Vigil 1

Kenneth Vigil
Taylor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
23 March 2015
Eye in the Sky

In the eyes of many Americans, September 11 , 2001 is seen as one of our darkest
th

hours. On this day, a group of terrorists infiltrated our nations security system and shook
our nation to its knees. Since then, and officially on October 7th, 2001, the American
government has been fighting a War on Terror. In the years following 9/11 in order to
disrupt terror activity, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been improved to
eliminate believed terrorists and terror groups using missile systems before plots can be
devised and executed. Though these missile systems do a phenomenal job in eliminating
terrorists, they also cause civilian casualties that cannot be avoided in some cases.
Though the missile system is flawed, I would like to argue in favor of the United States
military use of using UAVs in engaging high-ranking terrorists. For the sake of the vast
amounts of information available and number of nations UAV strikes occur in, I am only
going to be looking at information gathered from Pakistan.
In a research study conducted by the Long War Journal, researchers concluded
that in the number of drone strikes commenced by the United States in Pakistan from
2004-2011(number of strikes was not stated) yielded approximately one hundred and
eight civilian casualties and 1,816 either Al Qaeda or Taliban extremists deaths. This
resulted in a civilian death rate of less than six percent (Williams 117). The United States
goal in these missions is to eliminate identified terrorists and to avoid civilian casualties

Vigil 2
at all costs. Though this is an ideal situation, it is also an unrealistic idea. The United
States goes to great lengths and has several safeguards in place to avoid these undesired
civilian deaths. One of which is that the targets are thoroughly identified by the U.S.
before being engaged and must undergo days or even weeks of surveillance before any
decision of action is even considered. They learn their routines and identify the best time
in which engaging the target would avoid any unnecessary loss. Once the necessary
surveillance is acquired, permission is requested from the Central Intelligence Agencies
(CIA) director or deputy director. The director then goes into a great depth of questions to
ensure the correct actions are chosen (Williams 103). Once granted permission a
countdown is commenced and the UAV pilot fires upon the target eliminating his
instantly.
The aircrafts used in these executions are UAVs also known as Predator or
Reaper drones and are operated by trained United States Air Force pilots from Creech Air
Force base located thirty five miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. These drones use
Hellfire missiles that are guided by satellite and lasers to acquire a target and precisely
eliminate them thousands of feet away in the sky. They use this marking system, rather
than using global positioning systems (GPS), because it allows not only Air Force
personnel but also granted ground crews to paint targets that they need eliminated
(Geographical Imaginations). They prefer laser targeting as opposed to GPS targeting
because GPS can encounter certain errors in their calculations, which can result in
missiles being guided to incorrect coordinates. These incorrect coordinates are what can
result in mass civilian casualties. When using the satellite or laser positing system, these
Hellfire missiles are extraordinarily precise and accurate. The pilots ability to point a

Vigil 3
laser on a target allows for the missile to be delivered to an exact location putting civilian
danger at a minimal level. These airstrikes are nearly four hundred percent more accurate
than the type of bombing missions held in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. With a blast radius
of fifty feet, UAV pilots are able to identity their targets and safely execute them with
little to no damage to civilians or surrounding areas that the terrorist did not inhabit
(Geographical Imaginations).
Many people argue that the use of UAV missiles is not the proper form of terrorist
engagement that the U.S. has at its disposal. They believe that the airstrikes are
counterproductive and are creating distrust between tribes and the Pakistani
government. They also see the drone strikes as being acts of terror against Pakistanis who
live in areas inhabited by terrorists. These so called acts of terror are thus creating large
amounts of anti-America beliefs throughout the country. These critics believe that the
use of sniper missions and infiltration missions would be better for both Pakistanis and
U.S agencies to avoid any civilian death. While avoiding civilian casualties the military
can still achieve their goal of eliminating terrorists while at the same time reducing the
anti-American views that the people of Pakistan are gaining with Predator airstrikes
(Williams).
Though this criticism is valid in certain aspects, much of it is incorrect to those
who live in Pakistan. President Barack Obama even made a statement regarding the use
of force on terrorists during a broadcast that said, I will not hesitate to use force to take
out the terrorists who pose a direct threat to America (Williams 90). He also goes on to
mention his intentions for increasing the militaries agile and lethality in engaging
terrorists. President Obama in many reports has clearly shown no fear in using the

Vigil 4
unmanned aerial technology, which the U.S military has in its arsenal to their advantage
to win the war on terror and get U.S soldiers back home to their families as soon as
possible. Furthermore, residents in these terrorist inhabited areas feel a sense of aide from
these military strikes. The Pakistani military, although in better military ability than ever
before, is still not at a point where they can fully control the situation that terrorists
presence has created in their country. In several instances when Pakistani soldiers
attempted to capture or execute a known high-ranking terrorist, more civilian casualties
were ranked up than if a Predator strike was used instead. Not only are they eliminating
terrorists that pose a threat to Pakistanis in their own homes, they also begin to force
extremists to relocate due to the fact that the U.S military is fully aware of their position
and is cutting back on their abilities to create and execute terror plots (Walsh 6). Not only
do Predator airstrikes eliminate targets precisely, they also do so without endangering any
U.S military personnel on the ground. It has been proven that when foreign military
personnel are present, these terror groups tend to target them. This means that by using
drones to engage terrorists creates a so called air superiority while at the same time
keeping U.S soldiers out of harms way (Walsh 8).
Some critics may argue that the airstrikes being commenced arent weakening
terror groups since one deceased leader is merely replaced with a new leader who has
greater ambitions. They may also state that the airstrikes will lead to younger generations
growing up hating America and only lead them to join terror groups to get back at the
United States. Furthermore these constant attacks only bring members of terror groups
closer together and form a type of patriotism for what their terror group believes in.

Vigil 5
These assumptions are by no means correct. Not only do airstrikes eliminate
terror leaders, but they also weaken the group all together. They cause destruction of safe
houses, force the replacement of highly knowledgably leaders with much less skilled
leaders and force groups to use unreliable forms of communication (Walsh 6). Not only
are these attacks weakening these terror groups on the outside but also internally amongst
one another. They force the groups to gather only in small numbers to avoid attention
from missile fire. This, in turn, causes longer amounts of time for terror plots to become
generated and become easier for the U.S. military to foil. In addition, it causes internal
members to begin to question one another that they may be providing intelligence to
foreign countries, such as the United States, to ruin plots and lead to their execution. As
for driving younger generations to wanting to join these extremists, airstrikes act as a
deterrent. Future members know joining the insurgency will make them potential targets
of drone strikes and sway current members to consider withdraw from the organization
to avoid death (Walsh 6).
Overall civilian casualties are by no means acceptable or intentional by the United
States government when engaging terror groups. Unfortunately, these terror groups
realize this and manipulate these less than fortunate people of Pakistan and other nations
by using them as a safeguard to try and avoid U.S attacks. Sadly for them, with modern
technology the United States government is still able to gain surveillance and eliminate
them even being located in the middle of civilian populations. Though there are other
options for squashing terror groups, many of them involve putting U.S soldiers in harms
way. The use of UAVs allow for achieving U.S goals in eliminating terrorists while at the
same time are able to are able to follow war laws that have civilian death and at a bare

Vigil 6
bone minimum. These UAVs are not perfect by any means and still have their flaws like
any other military tactic, but they are also in constant improvement to better results.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that the use of unmanned aerial predator drones is
currently the best form of engaging terrorists in foreign countries.

Vigil 7
Works cited
Walsh, James Igoe. The Effectiveness of Drone Strikes in
Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorsim Campaigns. United
States Army War College Press. 2013. Web 1 Mar. 2015
Williams, Brian Glyn. Predators: The CIAs Drone War on al Queda.
Duelles. Potomac Books. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2015
"Geographical Imaginations." Geographical Imaginations. N.p., n.d.
Web. 21 Mar.
2015.