US Strategy in Fighting Terrorism With Military Force Essay

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.

America also felt threatened by the spill over of terrorist linked to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to neighbouring countries such as Pakistan. This led to a series of drone attacks in northern Pakistan, which was providing a safe haven for terrorists.

Throughout the last 15 years of operation, Guantanamo Bay has faced endless criticism from both international countries and the US. The biggest issue is the legal “black hole” that exists at Guantanamo Bay and the concern over interrogation techniques and torture. We are able to torture prisoners because of how George W Bush described the war. “Bush thought it was a new kind of war and that this meant the Americans didn’t need adhere the rules of the Geneva Convention,” explains Professor Honigsberg from the University of San Francisco. The convention says prisoners of war must be treated humanely during a war. “But Bush didn’t call them ‘prisoners of war’ but ‘enemy combatants’. This was how a

conduct in the ‘war on terror,’ especially the use of Guantanamo to circumvent legal protections of the rights of prisoners detained there” (Lowenthal 2009: 19).

“Terror and civilization are inseparable… Culture has evolved under the shadow of the executioner… One cannot abolish terror and retain civilization. Even to relax the former means the beginning of disintegration.”

It has been over a decade and a half since Americans were first exposed to the power of foreign terrorism. The twin tower attacks left us helpless. Americans didn’t see it coming and we were even more unsure of how to respond to such a tragedy. Who would want to kill innocent people on purpose? Why? It wreaked fear over the American population for years. Its ghost, constantly revived with every sensationalized explosion, every failed attempt, every image of that Muslim man deeply dedicated to the Islamic ideology. Americans had never experienced such a huge attack from a foreign enemy since Pearl Harbor and we would do anything to prevent this atrocity from happening again.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.

Guantanamo Bay, located on the eastern edge of Cuba, housed prisoners taken captive in the war on terror since 2002. Since Guantanamo Bay exists on a base on Cuban soil but held by the United States under lease, the detainees are in what some human rights organizations call a "legal black hole.” but transferring them to American soil would not necessarily change their legal status.A previous legal opinion found that the 2001 legislation granting the global war on terror, authorize them to be held as combatants as long as hostilities remain imminent.

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

Take a moment and imagine this, for every terrorist killed by a U.S. drone strike, 50 Pakistani civilians fall victims of these ruthless attacks. According to an article written by David Kilcullen and Andrew McDonald from the NY Times, “Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. However, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent hardly “precision.

Amidst a society in which political viewpoints, freedom of speech and one’s opinion on the needs of the people coincide with reality, it is relevant to state that our nation founded upon a Bill of Rights, a Constitution, treaties with other nations and established laws does not grasp the image of war. Americans currently face a religious war in which individuals from foreign countries are embarking on our freedoms that those who serve in our military have protected to keep however, bringing war to our home front is not an easy task to not take precautionary measures to a higher level. Since January 11, 2002, detainees from Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other disclosed locations have been transported to Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for interrogation in their involvement with plotted terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. As the media portrays an image of cruel and unusual punishment given to detainees the success rate of interrogations at Guantanamo Bay have given the CIA, military intelligence teams and government official’s crucial pieces to an unsolved puzzle.

These clear violations of jus ad bellum principles with the use of drone strikes have also opened our eyes to moral dangers of drone warfare. This alienated war is easy and safe to use to prevent and provide surveillance on the battlefield. It also provides protection that militaries never by have UAV’s that “fight” in wars, discontinuing the risk of lives of American soldiers. However, since drones are the “new soldiers”, public support and not required to execute drone warfare, let alone have an open debate if these strikes are done in secret.

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

The world has been changed forever since the tragic attack on September 11, 2001. An observer described the atrocity by saying, "It just went 'bam,' like a bomb went off. It was like holy hell (CNN 1). " The new world will be different from what any American has known before. A new war has arisen, not against a foreign country or a major region of the world, but rather against a select group of people who have the capabilities to destroy the lives of so many. The war against terrorism which the United States is now forced to wage will not be an easily won battle. This war will not be fought solely on scattered battlefields in certain countries. It will instead permeate through every aspect of life as we

According to Sean D. Murphy, U.S. anti-terrorist operations in Pakistan so far have taken the forms of drone strikes, “hot pursuits” into Pakistani territory in immediate response to raids from within Pakistan, and secret missions by special operations forces, such as the CIA, against militant targets located deeper in Pakistan . The numbers of incidents involving “hot pursuits” of the militant hideouts inside the Pakistani territory have been very few, so they have not attracted as much attention as other operations. There has only been one real recognized covert mission in Pakistan, which took place on September 3, 2008 in South Waziristan , an area under the control of the Taliban. This was the US’ first ground-based battle against the Taliban within Pakistani borders. This caused the death of many civilians and no “high-value” terrorist target. The Pakistani government strongly criticized this act and passed a resolution demanding American cooperation on covert operations, so the US did refrain from repeating such a mission; however, the American strikes using Unmanned Areal Vehicles, known as drones, have been going on since 2004 and have only increased since then under the Obama Administration.