On average seventeen percent of deaths caused by armed drone strikes are innocent civilians (Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?). In regards to the United States’ population, this would equate to over fifty-five million dead. Highly controversial, armed drone strikes involve a remotely manned aerial combat vehicle firing a missile, or another projectile at a target, usually a suspected terrorist. They are preferred to land combat with actual human soldiers as they are thought to allow for a greater spread of operation. However, these strikes possess significant consequences. The use of armed drone strikes in the United States’ military should be stopped, or greatly lessened/reformed because they unfairly target civilians as well as mentally damaging the US. soldiers, are ineffective and are in probable if not definite violation of international humanitarian law.
Some argue that drone strikes are a useful and positive part of the United States’ military strategy as their cost-effectiveness weighs out over other concerns and drawbacks. Foreign policy expert Wayne Mclean asserts that costs resulting from medical bills and compensation, and upkeep of US. soldiers deployed can be lessened by the use of drone strikes. He writes that “… each US soldier deployed in Afghanistan in 2012 cost the government $2.21 million USD”. McLean believes that if drone strikes are used more frequently, fewer soldiers will be deployed and upkeep military costs will decrease. Thus, the already stretched government budget will relax with lessened spending. Be that as it may, two major faults lie in McLean’s assertion and his larger position. Firstly, the answer to overspending in the military will not be solved with the increased use of drones in war. The cost of a soldier’s upkeep is only a small part of the disproportionate amount of federal funding that goes towards the military. Lastly, the use of drone strikes poses major humanitarian concerns that, morally, should not be excused for the sake of finance.
Although the use of drone strikes may make financial sense for the US Military they pose critical humanitarian concerns regarding their targeting of non-combatant civilians. One of the most commonly noted examples of advantages of drone strikes is their precision. They are noted to be able to successfully target one person, and one person only. According to Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and lead author of a 2013 study of drones, most individuals targeted by drones are “not on a kill list”, and that “the government does not know their names” (Shane). While drones may be able to kill a single, isolated target, they are often not able to judge whether a suspect is a combatant or a civilian. Because of their remote operation and limited camera perspective, a complete analysis of a suspect (which is possible with a human soldier) is not possible. It is this fact that contributes to the high rates of civilian casualties involved in remote drone strikes. With a disproportionate amount of resulting casualties being innocent civilians, it is more than understandable that the strikes have negative social repercussions on the people living in targeted areas. Trauma and chaos are widespread in heavily affected localities. Yemeni tribal Sheik Mullah Zabara supports the above when he asserts, in the article, Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?, “We consider the drones terrorism, they are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism”. For a country that attempts to protect the people of Yemen from terrorist threats, the effects of US. drone strikes on the residing civilians strike one as counterproductive. Morally, a seventeen percent civilian casualty rate is unacceptable for a twenty-first century, democratic, developed nation to be responsible for.
Including the effects on those unfairly targeted by the unmanned strikes, the soldiers who carry them out are likewise negatively impacted. The fact of the matter stands, war/armed combat is destructive to one’s mental well-being and cognitive function. While it may immediately appear that removing live United States soldiers from a foreign combat environment would lessen traumatic effects, the separation present in drone warfare may be even worse on the mind than physical combat. In a summit hosted by the International Peace Institute (IPI), research was presented which stated that those participating in drone warfare more much more likely than soldiers participating in actual combat to lack the ability to form clear divisions between combat and home life (Henigson, Harley, et al). When, to a soldier, enemies are only present on a computer screen, the mind is not able to adjust to life outside of the control room. The nature of drone warfare leads one to forget that the death it causes is just as real as casualties caused by a gun in the hands of a US. Soldier. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), notes that it is “…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”(Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?). Her words do an excellent job of reminding one that while strikes are carried out thousands of miles away from the actual action in a combat zone, it essentially has the same, if not worse, as the results the actions of drones often do not register to the conscience as clearly.
The value of drone strikes is additionally called into question in manners completely removed from humanitarian concerns by inspecting their actual effectiveness. Use of these strikes is often supported by the claim that their precision makes eliminating a specific target reliable and easy. The reality of the situation is that the above statement is simply false. Previously classified documents released in October 2015 revealed that in five months of combat in Afghanistan, ninety percent of deaths resulting from drone strikes were not the intended target (Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?). This statistic effectively reveals the truth of the issue: drone strikes are not reliable. As a means to target a specific terrorist, over and over again they have proven themselves to be anything but precise. The ninety percent of casualties that are unintended speak volumes regarding the adequate rationale for the continuation of drone strikes. Harley Henigson at the International Peace Institute (IPI) furthermore argued that the benefit of drone strikes lies in the short term. It is later that problems will arise. For example, if a strike is carried out in April, it may at first appear to have been an effective action. A suspected terrorist was killed, and an enemy operation was slowed. Because of this sign of success US. forces move on. Later, it is revealed that the combatant killed was part of a larger motion that is still functioning. Thus, no real threat had been eliminated and the war goes on. This short narrative represents the long-term repercussions of use and resulting reliance on drone strikes. In closing, the United States’ drone policy is highly illogical when one considers both combat aims and efficiency.
In relation to the long-term entanglements caused by less than precise warfare resulting from the use of drone strikes, the technique’s use also hurts American military effectiveness by radicalizing more neutral citizens towards the terrorist cause, and by lessening liberal Middle Eastern support. Considering social support of civilians to military operations, the United States relies heavily on the less hostile liberal Middle Eastern minority. This is jeopardized by imprecise and terrorizing drone strikes. The value of maintaining this waning support is summed up when foreign policy Madiha Afzal writes, “These people matter because they form the heart of an active civil society in Pakistan which the U.S counts on to serve as a counterweight to the radical segments of Pakistani society” (Afzal). If the United States loses its’ support in this department actions like the gathering of information regarding terrorist information will become infinitely more difficult. This will decrease productivity and increase combat duration, resulting in more needless casualties and skyrocketing costs. As well, drone strikes and their effects on the Middle Eastern social structure may even create more terrorists than they kill. Harley Henningson of the IPI writes, “ ‘We have ended up, I think today, probably a lot safer from a 9/11-style attack than we were in 2001,’ he said, ‘but I think it is also fair to say that there are far more people in the world today who believe in the cause of al-Qaeda, and the cause of ISIS, and believe that attacking the US, and some of the European powers, is completely legitimate and in fact a religious obligation’ ”. In his statement, he acknowledges the social dangers of the use of drone strikes. A large percentage of “new” terrorists mapped by the IPI are those who have had a family member killed by a drone. In the proceeding social unrest in all segments of Middle Eastern society, the use of drones to carry out combat missions is counterproductive and downright dangerous.
As it can be seen in the repercussions on Middle Eastern society, the United States’ use of unarmed drone strikes is an international issue. Further delving into this concept, one is approached by the fact that the strikes are in a shaky position in regards to international humanitarian law. In the above paragraphs, it has been proven that only a small minority of drone strike casualties are intentionally killed. However, under international human rights law, for an individual to be targeted, they must present an imminent threat that can only be prevented with a lethal response (Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?). One can immediately see that the two realities do not align. To justify themselves under international law the United States must be able to present legitimate proof that a targeted individual demonstrates a threat which requires “lethal force”. This is, without argument, not occurring. A “suspected terrorist” is not a legally adequate excuse. Under international laws, many of the United States’ drone strikes can be classified as murder. This calls into question international laws regarding the issue (Henigson, Harley, et al. The Pros & Cons of Drones in Counterterrorism). Because the military has refused to release concise data on the individuals killed by drones, they are not able to prove, on the international stage, that any clear threat is present. Likewise, without clear data, a conviction is impossible. Many consider the secrecy surrounding drone policy an obstruction of justice. In any sense, drone policy does not stand well in the court of International law.
In summary, the effects on soldiers and civilians, ineffectiveness, and questionable stance under humanitarian law of the United States’ drone strike policy provides adequate grounds for its' end or lessening use. As the pace of military technological innovation accelerates at an exponentially quickening rate, the United States must question how this innovation will affect the safety and condition of the human race now, and for years to come.