Counter argument about the Drone Warfare - Essay Example

Some attack drones like predator and reaper are flown remotely by operators on the ground, far away from the attack areas. Drone attacks have revolutionized how wars are fought and have also advanced surveillance. The war against terrorism has triggered much importance for the unmanned aircraft where an enemy can be hit without engaging military personnel on the ground. This technology has been used by former president Bush administration where the military carried out 45 drone strikes and the Obama administration that has carried more than 100 drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan (655).

This has been efficient in neutralizing militants in the remote and inaccessible areas. In this regard therefore, the use of drones should be supported as revolutionary advancement in containment of threats. Major debates are mostly based on the effectiveness of drones in combat and breach of privacy rights of civilians. Many civil organizations around the world have argued that drone attacks have claimed lives of both the targets and civilians. Most drone strikes are conducted in Pakistan and Afghanistan by NATO and US military against insurgents.

This implies that unintended deaths may occur. However, drones are better in precision and therefore reduce strike errors by a higher index that manned aircrafts. It is thus incorrect to argue that drones are ineffective without comparing to other options that can be employed for the same task. This also leads to a reduction in pilot deaths in instances where planes are shot down since pilots sit at computer consoles far away from the action zone (658). Many scholars and lawyers have raised argument on whether drone attacks are justified under internationals laws.

According to the State Department, the answer is yes. This is because the law allows a State to defend itself from hostile forces that threaten its existence. In Pakistan for example, the use of drones has been targeting suspected militants who are at war with the United States military. As such, the United States and its allies deserve the right to use drones in such instances. Drones strikes are preferable when the target areas are hostile both in terrain and weather, thus, arrests may be impossible.

According to Anderson, a law professor, drone strikes are well in order under the legal doctrine of self-defense and national security. He poses that terrorism I nations such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and other nations pose a direct threat to the United States. Though they operate in sovereign countries, the United States has a role to defend itself and its interest using any means possible (658). As such, carrying out an attack on a hostile target should not be viewed as a violation of sovereignty.

Drones strikes are active measures that suppress terrorism. According to David Kilcullen, drone warfare has succeeded in damaging the leadership of top islamists militants who lead al Qaeda and Taliban. From the year 2006, the drone strikes have eliminated about 14 top leaders of al-Qaeda (659). The arguments about civilian casualties have often been questionable. This is because the precision of drones allows that the warhead strikes the exact point of interest. It can be argued that the innocence of the civilians killed is questionable.

This is because top militant bosses have heavy security making it difficult for civilians to interact with them. Therefore, Christin Fair, a professor on security studies, concludes that drones strikes