US Drone Strikes

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 American military power

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.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

Following the Vietnam War, the term “Vietnam syndrome” was created, which attributed to America became much more adverse in the way it conducted its military involvement and foreign affairs. Collectively, the America public was against any sort of seemly unnecessary military intervention. In an effort to create a more adverse foreign military policy, the War Powers Act was passed in 1973. The War Powers Act limited the power of the president to wage war against other countries, because it required the congress to approve the deployment of troops after sixty days of their commitment. Vietnam syndrome would untimely lead America’s military policies throughout

Of the dozens of times America has chosen to get involved in foreign countries in the last 60 years, several stand out as obvious successes, including U.S.-led interventions in Korea, Kosovo and Lebanon. In addition, there are several well-known examples of seeming failure, as well as numerous outright refusals to become involved in the affairs of another nation. Each of these – successes, failures and refusals to act – help to answer the important question of what role America should assume in coming decades.

Drone strikes are incredibly damaging to the United States’ international image and prestige; without a step away from remote killing, the leadership on high will continue to be met with resistance when attempting to establish military ties with countries that have a clear view on the violations and atrocities associated with drone warfare.

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.

Counterterrorism policies prove to be quite perplexing to draft due to the fact that there are many aspects to consider when making them. Cronin’s article, Why Drones Fail, and Jordan’s article, When Heads Roll, argue that state responses to terrorism have shown to be ineffective in many aspects. Jordan’s article explicitly argues that killing leaders of terrorist groups will not always lead to the demise of the groups especially if they are religious based and decentralized. Cronin argues that misusing drones in an attempt to kill members of terrorist groups may have the long term consequence of further aggravating security issues for the United States . Thus both articles show the need for heavy caution and counter analysis when creating counter terrorism policies.

I think right now the most talked warfare tactics is based on the drone strikes. US military has been using unmanned aircraft to fight against terror in remote places. The controversial part is the success rate of killing bad people, there has been high percentage of civilian people killed during drone strikes. Most people think the military has gone too far, and many countries turned against US. The drone strikes are not perfect, but it has reduced different terrorist group activities. To use drone strikes we need very accurate detail and intelligences otherwise lives of civilians are in danger.

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.

So I think our approach of engaging to get extreme leaders or regimes out of power, is not always the best idea. I think our tumultuous track record in the Middle East gives me basis for my negative feelings. However, I don’t say that with the naivety of someone who pretends there aren’t heinous crimes carried out in countries where leaders don’t have the peoples’ safety or best interests at heart, and we’ve also got to acknowledge the civilian deaths that happen because of our own U.S. drones and airstrikes. Why We Fight, cites the Iraq War as an example where the U.S. may not have even gone abroad to promote liberty. The approach of going abroad in our own self-interest is not one that sits easily with me. Charles Lewis

For some years now, United states involvement in foreign countries has been limited but their presence has been widely known and discouraged. For those islamic states drones strikes had been present for years but for how long?The first official drone strike was 9 months after 9/11, it was on Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Mohammed Omar. It was initially a CIA secret weapon.The CIA had kept the project secret for as long as they could but U.S. Air force general William Begert. For years drone strikes in Islamic states have been problems and have been addressed by both countries. Many call them a problem while I say they are not.

JSOC Special Forces should continue to provide critical support and training to local forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Aiding these local militia in their attempt to widen and deepen an offensive against ISIS, will build a foundation for political relations with potential future state governments.

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war