US Drone Strikes

It was only in recent history that the United States became a massive power. The enormous quantity of war supplies they produced by 1944, doubling the production amounts of both Japan and Germany (Duncan, 2003, p. 27), coupled with their late entry into the Second World War itself, ensured the United States was well-armed in the post-war period. Furthermore, according to Friedberg (2012), those opposed to the United States during the Second World War lacked a means with which to harm it due to a lack of sufficient military technology and a relatively strong naval force (p. 36). Friedberg argues the

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

INTRODUCTION In September of 2011, under the direction of the Obama Administration and with the coordination of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), the United States carried out a successful drone strike against Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni cleric. Though the strike would bring much controversy from all areas of the U.S. political spectrum, the U.S. adoption of targeted killings through the use of combat drones became a staple

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You hear a drone hovering in your backyard, invading your privacy, what do you do? Many choose the illegal path and decide to shoot or swat it down. With the rise in drone sales, more and more Americans are losing their privacy, and for this reason, the federal government needs to take action and regulate the purchase and flight of drones.

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. The book even goes deep into the ethical dilemmas that the drone program introduces. This essay will go in-depth on all of these subjects, explaining the current and future ramifications that this program might introduce.

3. BACKGROUND. In 2002, the CIA used a predator drone to conduct the first targeted killing. The strike was meant for Osama bin Laden; instead, it wound up; killing numerous civilians that were gathering scrap metal at the time. At the time, the government skirted the issue, claiming that the other individuals killed would prove to be ‘interesting’ once their identities were revealed. They weren’t. However, drone strikes occur today with civilian casualties, and there’s little to no public outcry. The public has grown numb and complacent due to prolonged exposure to a type of warfare that most academics agree is illegal at best.

After the government began the drone attacks over countries they were not in direct conflict with, the UN Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council with concerns over, “the lack of transparency regarding the legal framework and targeting choices.” He requested information from the government and they declined to provide any official response to the UN, but cited a statement made by a government legal adviser named Harold Hongju Koh. Mr. Hongju Koh stated in a speech to the Annual Meeting of the American

• Reduce the threat posed by terrorist organizations • Unintentionally increase support for anti-U.S. militants and thus fuel terrorism? (Valentino etal., 2004; Downes, 2007; Stanton, 2009; Jordan, 2009) 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.

Drones have several advantages over manned aircraft: they can be flown for up to thirty hours at a stretch without needing to land, can track militants over remote and rugged terrain without risk to their pilots or ground troops, and can pinpoint and strike targets, reducing the time lag between identification and response. These attributes make them especially effective in unconventional warfare, such as counterinsurgency operations in Iraq or the pursuit of al-Qaeda militants into remote and inaccessible areas, such as the Pakistani tribal areas. Drones are also cheaper than manned aircraft.

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

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.

Drone Strikes There has been a long debate about drone strikes. Some people believe that we should stop drone strikes and others believe we should continue drone strikes. We should do drone strikes because it keeps the United States safer from terrorist networks in the world and Drones kill less than any other military weapon.

Recent US strategy in fighting terrorism with military force revolves around three central ideas – a counterinsurgency (COIN) philosophy recognizing the importance of civilians, covert operations and investigative work, and the use of drones. The COIN philosophy today recognizes the importance of civilian attitudes and casualties. As such, American air attacks have been curtailed, despite the military

The Truth behind CIA and JSOC Drone Strikes for Professor Kim Colantino Technical Writing Instructor Chemeketa Community College Salem, Oregon by Harmanjot Singh Writing 227 Student December 09 , 2014 Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Violating the Hague Convention Commencing Hostility without Declaration of War Civilian Causalities from Drone Strikes in Pakistan Table 1: Percentage of Civilian Deaths of the total killed in Pakistan from 2004-2011 Civilian Causalities from Drone Strikes in Yemen Table 2: CIA Drone Strikes Conducted in Yemen from 2001-2011 Illegal CIA Drone Strikes CIA Drifting from its Primary Mission Transferring Drone Strikes to DOD Violated Rights of American Citizens American Citizens Killed in Yemen Violating the American Constitution Conclusion Works Cited  Tables and Figures Table 1: Percentage of Civilian Deaths of the total killed in Pakistan from 2004-2011 2 Table 2: CIA Drone Strikes Conducted in Yemen from 2001-2011 Abstract CIA and JSOC drone strikes are illegal. They violate the Hague Convention that states contracting powedrs cannot attack one another without declaring war or giving an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war (Hague III: Opening of Hostilities, 1907 ). The CIA has also drifted away from its primary mission of collecting data. The drone strikes conducted by the CIA kill many militants however also kill just as many innocent civilians. Yemen and Pakistan are the victims to