Terrorism In Foreign Countries Essay

The basic reason for the US to use drones at all is to weaken the terrorist state and maintain security, but drone bombings have not achieved this task. In fact, the use of drones may be

The United States began air strikes there in 2010 to deal with terrorist groups. Now this may seem like a good thing, and good things can come of it, but with the loose policy of what a target may be is horrible. To the people of the attacks, the drones have taken hundreds of innocent lives. They now fear the skies for the next attack. Farea Al-Muslimi was a boy from Yemen whose entire village was destroyed by a drone strike. He says “The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know, and I love. Now however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time.” Things that seems of good nature can be horrific to the other people. We eliminate terrorist threats because they are a danger to our

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

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 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.

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

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

Jack Serle is a data journalist on The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s Covert Drone War team who joined the Bureau in 2012 and was part of the team that won the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2013 for their work on drones and the US covert war on terror. Serle reports that the first known CIA drone strike took place September 19, 2002 in Yemen that turned out to be only the first in a long, rapid fire line of strikes to come in Middle Eastern countries with suspected al-Qaeda activity. Since 2004 in Pakistan alone, there have been 419 drone strikes in which approximately 2,463-3,977 people have been killed and of these thousands only 725 have been positively identified (“Naming the Dead”). Additionally, Serle finds that since 2002 in Yemen there have been as many as 121 confirmed strikes which killed approximately 467-695 people, since 2007 in Somalia there have been as many as 19 strikes which killed approximately 25-108 people, and in Afghanistan there have been 32 strikes which killed approximately 332-486 people (“Drone wars”). No matter how you look at it, these numbers are an astounding markup in these short years and it’s quite a wonder that these strikes and deaths don’t get more news time. It seems that when it comes to something as shady and gray area as CIA drone strikes the phrase “if it bleeds,

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

The US increasingly relies on drones for its counterterrorism efforts, and the world has been watching the manner in which the US employs this new instrument of Airpower. The use of drones has raised concerns over state sovereignty, human rights, and extrajudicial or extraterritorial killings. While US drone strikes are undoubtedly projecting US power and eliminated terrorists, the question has arisen as to whether or not these killings are doing more harm than good. This question is rooted in the concept of US prestige. Whether or not these strikes are “worth it” saves for another debate, but for purposes of this discussion, these drone strikes have contributed to a loss of US prestige in the international community. Pakistan and Yemen, although secretly authorizing US drone operations, publically condemn the US for violating their sovereignty. A survey in 2012 found that 74% of the Pakistani population views the US as their enemy. The execution of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki by a drone strike in Yemen received considerable criticism from the US population. Despite the fact that Awlaki had been radicalized and had recruited western individuals for terrorist acts, there was debate as to whether or not he should have been granted a fair trial. A study conducted by The International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School found that “The significant global opposition to drone strikes also erodes US credibility in the international community. In 17 of the 20 countries polled by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the majority of those surveyed disapproved of US drone attacks in countries like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.” As with Kosovo, the astounding potential of Airpower for achieving effects is attractive, but the long-term consequences of its misuse should not be

Imagine living with fear on a day to day basis with the expectation of a missile having the capability of obliterating where you’re standing right now by a single man on a computer in a matter of seconds without the slightest warning. The use of drone strikes in military operations is unacceptable. Accidental aftermath and the murder of innocent lives outweigh the desire to kill a few radical terrorists which can be achieved with ground soldiers lessening the amount of innocent bystanders killed in the process. To the stop this recklessness it is necessary that all drone strikes are ceased until suitable policies are implemented. Although drone strikes play a key role in fighting the war against terrorism the fact that military is striking fear into the hearts of the natives affecting their day to day lives in a negative way in reality makes us the actual terrorists.

Terrorists are popping up all over the globe due to the various causes and they need to be dealt with swiftly, and with as few casualties to our troops as possible. The only way to go about this is through drone strikes. Drones are unmanned, so there is absolutely no risk to a pilot; the pilot could be thousands of miles away in a control room. These drones have killed high profile terrorists and destroyed terrorist compounds, and it comes with no casualties to our troops. It is relatively simple to operate a drone, and the benefits are obvious. More ground can be covered with a drone, rather than conventional boots, and sometimes time is of the essence to locate these terrorists and take them out. Obama has recognized these benefits and accelerated the use of drones under his presidency. Drones are also great for public relations because the American people don’t want to see soldiers being shipped back to the US in a box, but they also don’t want terrorists to be able to operate freely and be undisturbed, so drones can meet both of these expectations.

Drone strikes are cheap, keep America safe from terrorists, and save more Americans’ lives. The agreement of allowing the U.S. to use drone strikes abroad is a vital decision, as it impacts not only the lives of every soldier in the military, but also every citizen in America. By allowing drone strikes abroad, the U.S, is eliminating threats before they even impact the U.S., making sure an event such as 9/11 never, ever, happens

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

The immediacy and the primacy of any truly potent force is the ability to perpetuate itself. Sharp and energetic outbursts have their place, and can be known to have great effect-cataclysmic forces, despite their maximum destructive potential, are temporary in their total effects in relation to some absolute goal. In other words, they are generally limited in scope, and well defined in purpose; there is a tactical objective, which is usually consummated quickly. The more dreaded force creeps along, escalating incrementally, and while it may abide a strategic goal, or even a policy, it is generally open-ended. This sort of ambiguity I am referring to differs from the flexible tactical necessity in that strategic outcomes are very much