The Military Use of Drones by the US- a Risky and Wrong Choice - Research Paper Example

of the English of the Concerned 6 December The Military use of Drones by the US- a Risky and Wrong Choice There is no denying the fact that the military use of drones by the US has accrued mixed response from the public, which is either of outright opposition or of a complacent silence. However, it is fact that the usage of drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) as military weapons is a trend that is fraught with varied serious and negative complications. The issue of the military usage of drones is associated with multiple complex outcomes. It is time when the policy and strategy groups and institutions ought to reconsider the success and importance of drones as the military weapons of choice. Indeed, pursuing warfare by means of drones is certainly not a good idea if one takes into consideration the harmful ramifications of this novel military strategy. Instead of furthering the US interests and aiding the nation’s strategic agenda, the military use of drones by the US has indeed curtailed the reputation of the US forces and accrued much negative publicity for the nation. It goes without saying that the US exploitation of drones as a military weapon is not a sane strategic option if one considers the civilian causalities it involves, the incumbent political outcomes, the dilution of the army’s moral and situational awareness and the inability of the drones to effectively curb and dilute international terrorism. It is a fact that if the drone warfare or the military usage of drones by the US forces is not backed by accurate and verified intelligence inputs, it could lead to much collateral damage. Experience has established beyond doubt that the instances when drones were used by the US as a weapon against the targeted enemies, they led to multiple civilian causalities (Whitlock 1). At a superficial level the citizens may think that drone warfare is indeed useful and effective because they believe that a military usage of drones involves the identification of the hostile targets like terrorists by the intelligence agencies and the subsequent dropping of a bomb or missile on the identified target by a drone leading to the neutralization of the enemy. However, actually speaking things are not so simple and it is only when one digs deeper that one is able to recognize the havoc drones wreck on the civilians that live near or in the vicinity of the targeted individual or group. Though the exact figures are not verified by the US military, as per the recent news reports, the use of drones as a weapon has led to the killing of a number of civilians in the tribal regions of Pakistan (Whitlock 1). If on the one side the killing of civilians in the drone attacks amounts to crimes against humanity, on the other side this trend is fraught with much serious consequences, as far as the reputation of the United States of America as a world power is concerned (Brunstetter & Braun 339). The killing of civilians in drone attacks accrues much criticism for the country on the international platforms. Secondly, for the achievement of the nation’s strategic targets it is imperative that the people in the regions where the US forces are deployed tend to cooperate with the US forces and hold them in high esteem. Going by the killing of civilians in the drone attacks, the people in these regions not only develop an averse and hostile attitude towards the US forces, but also aid and support the terrorist groups operating in the region. Hence, in a practical context drone warfare is indeed counterproductive and useless. It leads to the killing of civilians, accrual of infamy for the US forces and the aiding and supporting of the hostile elements like terrorist groups by the people who lost their loved ones in the drone attacks (Brunstetter $ Braun 339). This is indeed undesirable and least required by the US forces in times when the US is pursuing a war on terrorism. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the war on terrorism has an undeniable political angle attached to it. In the current times the US forces are deployed on foreign soils like Afghanistan and Iraq. The military strategy is expected to achieve the outcomes like the neutralization of the hostile elements and the protection of the civilians, friendly forces and US army deployed in the region. However, military strategy could not be solely relied on for the achievement of salient strategic objectives. For a fruitful culmination of the war on terrorism it is equally important that the US force are able to win the hearts and minds of the people living in these regions and do manage to win support of the local political parties and groups (The Independent 30). It is this political aspect of the US strategy that the military usage of drones hits the most. The military usage of drones leads to civilian deaths and thereby makes the people in these regions grow suspicious of and hostile towards the US forces (The Independent 30). The military usage of drones gives way to a vicious environment which makes it impossible for the local political groups and politicians to back the US plans out of a fear of attracting the popular opposition and unrest (The Independent 30). Hence, it is imperative that the US must desist from the military use of drones that not only politically alienate it from the political forces influential in the hostile regions, but also harms and hits the achievement of the salient US strategic objectives in these territories. The other thing is that the US military happens to be such a pillar of the nation’s democracy that relies as much on a sense of ethical correctness as on the much famous American military superiority. Hence, the very experience of being deployed in the war zones with the like minded colleagues, wearing the same uniform and cherishing similar values inculcates a sense of camaraderie and ethical uprightness in the US soldiers. This sense of belonging that the US soldiers cherish has a significant tactical advantage that yields an edge to the US forces in the war zones. Contrary to this, the military deployment of drones takes away all the ethical connotations and morality from the art of warfare and degrades it to the level of a video game (Clarke 46)). This depletes the moral of the US forces and deprives them of a sense of purpose and belonging (Clarke 46). Besides, the negative reactions from the local people who lose their loved ones in drone attacks deprives the US forces of a sense of pride and achievement and may make them doubt the implicit morality and validity of their mission. Hence, it is time that the US desists from the military use of drones and resort to the other conventional approaches and strategies that have a reputation of yielding the desired outcomes. The other thing is that the US forces deployed in the hostile regions need to develop a sense of situational awareness to be able to operate in a more effective and professional manner (Gordesman 221). Engaging with and neutralizing the enemy on the actual terrain, facilitates the US forces with a situational awareness that not only yields desired results in the immediate context, but also becomes an integral part of a soldier’s experience which one could carry to future scenarios and conflicts. In that context, the military use of drones takes away the US forces from the battleground and thereby deprives them of the situational awareness and the military experience that can only be achieved by directly engaging with the enemy. Even if one adheres to the Machiavellian dogma that ends justify the means, one could not appreciate and accept the military use of drones by the US forces going by the fact that the drones have failed to effectively mitigate terrorism. The drone warfare believes in surgical strikes aimed at neutralizing the high risk individuals like terrorist leaders and ranks. The irony is that the military use of drones by the US highlights the fact that the nation has miserably failed to understand as to how terrorist groups operate and the dynamics they follow. War on terrorism is a war against a peculiar type of mindset rather than about killing a few individuals through surgical drone strikes. Hence, the use of the military needs to be to carve out a space in the hostile regions where the benign ideas like democracy and freedom may exist. The end objective ought to be to implant a political culture in these regions that believes in coexistence and peace and that is receptive of a Western style democratic culture, which is intolerant of violence and terrorism. Killing a few individuals through drone strikes totally misses the point. Thereby, the military use of drones by the US could not be justified in a strategic and political context. It is a counterproductive strategy which rather impedes the US strategic objectives. Drones lead to civilian casualties that not only curtail the popular and political support for the US in the hostile territories, but also accrue much infamy for the nation. Besides, drones divest the art of warfare of its ethical and moral aspects and deprive the US forces of a sense of morality and the much needed military experience. Pragmatically speaking the military use of drones has totally failed to eliminate terrorism. Hence, it is high time that the US should stop relying on the drones as a strategic asset and resort to the more tested conventional strategies that had yielded results in the past. Works Cited Brunstetter, Daniel and Megan Braun. “The Implications of Drones on the Just War Tradition”. Ethics and International Affairs 25.3 (2009): 337-342. Print. Clarke, Kevin. “The Drone Wars: High-Tech Warfare Administers Death from a Great Distance”. U.S. Catholic June 2009: 46-47. Print. Gordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Print. “Imran Khan Urges Pakistan to Speak out over US Drone Strikes”. The Independent 25 April 2011. Print. 6 December 2013. Whitlock, Craig. “Drone Strikes Killing more Civilians than US Admits, Human Rights Groups Say”. The Washington Post 22 October 2013. Web. 6 December 2013. Back to previous page Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say By Craig Whitlock, Published: October 22 Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare. In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack. In Pakistan, Amnesty International investigated nine suspected U.S. drone strikes that occurred between May 2012 and July 2013 in the territory of North Waziristan. The group said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks. The basic circumstances of each of the drone strikes had been previously reported by local and international news outlets. But the human rights groups said they were able to shed further light on the incidents by interviewing survivors, other witnesses and government officials in both countries. Most drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen occur in remote areas that are often hostile to outsiders, making independent assessments difficult. The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry. The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. Partly as a result, estimates of drone-related casualties vary wildly. Sorting out how many people were legitimate targets under the laws of war and how many were bystanders is an even greater challenge. In their reports, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International called on the Obama administration to make its drone-targeting policies more transparent and to publicly investigate reports of civilian casualties. “The full picture will only come to light when U.S. authorities fully disclose the facts, circumstances and legal basis for each of its drone strikes,” Amnesty International concluded in its report, titled “Will I Be Next? U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan.” Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokeswoman, declined to comment on the reports. But she cited a speech by President Obama in May in which he announced narrower guidelines for drone attacks. Obama said drones would be used only against people who pose a “continuing, imminent threat” to the United States and only in cases in which the avoidance of civilian casualties would be “a near-certainty.” “As the President emphasized, the use of lethal force, including from remotely piloted aircraft, commands the highest level of attention and care,” Hayden said in an e-mail. Drone strikes in Pakistan are carried out by the CIA under a covert program. In Yemen, the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command conduct drone attacks. Spokesmen for the CIA and the Pentagon declined to comment. In each country, the number of U.S. drone strikes has dropped in the past year. Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. In that case, a group of male laborers had gathered in a tent for dinner when a missile blast killed 10 of them. A few minutes later, as rescuers arrived at the scene to treat the wounded, another round of missiles killed eight more people, according to Amnesty. In Yemen, Human Rights Watch singled out a Sept. 2, 2012, airstrike in the village of Sarar that blew up a minibus, killing 12 passengers, including three children and a pregnant woman. The group said the Yemeni government, which works closely with U.S. counterterrorism forces, later admitted that the attack had been a mistake and compensated families of the victims. In most of the other drone strikes cited in the reports, the human rights groups admitted that the scenarios were much less clear-cut. They acknowledged that many of those who died were suspected to be al-Qaeda or Taliban members. In other instances, civilians died alongside armed combatants. But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret. The Implications of Drones onthe Just War Tradition Brunstetter, Daniel, Braun, Megan, Ethics & International Affairs While drones have arguably enjoyed significant success in limiting civiliancasualties and protecting U.S. soldiers, their use has raised ethical concerns. InOctober 2009, Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, expressed strong skepticism as to the legalityof U.S. drone operations and asked the U.S. government to disclose how it wasselecting and identifying targets, but the U.S. State Department declined torespond. In February 2010, the U.S. Air Force drew widespread attention aftertwenty-three civilians were killed in a drone-related incident in Afghanistan,prompting further concerns about rules of engagement and the chain ofresponsibility. An after-action report by the U.S. military released in May 2010alleged serious misjudgments on the part of the drone operators andrecommended significant revisions to the training program. (13) In the midst ofthese discussions, the U.S. House of Representatives hosted two committeehearings on the legality of targeted drone killings, which raised questionsregarding who was being killed, where the strikes took place, who authorized thetargeting, and the legality of the technology itself. Finally, in Yemen and Pakistanthe sustained violation of their sovereignty coupled with the collateral damagecaused by drones has led to public outrage. (14) Despite these concerns, however,the use of drones is not likely to cease given the belief, as Kenneth Andersonexplains, that "drones are a major step forward toward much morediscriminating use of violence in war and self-defense--a step forward inhumanitarian technology." (15) In what fol1ows, we address this claim byturning to the principles of the just war tradition. Imran Khan Urges Pakistan toSpeak out over US Drone Strikes Imran Khan, Pakistan's cricket legend turned politician, challenged hisgovernment to "come clean" on their support of CIA- operated drone strikesduring a protest which shut down NATO supply routes to Afghanistan for twodays. The sit-in in Peshawar, 35 miles from the Afghan border, has blocked a majorroad used to supply Western forces in the country. The attacks, which routinelytarget suspected militants in the tribal areas along the border, have become ahighly emotive issue in Pakistan, with innocent civilians often mistakenlytargeted. "If the government supports drone strikes, it should come clean and say so," MrKhan told The Independent. "If, on the other hand, it genuinely opposes them,then it should order the Pakistan Air Force to shoot them down." Since itsinception, Pakistan has quietly tolerated drone strikes. Mr Khan threatened further protests if drone attacks are not stopped within amonth. "The government can no longer play on both sides of the wicket," MrKhan told a crowd of 5,000. Hostility to the seven-year covert CIA programme has reached fever pitch inrecent weeks after Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani issued arare denunciation of the strike last month, and Prime Minister Yousaf RazaGilani called for drones to be stopped altogether. For Washington, the drones hold obvious appeal. They are a pilotless means ofeliminating high-level al-Qa'ida and Taliban targets where it cannot deploytroops. Pakistani officials have discreetly cheered as drones slayed some of itsmost wanted terrorists. While US and even some Pakistani officials insist that the drones have becomemore accurate, the Pakistani public is incensed by what is perceived to be a highnumber of civilian casualties. In Peshawar yesterday the crowd was overwhelmingly young and male. Manyhad come from nearby regions of the northwest, while others had travelled fromas far as Lahore. They hurled taunts at their "corrupt" and "enslaved" politiciansand cheered and waved Mr Khan's party flags as Pashtun pop songs blared overthe loudspeakers "The cause has to move from the parliament to the streets because parliamenthas been ineffective," said Marvi Memon, an opposition parliamentarian whojoined the protests. For Mr Khan, opposition to drone attacks is the latest attempt at making politicalinroads. While widely cherished as a national treasure for his sporting successand philanthropic efforts, success at the ballot box has proved elusive. But hehopes growing support among Pakistan's youth, 65 per cent of the population,will alter his Movement for Justice's fortunes. Sajjad Bangash, 24, says he was drawn to the protest by personal circumstancesafter three of his cousins died in a drone strike in Kurram. "More than 40 people were killed, and none of them were militants," he claimed. "We want change and Imran Khan can bring it," enthused Mr Bangash, astudent at Gandahara University. Critics of Mr Khan say that he is too soft on Islamist militants, preferring to cutpeace deals with them rather than confront them with force. They say hedenounces the drones with greater force than suicide bombings. Mr Khan counters that Pakistan's participation in the "war on terror" has onlyfuelled further extremism, created more terrorists and devastated the localeconomy. The Iraq War- Anthony H. Gordesman THE BROADER PICTURE: THE NEED TORESTRUCTURE U.S. COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS ANDTHE POSSIBLE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THEATERCOMMANDS These experiences raise broader questions about the need for an integratedcommon operating picture and interoperability, and the possible need toeliminate service-oriented subordinate commands in the theater. As GeneralFranks has noted in his analysis of the lessons of the war, one key lesson of thewar is the ability to exercise joint command over all U.S. services, and alliedforces, at distances as great as 7,000 miles—the approximate distance from thetheater to the USCENTCOM headquarters in Florida and the U.S. nationalcommand authority in Washington. At a minimum, this requires the United States to keep developing the bestcommon operating picture (COP) possible and to develop a truly integrated, user-friendly, tracking and command and control architecture that brings together theoperations of all of the military services. It also requires the United States todesign this system for information sharing with its allies.8 The report on the lessons of the Iraq War by the British Ministry of Defensereinforces the importance of this kind of advance in command and control aswell as the importance of interoperability:9 The UK has a wide range of communications and informationsystems per- forming different functions. These were not all compatible with eachother or with US systems, which led to interoperability difficulties. As aresult, re- liable, secure, timely and effective communication between allstakeholders could not be guaranteed. The concept of Network Enabled Capability (NEC), introduced in the SDR “New Chapter,” involves the integration of sensors, weaponsand deci- sion-makers in order to deliver rapid, controlled and precise militaryeffect. Shortening the time between targeting decisions and execution…is aprime example of this. Many new capabilities introduced through the UORprocess in this operation were designed to improve the passage andexploitation of information as first steps in the development of NEC. The British report also notes the value of UK and U.S. special operations forcesbeing able to track each other’s locations, thus improving situational awarenessat all levels of command. It notes that this led to more effective battlemanagement and an increase in operational tempo in all weather conditions. There may, however, be broader lessons for “jointness.” It is clear from the U.S.experience during the Iraq War that all service-oriented commands -221- The Drone Wars: High-TechWarfare Administers Deathfrom a Great Distance Clarke, Kevin, U.S. Catholic During his campaign, candidate Obama spoke of the coming end of Bushness asusual and a renewed respect for international law. Continuing a policy ofdeploying lethal force outside a recognized combat zone, within the territory of anation not at war with the United States, and without its consent hardly suggestsa change of direction. While the drone campaign presents the obvious strategic danger of furtherinflaming anti-American passions in this part of the world--indeed has alreadydone so--the more subtle ethical problems associated with the drone wars havenever been suitably explored. Somehow the drones effectively hide the bloodyhand of an extra-judicial killing behind their essential technological coolness. Israel first innovated the use of "targeted assassinations" in an effort to suppressits political and military opponents entrenched in Palestinian communities. Thesedays it is U.S. military strategists who urge an acceptance of such state acts oftargeted homicide, but when they began the Israelis at least understood that theywere treading on new moral ground. A retired Israeli army colonel, quoted in The Guardian, spoke frankly aboutaltering boundaries. International law is "based on the notion that an act that isforbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries," he said."We invented the targeted assassination thesis, and we had to push it." Not exactly a ringing ethical endorsement for droning on. Dissatisfying and evenimpractical as it may be, the only thoroughly legal response to the tribal-areamachinations of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, says Notre Dame law professor MaryEllen O'Connell, is interdiction in cooperation with Pakistan. When we cavalierly juggle means and ends--when we, as O'Connell says, try"end runs around international law"--we make decisions that come back tohaunt us. "And I have a few words for people who don't think so," saysO'Connell, "Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay." Read More