The Drone War

Why America Should Continue the Drone Program

Critical Thinking Paper

Nate Bodner

CAP 10

Since the terrible September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States Military has used

remotely operated drones to collect information and carry out bombing missions on terrorists in

Middle Eastern countries, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, in response to the

devastating attacks. These missions, authorized by the President, are very contentious, and many
believe that America has no right to carry out drone strikes in other countries. Historically, Iran

was the first country to convince Americans that drones were anything more than expensive toys.

Iran used drones successfully in combat during the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. Impressed

with the drones success, the U.S. began acquiring and building weaponized drones rapidly. The

first real drone war was the first Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm. According

to a May 1991 Department of the Navy report, "At least one Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

was airborne at all times during Desert Storm (Army-Technology). After the Gulf War

successfully demonstrated their utility, many global militaries began researching and investing

this relatively new technology. Since 2002, the United States has been using UAVs in an

unprecedented fashion, totalling more than 800 drone strikes throughout Pakistan, Yemen,

Afghanistan, and Somalia (Bureau of Investigative Journalism) against al Qaeda, the Taliban and

other such organizations in the War on Terror.

Though the drone missions are highly controversial, the United States of America should

be able to continue the use of UAVs in the Middle East because not only are these drone strikes

completely legal under international and American law, and they are essential for decimating

terrorist networks across the world, which in turn makes civilians and American military

personnel safer.

First, the United States is able to justify its use of militarized drones not only under

American law, but under international law as well. The best arguments against the use of drone

strikes are that it is a breach of international law and that the process for targeting individuals is

inadequate and therefore constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. America has two strong

arguments that justify the use of drone strikes under international law.
 The first one comes from Article 51, Section 1 of the UN Charter, which states, Nothing

in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an

armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations (United Nations). This allows any

nation to defend itself after an attack. Article 51 applies if the host country agrees to the use of

force in its territory, or if a terrorist group operating within the host country's territory was

responsible for an act of aggression where that country is unwilling or unable to control the

threat themselves. The UN Human Rights Council dictates that all countries with terrorists

within its borders must formally allow the United States to use military force in their country

before America can use drone strikes. America has complied with all of these regulations.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia all officially consented to the United States drone

strikes before these strikes began because the governments of these countries are unable to

control the terrorist threat on their own (American Security Project).

The second argument is that the United States also has the right, under international law,

to "anticipatory self-defense," which gives the right to use force against a real and imminent

threat when the necessity of that self-defense is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of

means, and no moment of deliberation (Drones. ProCon). The plea of anticipatory self-

defense can be legal if it meets the requirements of Article 51, Section 4 of the UN Charter. The

United States has used this to justify many of its drone strikes under the Bush and Obama

administration.

But even after every country consented to drone missions in their airspace, still many

people questioned the legality of the targeting. Particularly that the use of lethal force against

specific individuals fails to adequately process and confirm targets and thus constitutes unlawful

extrajudicial killing. Expert testimony by former State Department legal advisor and current Yale
professor Harold Koh revealed that a country engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-

defense is not required to provide targets with legal processing before using lethal force, and a

country may target individuals in foreign countries if they are directly participating in hostilities

or posing an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent (Council on Foreign Affairs).

This argument gave America the legal grounds, but Harold Koh went further to say that

America's procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and

advanced technologies have helped to make U.S. targeting even more precise (Council on

Foreign Affairs). Even if America was required to positively identify targets on every mission, it

would not be a problem. Currently America positively identifies all targets on every mission. In

this way, the United States has met every requirement for international conflict specified by the

United Nations.

The United States also made sure that the strikes were legal under American law. Three

days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed an important resolution, the Authorization

for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). This resolution provides the Commander-In-Chief all the

power he/she needs to authorize missions. The AUMF specifically states that the President is

"authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or

persons he/she determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that

occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent

any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations

or persons (Public Law 107-40). This power of the President will likely continue until the

United States no longer deems terrorism a threat. Fortunately, drone strikes thus far authorized

under the AUMF have been very effective at destroying terrorist networks.
 Secondly, these drone strikes are the most effective way for the United States to decimate

terrorist networks in the Middle East. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and

Somalia have killed thousands of Taliban, ISIS, and al Qaeda and other jihadist operatives, not to

mention many high level terrorist commanders that have been implicated in numerous attacks

against the United States. Specifically, the United States government has killed upwards of

10,000 terrorist operatives as of 2016. That includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the

Taliban (New America Foundation). These deaths have been near-crippling to the infrastructure

of these organizations. In a testimony before the U.S. Senate committee on Judiciary and

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, Peter Bergen, the Director of

the National Security Studies Program of the New America Foundation, said that drones had a

devastating effect on militant groups. He testified that the drone attacks in Pakistan have

undoubtedly hindered some of the Taliban's operations and killed hundreds of their lower-level

fighters and a number of their top commanders (Testimony before U.S. Senate). And top figures

in these organizations are not easy to replace. In many cases they thrust leadership into the hands

of the less qualified. The former leader of the Taliban was killed by a drone strike on May 21,

2016. The leader, Mullah Mansoor, was killed when a U.S. drone fired on his vehicle in the

southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan, a Taliban providence largely untouched by

drones (Fox News). The Taliban are already feeling the weight of his absence. Afghani journalist

Abdul Ahad Bahrami wrote, It [is] obviously a major blow for the Taliban (Outlook

Afghanistan). Mullah Mansoor's death thrust power into the hands of a much less qualified

military leader. A leader who doesn't have unanimous support among all senior members of the

Taliban. This will likely divide support in the Taliban and slow them down. But drones dont just

do a superb job at taking out militant leaders and hitting at the heart of terrorist organizations.
Their presence in the sky is very detrimental to fighters. The drones presence in the sky often

keeps terrorists in fear of strikes and less likely to act out. David Rohde, a former New York

Times reporter held hostage by the Taliban in Pakistan for several months in 2009, called the

drones a "terrifying presence" for militants (New York Times). Whenever terrorists hear or see a

drone hovering above, they will undoubtedly lay low, and stay out of sight. Drones effectiveness

in killing or keeping terrorists in fear makes civilians in these countries and American military

safer.

Thirdly, the the drone program's success keeps civilians and military personnel safe. The

biggest argument against drones today is that they kill too many civilians in relation to total

terrorist fatalities. However, these arguments list total numbers instead of percentages in relation

to terrorist deaths, and they fail to provide a better solution for dealing with the terrorist groups.

In reality, civilian deaths account for a very low percentage of total drone deaths, and way less

deaths than would be the case for any other form of modern warfare. Right now, drones are the

most effective way to keep civilians and military personnel safe. In Afghanistan in 2015, in 316

total drone strikes, approximately 1733 people total were killed, and approximately 89 of them

were civilians. That constitutes barely 5 percent of all drone fatalities in Afghanistan that year

(Bureau of Investigative Journalism). If all drone strike fatalities were added up in every country

since the program started in 2002, civilian deaths would be roughly 12 percent of all drone

deaths, barely over 1,000 people since 2002 (Long War Journal). These impressive numbers

show just how accurate the technology is, especially in comparison to mortars and air strikes,

which would be insanely less accurate. And while some people make the argument that that's still

too many people and drones are unreliable, drones are much safer than putting boots on the

ground for civilians. In the last four official wars , the percentage of civilian casualties to total
deaths is always more than double that of deaths due to drones. In World War II, civilian deaths,

as a percentage of total war fatalities, are estimated at 40 to 67 percent. In the Korean, Vietnam,

and Balkan Wars, the percentages are approximately 70 percent, 31 percent, and 45 percent

respectively (Slate). Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants then the world has seen

in any recent war. In instances when America deploys massive amounts of soldiers to foreign

countries, civilians suffer far more than they are now. When troops are sent out, fights break out.

And the longer the fights last, the more innocent civilians are killed (Slate). Drone strikes are

quick, so they affect the least amount of civilians as possible. Thankfully, the drone program has

been so effective that the United States doesnt need to send in more troops, which is not only

better for the civilians, but for the soldiers as well. Drones are launched from American bases in

allied countries and controlled remotely by pilots in the United States, minimizing American

footsoldier and pilot casualties. Also al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other such groups operate in

remote, environmentally unforgiving locations where it would be incredibly dangerous to deploy

special forces to track and capture enemies. President Barack Obama said in his first major

speech on counterterrorism in his second term that deploying troops to capture terrorists may

pose serious risks to these soldiers including firefights with surrounding tribal communities, anti-

aircraft shelling, landmines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombers, snipers,

dangerous weather conditions, harsh environments, etc. Drone strikes eliminate all of those risks

common to "boots on the ground" missions (New York Times). By not deploying more troops to

places like Yemen and Pakistan, America is keeping its own soldiers safer, as well as reducing

civilian casualties.

The United States should be able to continue its use of drone strikes in foreign countries

because it is completely legal under international and American law, and it is essential for
decimating terrorist networks across the world, which in turn makes civilians in these war torn

countries and American military personnel safer. The United States government has complied

with every law and regulation for international combat laid out by the United Nations, including

all targeting requirements, and received permission from every country in which it has dropped

bombs, as well as created a resolution to give the President the power to authorize the strikes.

The drone strikes thus far, from 2002 to the present, have accounted for thousands and thousands

of terrorist deaths, including dozens and dozens of high ranking commanders and leaders of

many different terrorist organizations responsible for crimes against the United States. These

drone strikes are instrumental not only in killing terrorists, but protecting civilians. Drone strikes

are the least deadly form of combat, and their success is keeping the American military from

deploying more troops into these countries, which would put the civilians in much more danger,

as well as drop American troops into an extremely dangerous hostile foreign environment. All of

these factors make it impossible to justify halting the drone program, which is absolutely

necessary in winning the fight against terrorism. The drone program must continue into the

foreseeable future, for the safety of American soldiers and civilians in war-torn countries, and for

the hope of bringing order and democracy to countries crippled by terrorism and fear.
Bibliography
Ackerman, Spencer. "41 Men Targeted but 1,147 People Killed: US Drone Strikes
the Facts on the round." The Guardian. Guardian News, n.d. Web. 18 May
2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/
-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147>.

"Article II U.S. Constitution." Find Law. Thomson Reuters, n.d. Web. 19 May
2016. <http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html>.

Bahrami, Abdul Ahad. "The Aftermaths of Mullah Mansoors Killing." Outlook

Afghanistan. Outlook Afghanistan, n.d. Web. 26 May 2016.
<http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/topics.php?post_id=15347>.

Bergen, Peter. "Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism

Implications of Targeted Killing." U.S. Senate. U.S. Gov, n.d. Web. 31 May
2016. <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/
testimony-of-bergen-pdf&download=1>.

"Charting the Data for US Airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 2016." The Long War
Journal. Public Multimedia, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.
<http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes>.

"Charting the Data for US Air Strikes in Yemen, 2002 - 2016." The Long War
Journal. Public Multimedia, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.
<http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/Yemen/code/Yemen-strike.php>.

Currier, Corra. "Drone Strikes Test Legal Grounds for War on Terror."
ProPublica. ProPublica, n.d. Web. 19 May 2016.
<https://www.propublica.org/article/
drone-strikes-test-legal-grounds-for-war-on-terror>.

Faust, Joshua, and Ashley S. Boyle. "The Strategic Context of Lethal Drones: A
Framework for Discussion." American Security Project. American Security
Project, n.d. Web. 19 May 2016. <http://www.americansecurityproject.org/
the-strategic-context-of-lethal-drones-a-framework-for-discussion/>.

Gerdau, Axel. "Obamas Speech on Drone Policy." New York Times. New York Times,
n.d. Web. 31 May 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/
transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html>.

"Get the Data: Drone Wars." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Bureau of
Investigative Journalism, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.
<https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com>.

Human Rights Council." United Nations. United Nations, 28 May 2010. Web. 19 May
2016. <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/
A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf>

"International Security Data Site." International Security. New America, n.d.

Web. 18 May 2016. <http://securitydata.newamerica.net/>.

Kelly, Jack. "Estimates of Deaths in First War Still in Dispute."

Post-Gazette. PG, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.
<http://old.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp>.

Koh, Harold. "Legal Adviser Koh's Speech on the Obama Administration and
International Law, March 2010." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on
Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 24 May 2016. <http://www.cfr.org/
international-law/
Legal-adviser-kohs-
"Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force." U.S. Government
Publishing Office. GPO, n.d. Web. 19 May 2016. <https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40>.

Saletan, William. "In Defense of Drones." Slate. Slate, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/02/
drones_war_and_civilian_casualties_how_unmanned_aircraft_reduce_collateral.html>

Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?" ProCon.
ProCon, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016. <http://drones.procon.org/
view.answers.php?questionID=001894>.

Singh, Ritika. "A Meta-Study of Drone Strike Casualties." LawFare. Law Fare
Institute, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016. <https://www.lawfareblog.com/
meta-study-drone-strike-casualties>.

"UAV Evolution How Natural Selection Directed the Drone Revolution." Army
Technology. Kable, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.
<http://www.army-technology.com/features/
featureuav-evolution-natural-selection-drone-revolution>.

"United Nations Chapter 7." UN. United Nations, n.d. Web. 19 May 2016.
<http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/>.

"US Drone Strike in Pakistan Kills Taliban Leader Mullah Mansoor." The Guardian.
Guardian, n.d. Web. 25 May 2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/
may/21/us-airstrike-taliban-leader-mullah-akhtar-mansoor>.

"US Drone Strike Reportedly Kills Senior Al Qaeda Leader in Afghanistan." Fox
News. Fox News, n.d. Web. 25 May 2016. <http://www.foxnews.com/world/
2016/05/18/
us-drone-strike-reportedly-kills-senior-al-qaeda-leader-in-afghanistan.html>.