Ben Abramson

The use of unmanned drone strikes by the CIA and DoD in the Muslim world to combat
terrorism is an ineffective and unethical strategy due to inaccuracy, increased anti-Americanism,
and their questionable legality. A viable alternative to strikes are the use of special forces to
target high profile terrorists. The use of these drones is a controversial topic and is often debated.
The drone program was started in the late 1990s when they were used to spy on al-Qaeda. After
9-11, President Bush ordered drones equipped with missiles to be used as a method of combat
against terrorists. At first, drones were used in Afghanistan, but have since expanded to other
areas such as Pakistan and Yemen. The drone program has been greatly accelerated after Obama
took office. According to Washingtons Phantom War by Peter Bergen and Katharine Tiedmann,
Bush ordered a strike only once every 44 days in Pakistan, while Obama has ordered one every
four days. This recent increase in drone activity has sparked new debate about their usage and
while technology has increased to make drones more precise, they still have many flaws.
Unmanned aircraft have been used for a long time; at the end of World War I, an
unmanned bi-plane was being built by the United States, but it was not used during the war.
Unmanned aircraft have developed since then and have been used in many conflicts. Drones
were used in the Cold War, but only for surveillance purposes. During the Bosnian war, the CIA
purchased two drones made by General Atomics for surveillance. In 1994, General Atomics
developed the Predator drone. In 2000 the Predator was flown over Pakistan, looking for Osama
bin Laden.
After 9-11, the CIA launched a targeted killing program, which allowed the CIA to kill
whomever they thought was connected to the terrorist attacks. Also passed after 9-11 was the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force. It stated that the President can use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,
1

Ben Abramson
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." This
legally justified the CIAs targeted killings and led to the use of drone strikes.
Drones are intended to kill high profile terrorists, but most strikes do not actually succeed
in this mission. Only one in every seven drone strikes actually kills a militant leader (Bergen and
Tiedmann), the rest are usually low level extremists. Drones can often be inaccurate in their
strikes, and civilians are sometimes killed. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,
in Pakistan from 2004 to 2012, 421-960 civilian deaths have been reported. Of these civilian
deaths, 172-207 were children. In Yemen there have been 90-109 confirmed strikes, leading to
65-96 civilian deaths and eight children. The U.S. government maintains its position on the usage
of drone strikes, and believes that they are very accurate. The government does not mention
civilian casualties, but other reports suggest that there have been a very high number of civilian
deaths.
A contributing factor to the civilian death toll, is a lack of vision of the drones. Many
people believe that drones have good vision but a drone pilot has said, The video provided by a
drone is not usually clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear
day with limited cloud and perfect light (Linebaugh). According to Linebaugh, it can be hard to
know if she is killing the right people or if she is ending the life of innocent civilians because she
has a bad angle. The lack of visibility can cause innocent people to be killed. If drone strikes kill
civilians, relatives and friends may be angered enough to join radical groups such as ISIS or alQaeda. In Yemen, Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join
radical militants (Mothana). The Pakistani government in Islamabad has called for a reduction
in drone strikes because they believe that it has turned the public opinion against the U.S.
Therefore, drones may be promoting terrorism rather than eliminating it.
2

Ben Abramson
Another issue about the use of drone strikes is that they are negatively affecting other
countrys views of the United States. This could also turn allies into enemies. Overall, most
countries have a favorable view of the United States, except those in the Middle East, according
to a poll by Pew Research Center. According to another poll by Pew Research Center, in 1999
and 2000, Pakistans public opinion rating of the United States was 23 percent favorable. This
was before drone strikes began. After nine years of drone strikes, in 2013, that number dropped
to only 11 percent in favor of the United States. 64 percent of Pakistanis see the U.S. as an
enemy. Even Jordan, an ally of the U.S. has an 84 percent disapproval rating of America. Most of
the world believes that the U.S. should not use drones. Of 31 countries polled, only three,
including the U.S., were in favor of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
The targeted killing programs lack of transparency has also caused drones to be
controversial. The CIA keeps a terrorist list, where high profile militant leaders are placed. These
people are then targeted by drones or other operations by the military. The CIA however, refuses
to release its criteria for the terrorist list. The program also has virtually no oversight outside the
executive branch (American Civil Liberties Union). This has made many Americans nervous
and concerned about how the drones are being utilized.
Many people in the United States and internationally are concerned that the use of drone
strikes may violate international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations charter states, All
Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations. When the leaders of al-Qaeda fled from Afghanistan
into Pakistan and Yemen, both countries at peace with the United States, the drone strikes
continued within the countries. The U.S. has attempted to gain permission for drone strikes in
3

Ben Abramson
Yemen, but were denied, according to a report by Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on
human rights. Even without permission, the U.S. has continued drone strikes in countries it is at
peace with, which is a direct violation of Article 2(4).
There have also been situations where a U.S. citizen living abroad has been targeted by a
drone strike. The Fifth Amendment states that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law. These people however, have not had a fair trial and yet are
still killed. The government justifies this by claiming that these people provide an imminent
threat to the United States, and are therefore legally allowed to kill these people as a matter of
national security. For example, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen working for al-Qaeda, was
killed by a drone in 2011. The rights of American citizens are not removed when they leave the
country. Awlaki was killed without the due process of law, which under the Constitution, is
illegal.
If drones are continued to be a primary form of warfare, there will be many
consequences. Their continued usage may upset innocent people in Pakistan and Yemen due to
the high civilian casualty rate. This could cause an even larger uprising of radical militants
determined on harming the United States and its citizens. Also, current allies such as the
Pakistani government, may turn against the U.S. because of the unwanted use of drones. Instead
of preventing further conflict, drones may spark new tensions between the U.S. and the Middle
East.
One possible alternative to drone strikes is the use of special forces, similar to those who
killed Osama bin Laden. While this does put more U.S. lives at risk, it will decrease the amount
of civilian casualties to almost zero. It will also make it easier to identify who is being killed or

Ben Abramson
captured, which is much harder to determine from a drone. This will not turn the public opinion
against the United States.
Another possibility is to better train and equip foreign armies. This will allow the
government of each country to communicate any military operations, which will be more
effective. This will also not risk any American lives, yet this alternative will keep a military
presence in foreign countries to combat any uprisings by radical groups.
Manned air strikes are also an option to replace drone strikes. Manned strikes could put
lives in danger, but they provide a better view of the situation that what a drone shows. Also,
according to a study by a military advisor, drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the
protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter
aircraft (Ackerman). Manned strikes are more precise which will limit the deaths of innocent
people and reduce the possibility of creating new radical militants.
Unmanned drone strikes are harmful to the United States because they kill innocent
people, which will create more terrorists and they are not legal which may cause legal action to
be taken. While the idea of killing terrorists without putting American lives at risk is a good one,
drone strikes are not the answer. They are not accurate enough and violate many laws. These
strikes have a negative impact on the United States image and do not effectively combat
terrorism.