War on Terror: Droned Out Essay

One often misinterprets the true meaning of war, believing it is only a dispute that is ended through fighting. In fact, war is more than just fighting. It is a battle where many brave souls lose their lives for protecting the country they love. Many of the rights we have today would not have been possible without the sacrifice of many brave American soldiers. Instead of living in a tranquil and prosperous nation, we could be living in a nation that resembles countries such as Africa, living under poor conditions and extreme poverty. It is imperative to take into consideration that the veterans we have today have made an impact on our nation and we owe much of our respect to them. Not many people have the courage to take on the heavy and overwhelming duty of going to war, knowing that death is imminent. Along with that, many of them have experienced traumatizing moments that have scarred them for life. Because of this, there is much appreciation and respect inclined towards

Article One: Dainel Byman, in his article Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s weapon of Choice in an August 2013 article in the Brookings Institute, identifies the positive impact of US drone strikes. Byman contends that US drone strikes are extremely efficient, at little financial cost to the government, and protect the lives of American soldiers. For these reasons, Byman believes that US drone strikes are necessary to the war on terror.

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

The U.S government started using unarmed drones in 2000 to monitor Afghanistan when the country was at war. The drone program was expanded when the September 11 attacks happened as a way to counteract the terrorists. Drones were used a surveillance but this time most drones are armed with missiles to weaken and destroy terrorist groups power. The death toll from the expansion of the program, according to the human rights group Reprieve, found that in 2014 that US killed 1,147 people in Pakistan and Yemen in the course of targeting only 41 men. This has caused a debate on whether to continue to use drones or to destroy the programs. A large amount of

Terrorism is extremely sensitive subject, and rightfully so. I believe the United States has attempted to help form some form of defense in order to combat the growing threat of terrorism. Although I agree something must be done, I tend to disagree with the strategy. Yet, I will admit I really do not know what I would do if I was in a leadership positions and was forced to make a decision or come up with a plan. One such problem was spoken about by the NPR, in the debate about the US Drone policy. In one manner, Drones provide a safe way for the killing of dangerous individuals without ever putting a US solider in danger. However, Critics are likely to point out these Drone Strike occasionally have civilian causalities. My point simply being

With the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City, the United States adopted radical changes to its foreign policy and its response to terrorist threat. With the swift implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act shortly after the attacks (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act), and intervention in Afghanistan, the United States had begun its War on Terror. This war was shepherded by then President George W. Bush. These actions marked the beginning of the War on Terror, and laid the groundwork for the problems experienced by the Obama administration almost ten years later.

“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.”

Since 9/11/01 the United States has been under attack by terrorism and George W. Bush started the war against terrorism but his presidency has ended. Since then Barack Obama has taken over as president and he has a new strategy, which consists of, protecting our homeland by constantly reducing our vulnerabilities, adapting, and updating our defenses, killing Osama bin Laden and many of his top Lieutenants, and giving law enforcement new ways to counter-terrorism. President Obama believes in order to hinder terrorism the US must increase the efficacy of our law enforcement, actively seek out to take out al’ Qaeda’s leaders, and constantly decrease our vulnerabilities.

When President Bush called Americans to enlist in his "war on terror," very few citizens could have grasped the all-encompassing consequences of the proposition. The terrifying events of 9/11 were like a blinding flash, benumbing the country with a sudden knowledge of unimagined dangers. Strong action was recommended, skeptics were silenced and a shallow sense of unity emerged from the shared vulnerabilities. Nearly three years later, the enormity of Bush's summons to open-ended "war" is more obvious. It overwhelmed the country, in fact deranged society's normal processes and purposes with a brilliantly seductive political message: Terror pre-empts everything else.

When targets are disposed of through means of remote-controlled drones, the U.S becomes disconnected with the war itself. Drone Pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton himself admitted that in conducting drone strikes with just a screen and controls, he feels no connection or emotion for the people he kills ("Should the United"). This should not be so. Through this, the U.S is able to go to any measure and continue any conflict as it pleases with no remorse for the cost of human lives. This further enables the U.S to disregard moral principles, at the cost of as many human lives as the U.S pleases. War should have restrictions, and every life should be bargained and reasoned with. With this disconnect though, the U.S uses as much force as it pleases in conflicts that threaten their interest. This disconnect through drone strikes also allows the U.S not to notice or care for how it is spreading to the general civilian life in the affected regions. According to witnesses and researchers, drone strikes are harming local populations “beyond death and physical injury” ("Should the United"). Many witness that the people in affected regions live in constant fear of drone strikes, and are afraid to travel or participate in any sort of meeting. Many incidents of local deaths and injuries due to these drone strikes plague the population, and many people consider the drones to be

Keith Shurtleff, US army chaplain and ethics instructor, states that soldiers are "physically and psychologically removed from the horrors of battle and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a danger of losing the deterrent to war that its horrors normally provide". This causes battle to be prolonged for an extremely long period of time, extending conflict, then creating new unnecessary wars that can cause more terror and damage to innocent civilians. According to Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), it's "such a trend to dehumanize warfare. It's machines and computers doing the job... [but this] is not video games, these are real people and it's real death and we're making real enemies around the world by continuing with the drone strikes". Drone warfare provokes the idea that the people on the screen used to strike are not people at all, it mimics games, which gives the idea that the individual “bleeps” aren’t living at all. The soldiers aren’t there themselves, they don’t experience the emotional part of battle at all, which can an extremely dangerous thing, it creates an aura of, almost, borderline

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

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

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.