Summary Of Obama's Drone War Moral? By Matt Peterson

America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism

In Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.

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,

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 general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

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 is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

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

Drone Warfare; Summary and Overview This essay consists of a thorough analysis and overview on the book titled Drone Warfare by John Kaag and Sarah Kreps. Drone Warfare covers the political, juridical, and ethical aspects of remotely piloted aircrafts known as drones. The book touches on the political ramifications that the United States’ drone program causes and the general public’s opinion on drones. Drone Warfare also talks about the relationship between the drone program and international laws.

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.

Furthermore, the study revealed that civilian casualties ranged between 18 and 26 per cent of the deaths in Pakistan (Boyle, 2013). Additionally, “President Obama launched more than six times as many drone strikes as President Bush did throughout his eight years in office” (Boyle, 2013, p. 2). As President Obama stated in his speech on May 2013, drones strikes are lethal, accurate, and extremely successful against Al-Qaeda’s High-Value Targets (HVTs). As the statistics show, numerous HVTs like Sheikh Fateh al Masri, Mustafa Abu Yazid, Qari Mohammad Zafar, and Baitullah Mehsud were killed by the drones (Barnidge, 2011). Moreover, it has eliminated “more than half of the top twenty HVTs. It has done so without endangering US pilots” (Plaw & Fricker, 2012, p. 346).

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.

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

Imagine one day waking up and seeing that your loved one’s died because of a drone explosion in your house by mistake. Drones are being used to kill people that are suspected of being a terrorist and the people that are operating the drones are not always certain that the people they kill, are really involved. Drones are making people unsafe in their own homes. By defining the importance of drones not being use to kill people without evidence, by refuting those who claim that the people that are kill aren’t innocent, One will be persuaded to stop drones killing innocent people without evidence.