Targeted Strikes: Ethical, Efficient, And Necessary

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,

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.

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

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

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

Let’s examine drone strikes as a topic of discussion. Drone strikes are essentially controlled attacks made by unmanned aerial vehicles (often referred to as UAV’s), which provide an alternative where manned flight is considered too dangerous or too difficult. Does our military using drones to attack

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a sixteen-years-old boy, was a third American killed by CIA drone strikes in Yemen while searching for his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, who had been killed in a U.S. drone strike (Finn and Browning). Although drones kill not only terrorists but also innocent civilians including children like Abdulrahman, many drone strikes have been made to Pakistan between the year of 2004 and 2012. This is because the United States military successfully kills targeted enemies without losing a soldier by using drones. However, civilians living near the targeted area are killed by the drones as killer drones can’t accurately focus on the enemies. Therefore, the military’s

Imagine sending out a remote-controlled, unmanned, aerial vehicle equipped with missiles and bombs that can hunt and kill a wanted target along with their army in remote countries. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists, the “War on Terror”begins. The “War of Terror”, or Global War on Terrorism, refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States (War). To break or control terrorism better, the government sends in drones to take out their leaders in Al-Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or other major terrorist groups from afar (Miller). There are many reasons why drones are a popular choice in the government instead of using ground troops; for example, it is safer for the United States to send a drone to kills terrorists instead and it if a drone strike plan backfires, the worst that can occur is the drone gets destroyed.

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).

Unlike drone attacks, using ground troops can result in less unnecessary casualties. When a bomb is dropped it kills not only the target but the people around them. Lives of innocent people can be saved if we had a more accurate point of view. Within 5 months, “nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”(Cite #1) Sending soldiers can significantly lower the percentage of innocents killed. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”(Cite #1) Right now, American soldiers are safe flying drones from thousands of miles away. Sending troops risks American blood but fewer accidental deaths that leave families

Drones in warfare are used to target the suspect and take out the suspect without anybody knowing, but if these drones target the wrong person, then that ends up being inefficient. The drone strikes can target individuals why even may not be the suspect that they are looking for. On record, the drones kill large numbers of civilians and can traumatize the local population. According to a meta study, between 8 and 17% of all people killed in drone strikes are civilians.(source k) On another report, between 174 civilians and 1,047 civilians have been killed in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. According to 130 interviews with victims and witnesses of drone strikes by researchers from stanford and new york university, people who live in the affected areas experience harm beyond death and physical injury and report to hear drones 24/7 hours a day. (source k) According to clive stafford smith, director of human rights, says these people live in constant fear. The drones are flying 24/7, putting fear in the hearts of women and children, making people restless. Us americans have to put our feet into their shoes. If we were monitored by drones 24/7 and be scared if there would be a drone at anytime, we would call this an act of terrorism too. In the two sets of classified documents obtained by nbc news states that 114 drone strikes in

Drone operators can pilot drones over a certain target thousands of miles away. “Drones have several advantages over manned aircraft. Drones can aloft for several days. They can be equipped with video cameras and listening devices that can closely monitor what is happening on the ground.” (source A) Here, the advantages of using drones rather than manned aircraft are stated. Also using drones will lower the rate of pilots killed from backfire during war, this can also be a huge reason why drones will continue to be used in warfare, until a new tecky way of firing during war is made. Another reason why drones are useful during war is because of their preciseness. “ A drone strike can kill a person in one room of a house and spare the lives of people in other rooms. Their precision means there’s less of a chance of innocent civilians being killed. However, there have been cases of drone attacks killing civilians along with the intended target.” (source A) So yes, the precision of drones can be precise, but would we want to continue taking the chance of the drone also killing innocent

A large debate has overtaken some of the legal landscape as to whether or not targeted killings are actually legal under the existing international law. Mainly this is a reflecting of the broad geographical scope of the war on terror. One of the biggest legal arguments is the legal status of the targets and if the air strikes can be considered discriminate, proportionate and necessary as stated in the rules of war. Debates about the legitimacy of targeted killings continue to rage. It is precisely this union on the importance of international law that peaks the interest of many so much. One of the main points of argument in the current debate about drones is whether or not the United States is actually at war with those it is targeting. We know that we are at war with terror, but we have never declared war on ISIS. Although this may seem like a relatively trivial concern, it has significant implications for deciding the legality of individual operations. After all, it is the presence or absence of conflict that ultimately decides what body of law is applicable. Within the confines of armed conflict, for example, it is generally expected that the lex specialis of war, which combines elements of both International Humanitarian Law and human rights law, applies (Gregory, T., 2015). The U.S. government has been very clear that it considers itself to be at war with those it is

Besides killing terrorists, drone strikes can effectively reduce communication and training activities within terrorism group. Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have to avoid using electronic gadgets to transfer information in order not to attract drones. They can’t gather in large number for recruitment either for the very same reason. Otherwise, a drone strike can easily detect and target the entire group. Thus, leaders cannot give orders to their squad, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible. It's proved in a sheet found among Jihadists in Mali that advised militants to “maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts” and “avoid gathering in open areas.” Drones have turned terrorism’s command and training structures into handicap,