Among the terrorist casualties, one stands out. A Drone strike killed Al-Shabab, killer of 74 in a soccer stadium bombing in Uganda (Klaidman 38-44). A Drone could have prevented the bombing of the soccer stadium before it happened, but the US called off a drone strike because of the
The United States has been in a national state of emergency fighting a war on terrorism since September 11, 2001. The intelligence communities have pursued and tracked down terrorist suspects who pose a direct threat to this country, yet one of the greatest threat to this country is the astronomical number of mass shootings and hate crimes that have occurred in this country post 9/11.
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.
Last year while sketching through TV and trying to watch news with my father, we saw one of the most devastating and horrifying attacks in Boston Massachusetts. Recently, terrorist has made many attacks and lives of innocent people have despaired. United States has to recruit more immigrants into their armies to help preserve the safety their people, homeland security, communicate with suspects kids to comprehends sides, send more satellites to the space, revise and reviews some of the traveling among suspicious travellers and stop providing weapons to certain location that could harm the entire community in America. If we fallow all of these purposes, I believe that the horror, and the terrorism could be reduced and certain incident can be prevented.
One more time. I promise after that I’ll let you go. The last tune that rang out in eight year old Saffie Rose’s ears before everything went dark. This was the experience of a young life cut short due to the horrific and misguided actions of a lone-wolf.
Have you ever felt hopeless? A wise man once said you must be your own hero, but what happens when you can save yourself. Did you hear what happened on to the innocent people traveling on a plane to see their loved ones? They never got to see their loved ones. Why? Terrorist hijacked the plane and used that plane to crash into the World Trade Center. They were hopeless. As hard as they tried, they couldn’t do anything to escape death. If they tried to over power, then they would risk killing themselves. If they stop the hijacker, they risked a mask shooting in the air that could cause the plane to crash. If they did nothing, they would still die. All they could do was call their loved one, tell them they were going to death, and pray. The plane was going to crash. No matter how hard they tried, or how hard they wanted to “save the day, and be a hero,” they couldn’t. There was no one to save them. There was nothing they could do. The situation was hopeless. That indescribable feeling of helplessness and hopelessness is the fear installed into people’s brains toward the subject of terrorism. Could you imagine being in their shoes? Since situations like that terrorist plane crash into the twin towers and the World Trade Center, the number of terrorist attacks have drastically increased. The way these attacks are carried out have changed. These attacks are becoming less supplicated while causing higher casualties in the long run.