US Drone Warfare - for or against Humanity - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages Under Bush’s administration, the drone attacks were less than 6 times compared to Obama’s administration. The story, however, does not end here. The number of deaths has increased remarkably to around 4 times higher than in the previous government reign (Bergen & Braun, 2012). There is a debate over the legality, ethicality, and reality behind the policies adopted in the name of Drone warfare against terrorism. Critics believe that these attacks do not carry any moral, legal or ethical weight as the attacks do not merely harm the targeted terrorists but rather the civilians are harmed. This school of thought sheds more light on the innocent people killed in areas like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. They believe that drone attacks are not a mere attempt to curb terrorism anymore but it goes beyond it and has stepped towards diminishing and threatening different groups in the name of war against terrorism.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that in 346 drone strikes around 2570 to 3337 deaths and around 1232-1366 injured people were reported in Pakistan alone between 2004 and 2012 (Serle & Woods, 2012). Benjamin (2012) further sheds light on the misuse of drone warfare by the US Government to brutally end the lives of incalculable blameless citizens in countries including Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan (Benjamin, 2012). The opponents of drone warfare policies recommend a systematic, rational, and more comprehensive view of resolving the terrorism issue. They find such brutal killings as another way to promote terrorism, i.e. a more civilized and official step towards taking part in terrorist activities. The US administration’s over-reliance on and misuse of the authorities and powers is not only harming the ethical values it held but is also coming into conflict with the diplomatic and political targets it aimed to achieve (Editorial Board, 2012).

TBIJ suggests that US drones are responsible for the death of 50 civilians in February 2012, who were struggling to aid and rescue victims of a previous attack. Such attacks that merely kill innocent rescue workers, rescue teams, civilians, and others aiming at clearing up the attacked site or helping victims after the first attack have increased the death rates of injured civilians who could be saved by the provision of timely medical assistance (Scott 2012). The double attacks have threatened people from visiting the attacked site until a considerable time has elapsed. The US, hence, needs to clarify the position and aim of such attacks which are more inclined to affect and kill innocent civilians and militants rather than the targeted terrorist groups.

The supporters of drone war claim that drone attacks and terrorist activities have been reduced. They claim that drone warfare is affecting their organizational capacity. Continuous attacks on terrorists firstly reduce their number by diluting their power and secondly discourages people from involving in such activities or groups regardless of any religious or monetary benefit they are assured of (Boyle, 2013). It seems quite practical; yet, the political case of innocent civilians killed is stronger and has forced the US to look into the issue more closely and responsibly. The United Nations' involvement in the issue is a living example of the cruelty it poses to the very basic phenomenon of humanity. In addition to the Protestants in Yemenis, and other countries affected by the US drones, the exponential rise in the number of drone strikes stands as a base for the UN to investigate the matter (The Telegraph 2013).

In light of the above discussion, the basic aim and strategy behind deciding the drone attack site or groups are questionableDronene warfare seem to be effective in curbing the issue of increasing terrorist activities. However, the very basis of s humanity-based approach that gives every person a right to live is overruled. The thousands of people that are killed in each drone attack still have the right to live. The UN’s participation in the matter further highlights the issue globally. The US needs to review the policies and manage the issue properly too to avoid further reputational and political damages that might hit the US economy in the coming future. ...Download file to see next pages Read More