Previous to the 9/11 attacks, the US military only utilized UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or drones as they are commonly known, for surveillance and data collection purposes, classifying targeted assassinations as "extrajudicial killings." Since the terrorist attacks, however, the US has been turning away from large-scale military interventions and has instead utilized drones to target and assassinate recognized terrorist suspects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen. The appeal of drones is clear: as many militants hide in remote regions of these countries, it is much more convenient and effective to use a drone to follow and attack suspected insurgents than send a traditional army convoy for the same mission.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10713898
According to Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation, the Bush Administration initiated the first drone program, allying with the Pakistani intelligence service to eradicate terrorists in the region. A study conducted by the New America Foundation has found that during his first nine and a half months in office, the Obama administration has authorized as many C.I.A. aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W. Bush did in his final three years in office (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/drone_war_13672). As the military increases it's employment of drones, it is important to ask what the potential consequences of such a new form of warfare could be. On November 1st the New York Times reported that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed by American drones. Although the news is portrayed as a tactical success for the program, there are many concerns surrounding the use of drones. First of all, they have been blamed for the deaths of innocent civilians and characterized as "indiscriminate killers". Furthermore, there are questions of authorization and definition- who can legally be targeted under this program? And isn't the US required to gain the permission of a foreign government to conduct operations within their borders in adherence to the law of state sovereignty?
There is no doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy and the the world will observe a huge increase in the use of drones for covert as well as public operations. It remains to be seen how drone warfare will be received by the international community and the development of the legality debate surrounding drones as well.
According to Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation, the Bush Administration initiated the first drone program, allying with the Pakistani intelligence service to eradicate terrorists in the region. A study conducted by the New America Foundation has found that during his first nine and a half months in office, the Obama administration has authorized as many C.I.A. aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W. Bush did in his final three years in office (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/drone_war_13672). As the military increases it's employment of drones, it is important to ask what the potential consequences of such a new form of warfare could be. On November 1st the New York Times reported that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed by American drones. Although the news is portrayed as a tactical success for the program, there are many concerns surrounding the use of drones. First of all, they have been blamed for the deaths of innocent civilians and characterized as "indiscriminate killers". Furthermore, there are questions of authorization and definition- who can legally be targeted under this program? And isn't the US required to gain the permission of a foreign government to conduct operations within their borders in adherence to the law of state sovereignty?
There is no doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy and the the world will observe a huge increase in the use of drones for covert as well as public operations. It remains to be seen how drone warfare will be received by the international community and the development of the legality debate surrounding drones as well.
This is a great post and you bring up some interesting points but it seems clear that many in the international community see these attacks as threatening 50 years of international law and human rights world wide. This article in The Guardian discusses this further:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un
It is not a question of "if" but rather "when" other states, such as China and Russia, gain this technology. It will be interesting to see what the U.S. will do should they choose to use drones to carry out target killings outside of their borders,, given that we have been using drones for this purpose ourselves for years now.
Love that you brought up the ratio of drone strikes during the first 9 1/2 months of Obama as compared to the last 3 years of Bush. I think the increased level of drone warfare is indicative of the types of operations the US is engaging in worldwide. I also think it speaks to emerging types of warfare that we will begin to see worldwide.
ReplyDeleteGreat write-up!
Drones are the perfect example of the inescapable advances of technology in war. Any state, if involved in conflict, will use the best weapons technology available to them. In this case, drone strikes allow the US maximum accuracy on HVT strikes and minimal loss of coalition life. As other states in the international community engage in unconventional conflict such as the US is involved in, they will undoubtedly realize the tactical brilliance of drone technology.
ReplyDeleteSomething to consider, particularly with you bringing up concerns of potentially high civilian casualty numbers would be the recently published report on drone casualties by the Pakistani Government, claiming only 3% of deaths are civilians. However this number is easily contestable, showing obvious pressure from the U.S. government on the Pakistani Ministry of defense (it's interesting to see us throw our weight around with the Pakistani Government). Unfortunately this also raises the question of once other nations have this technology and it's use becomes widespread, how are people supposed to be held accountable for actions of warfare? Without physically capturing the drone i'm not sure how you could blame a specific country, especially if they were going used by multiple different nations operating in an infrastructure poor area for example like most mineral dense areas of sub-saharan africa
ReplyDeleteThe United States’ use of these drones is completely justifiable in my eyes and in fact are a technology that puts our military above any other. By using the greatest technology at our disposal we are able limit losses of our own troops and ensure the minimization of collateral damage and impact of non-actor’s lives. With this technology we are able loiter over an HVT for hours on end ensuring that our target is correct before we strike. Once it is time to initiate this strike we already have the capability of doing so by attaching arms to these drones. They ensure that we have correct data before striking and ensure a successful, low risk strike. The US military has also been taking steps to alter how drones have been viewed in the past. Their first step was changing the name of these drones for UAV to RPA (remotely piloted air craft) in order to show that these are not artificial intelligence deciding what to strike, but instead are actually flown by pilots on the ground like any ordinary remote controlled devise. This helps people to understand that there is someone accountable for the actions taken by RPAs and are not simply let loose to act in the name of the US military. In short I think drones on the battle field, not simply the surveillance sector, are a benefit to armed conflict.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post, I really enjoyed reading it. Drones are always something that have made me unsure what to think. On the front it is an amazing technology that we have and may as well put to use in surveillance and even in armed conflict if it means protecting our soldiers. My major issue with drones is something you briefly touched on but no one seems to have expanded on too much, but it's the issue of authorization and definition as you said. If we know that there is a remote area, with only targeted insurgents in the region I don't think anyone would have too much of a problem with a strike, but this situation is rarely, if ever, the case. The issue I have isn't the technology or even what we do with it, but rather who decides and what the guidelines are for use, and is an issue I will be watching in the coming months and years because it will most likely become a much more defined and outlined policy as we move forward.
ReplyDeleteThis post is really interesting. I do see how drones are useful for the fact they are able to be used as a large scale military interventions, and that drones make it less costly to use drones than actual soldiers to intervene. I like that you bring up the con side of drones that many civilians are being killed due to these new technological advances. I believe that drones need to be used wisely, and that the US must put the civilians' lives first and ensure that drones are used for what they are meant for and that's to target terrorists and possible future terrorist attacks. I do see drones being a potential problem in the future of drones getting in the hands of the wrong people/states. I'm sure in the near future the topic of drones will come up more, and possible policies will have to be enacted when it comes to drones.
ReplyDeleteThe legal questions surrounding the use of drones are very hard to ignore, and the US will inevitably have to face them one day. Our best option now would be to, in concert with the international community of states, build a strong legal framework regarding the use of unmanned vehicles in combat. I say unmanned vehicles because the threat is not only from the sky but from land and sea robot killing machines as well. We know other countries are working on this technology right now. One day soon Russia will use drones in its battles in the Caucasus region. China will use drones perhaps in occupied Tibet, or in the nation's hinterlands to flush out dissidents, or out in the South China Sea to assert its regional hegemony. The possibilities are endless and too dangerous to ignore, it is time to act.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are some questions about sovereignty with the use of drones, I think overall it is an effective use of military force. If the goal of military operations is to inflict as much damage on an enemy with the least amount of casualties on one's own side, then the use of drones is very effective. Many have protested the use of drones by protesting that many civilians have been indiscriminately killed during drone attacks, but Pakistan recently came out with a report alleging that less than 100 civilians have been killed in the country since the start of American drone strikes. This is a much lower number that would even be expected if we had troops on the ground trying to accomplish the same goal. I think a bigger question about drones is whether killing specific targets is really effective for counter insurgency. Targeting leaders of terrorist organizations doesn't help alleviate poverty, which is a major reason that people join these groups in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDrones are a great expression of how much technology has progressed through the years. For countries with the capabilities of this type of technology, its a great asset to have over many other countries, some of which are opponents. In the even of an emergency of even a conflict, drones certainly raise the bar and give that country with the technology a great advantage, but also has the ability for lines to be crossed. Advancements in technology open the doors for the technology to be used in ways they weren't meant to be used, such as keeping an eye on their own citizens etc.
ReplyDeleteI think this will definitely continue to be a controversial topic and it is used more and more frequently in American military operations. I can definitely see how the use of UAV's may be contested by other countries because it appears to be an infringement of sovereignty. However, at least so far, the use of UAV's has been highly targeted. This is not to say that there have not been civilian casualties, but proponents of drone use would argue that their use saves more innocent civilians than it kills. Part of the problem is that this technology is so new, so if some norms or conventions about drone use were established by the international community, I think it would alleviate much of the tension between nations over this issue.
ReplyDelete