“We do not kill our cattle the way the US is killing humans in Waziristan with drones. I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey.” - Rafiq Rehman, after the drone strike on his residence killed his mother It was the 24th of October, 2012. The last day of Ramadan in the Islamic lunar calendar, a day before Eid. Mamana Rehman was in her garden picking okra; her two grandchildren were playing a little further away, albeit within eyeshot, while her son was out to get groceries. Without caution, a US CIA Predator drone landed just on the Rehman family’s residence, destroying everything in its radius. The house was in ashes, along with the village. Mamana Rehman was just another victim of collateral damage. Meanwhile, former CIA Director Leon Panetta, gave an unmoved response about her stance on drones: “Very frankly, it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” ; once again highlighting the immense advantage the drones have in terms of their range, diversity and their contribution to international security. The two conflicting views on the use of these drones are evidently clear, making this one of the mostly hotly debated topics around the globe. Whereas one side heavily argues the advantages of drones in vast diversity, and their role in achieving the ‘greater good’ , the other side maintains that nothing outweighs loss of a human life. Each human life is as important as the other, and to save one you cannot destroy the other. To deem any breathing body in any corner of the globe as ‘collateral damage’ is a pathetic indictment directly insulting to humanity. Contrary ... ... middle of paper ... ...nes. Sending in drones instead of military personnel also means losing out on the invaluable intel that perhaps would have been obtained if the latter were used. A captured terrorist can offer all sorts of precious leads, which a dead terrorist cannot. The prospect of a war is disturbing and threatening to countries in general is because of the risk of losing human lives is involved. In triumph and defeat alike, nations lose countless human lives. It is this very risk that gives a human factor to these wars, making them ugly and unpleasant. Specializing in drones dehumanizes war, revolving it into a match of technological advancement and economy between states. Once drones are established as an essential form of warfare in developed countries, wars will become more frequent and lengthier, as the risk that was once present in medieval wars has fallen exponentially.
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
On the use of drones, NYT’s Peter M. Singer (“Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”) makes the comprehensive argument that the use of drones goes against the how wars are meant to be fought—human participation. It can be counter argued that these automatons are better in terms of expendability; personnel are not easily replaced while drones are easily replaceable. The Bush 43 strategy relied more on men, and it did yielded adverse results politically. The switch to drones presented dynamic political benefits, for which Singer argued allowed for circumvention of aggravated/emotive discourse among members of the American populace, academics and mass media. It is imperative to remember that the cost of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq—increases in casualties—was detrimental to the American credibility and brought about victory to Obama in 2008 elections.
In this paper, I will examine how drone strikes are instituted in America’s foreign policy and their effectiveness against terrorist organizations. Although drone warfare might seem effective and thus desirable for many people, the civilian casualties that it causes increase anti-American sentiment in the region. This sentiment creates a backlash that in fact helps terrorist groups regain their leader, recruit new members, and facilitate revenge, making drones a counterproductive foreign policy
The drones would take care of the strikes and that would be that. No soldiers would be hurt or even die while the drones were doing their job. DeBrabander then makes a statement, ". . . with less skin in the game, the less worried their loved ones will be . . .," momentarily makes readers believe that the drones do serve a great purpose. However, through effective comparison DeBrabander leads his readers to logically infer that the drones must also be responsible for the death toll that they will bring with the airstrike. It then becomes clear to the reader that the ". . . drones will be tempting for our leaders . . ." our society feels that once we start using drones, we would be heading down a dark
Imagine sleeping in your own bed knowing that a few houses down the street lived a terrorist who was planning on doing something extreme. Would you be okay with a drone strike where he lived knowing it could possibly kill you and your family as well as many other innocent people? What about knowing that it hit the target and that there was one less terrorist who could cause harm to innocent people as well? The pro-drone strike article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington 's Weapon of Choice (Byman). In contrast the anti-drone strike article argues, “Drone strikes are an unethical violation of human rights” by (Friedersdorf). That drones do not just affect targets but also communities and all the people who live here.
Ever since, the U.S. military has advanced significantly in remote targeted killings, and the drone has become notably popular. These aircrafts are used primarily to spy and eventually kill an individual without having to put army boots down on surrounding ground. Drones are especially important for military missions that are deemed too dangerous for military soldiers to physically be there (Tice). The use of a drone can “get the job done” without having to be concerned with the common death and trauma of American soldiers, that ground combaters encounter daily. Drones are unmanned machines that fly with the help of lithium-polymer batteries, and give information to the drone pilot through attached sensors (Tice). These sensors have the ability to measure the distance and speed of the target, which allows the drone pilot to make an accurate hit on the victim (Tice). Missiles, that are secured onto the drone, are prompted to launch when the drone pilot deems the time is appropriate. Although this newly invented technology greatly assists the United States military in fighting war and potentially preventing danger, I believe that unmanned drones are causing more harm for our future warfare. The use of remotely-controlled aircrafts, in warfare, profoundly desensitizes the drone pilots, to the terrors of war because it makes killing too easy and ultimately
It can be asserted that with current technology and supervision drones lack the stability required to be successful and safe and in actuality are counter-effective because these drones create an unsupervised means of power that could quickly spiral out of control. The drone program fails to decrease the death count of war, increase the intelligence needed to dismantle terrorist cells and be secure against hackers. As a result, drones are counterproductive, and in truth create a newfound terrorism. At the end of the day, the only means to eradicate the enemy is to make them a friend.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), also known as Drones have been used since the civil war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The idea of unmanned aerial vehicles had been growing more and more with every conflict our nation has come across. The use of drones is now in full effect, ranging from military operations to relief efforts. Controversies around the increased use of drones include target killings by the military and surveillance by drones within the U.S. Target killing has shown to be effective and favorable against terrorism but some have seen it as a violation of human rights
Drone Strikes are used by the United States in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to aid the war on terror. The proper usage of attack drones by the U.S. has been fiercely debated since President Obama has greatly increased the use of attack drones. Those who are against it argue that the strikes are not ethical and harm too many civilians for the number of possible threats the strikes eliminate. However, because these strikes are very beneficial to the war on terror and save numerous lives by combating threats and protecting American soldiers, our military should continue drone use abroad.
(Custom Reader 104) This topic intrigued me because I haven’t really thought about if the American citizens had to run in fear for their lives, knowing a drone flying around your safe territory could randomly eliminate you at any time. This made me wonder if situations like this created enmity or jealousy towards the safeguarded citizens belonging to the aggressor. The article highlights O’Connell’s dismay that the misuse and misplacement of drones within ethical bounds has fanned fire into the flames, only making those opposed to the United States angrier. (106) While O’Connell’s argument is definitely sincere in caring for the well-being of other beings, I believe that there can definitely situation in which another hostile would resort to hiding within the safe zones, which would endanger those who are immediately surrounding him and those who he may be plotting against. While this does not intrinsically warrant deployment of drones to search for and eliminate the target, it forces a great burden on to the shoulders of the CTU and the government that I’m sure no person would
Drones are cheaper and more effective than putting boots on the ground. According to Brooking.edu, “Over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban who are not easily replaced…” have been killed by drone strikes. Another 3,250 al Qaeda, Taliban, and Jihadist operatives have also been killed by drone strikes. They are also worthy to be used for the reason that they are cheaper than manned aircraft attacks and U.S. military attacks. U.S. manned aircraft attacks cost $16,900 per hour to operate while drones cost about $3,679 per hour to operate. You might think that's a lot of money, but it cost $2.1 million per year for each soldier deployed in Afghanistan.
One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones; which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for less casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve. The use of drones as weapons of war and delivery and surveillance systems should not be dismissed because many people do not realize the real capabilities of drones and how they can be used to better the world through efficient air strikes, faster delivery times, and useful surveillance.
Every day the world is evolving, different types of technology are being made for different kinds of uses. Some people in the army want to use drones to carry out different types of missions, in other places in the world. Using will help soldiers carry out missions, quicker, easier, and much more efficient. 60% of Americans agree on the usage of drones for army purposes. Many people say that the army should not use drones because drones will increase the number of terrorists, drones can kill and injure innocent civilians, and that drones will “...allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war” (ℙ8, Drones). There are many advantages with having drones aid military bases, because
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)
Living in the digital age where we enjoy the various fruits of latest technological tools and advancements, then at the same time we cannot escape from their hidden or apparent harms. Also, it is a fact that some gadgets supported by these technological advancements are much capable to bring destruction and disaster then construction and convenience. The same goes for the Drone Technology which since past 200 years is being used to create turbulence at the global level. It has proved to be a powerful investigator and bomber at the same time. Drones are specifically associated with military actions and the countries having used them for surveillance purposes include UK, USA, Italy, Japan, Austria, Australia etc. The list of victim counties or nations is much bigger in contrast. Some prominent victims of Drone Air Strikes include Congo, Venice, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. However, it is also an undeniable fact that the massive production and usage of Drones got multiplied in the 21st century.