Al Jazeera, BBC news, and The Guardian all reported this morning that drone strikes had killed the chief of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud just outside of the city of Miranshah. Additionally, these same types of drone strikes have taken out his second in command months earlier, leaving the Taliban in this region severely crippled. While it is hard to doubt results such as these in attacking known terror targets, the drone programs record is far from perfect.
Foreign Policy among others has reported that drone strikes in October of 2012, saw the killing of a 68 year old grandmother who was picking vegetables in her garden with her grandchildren, all of whom were killed in the attack. In this same day, a report from Amnesty International showed that a US drone killed 18 civilians in a "rescue" attack where those rescuing an injured civilian were then targeted and killed by a the same aircraft. Examples from both sides lead to a confounding situation in which the US has seen significant military gains by removing the leaders of terrorist organizations while also drawing the attention of critics through the mistakes made during operations.
Finally, I leave you with a question to consider, what should the role of drones be in future conflicts?
Guardian - con argument
Guardian - pro argument
Al Jazeera
Although this was briefly brought up in your statement, I think the crucial factor involved with drones is how they are implemented as a military tool and how they affect domestic and international relations. The U. S. drone strike that killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the chief of the Pakistani Taliban, is a definite success for the United States, but also contains possible implications our international relations and for domestic issues in countries such as Pakistan. According to the Pakistani government, the U. S. drone strike has disrupted peace talks, that had been established in hope of ending the decades of violence that has take over 45,000 lives in Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in relation to international conflict and relations, this drone attack is crucially important because it also happened only eight days after the President Obama and Prime Minister Sharif promised there would be a greater amount of cooperation between the two countries. As a result, this drone strike has created a snag between international relations and has proven to be a huge factor in Pakistan’s domestic politics, which has left senior political leaders outraged over the strike and pushed them towards an international response Although those living in tribal areas of Pakistan often support U. S. drone attacks, a majority of Pakistanis view them as a violation of national sovereignty, that have encouraged political leaders such as Imran Khan to immediately push to have the Pakistani government block NATO supply routes in northwester Pakistan, wherein the US and international community is directly affected through its markets. Other leaders such as Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has also publically criticized the U. S. drone strikes on television, claiming the use of U. S. drones has been an attempted to sabotage proposed peace talks between the government and the Pakistani Taliban.
Inevitably, U. S. drones have severely affected US/Pakistan relations and has possibly hampered with other international institutions interacting with the country. Indeed these attacks have been for the greater good for the US, but they have also created internal and external tensions within Pakistan, whereby the international community will need to find resolve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistani-official-accuses-us-of-sabotage-as-drone-targets-taliban-leaders-in-northwest/2013/11/01/1463d0c2-431d-11e3-b028-de922d7a3f47_story.html
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-pakistan-drone-20131102,0,7684853.story#axzz2jSOyXe1I
To answer your question, I would assert that drones could revolutionize war and make for less military casualties. The future technology of these drones will improve, and therefore their accuracy will too. This will lead to less civilian deaths and more accurate deaths of the enemy. Drones are a futuristic concept that will help in situations like the one you have discussed. With every piece of technology, there are setbacks. This particular CIA-drone strike has taken down a prominent Taliban leader, which may lead to repercussions such as a counter-attack from the Taliban.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/02/pakistan-taliban-leader-us-drone-strike
Interesting post, Ben. The effectiveness of the use of drones cannot be questioned. They allow American forces to monitor and carry out attacks in areas that are not easily accessed, or where we are not allowed to be. However, having said that, the side effects of drone warfare are not fully taken into account when a strike is called. The drone is now one of the most effective recruiting tools used by terrorist organizations. Additionally, a less understood factor is the role of tribalism. Attacks on tribes such as the Mahsud and the Wazir in Pakistan for instance have led directly to the rise of Terik-E-Talibani, the Pakistani Taliban, not the other way around. The Pakistani taliban is hostile to the Pakistani government because they sponsor a substantial portion of the strikes in the tribal territories. It is difficult to expound upon here, but more must be done in the diplomatic sphere prior to sending drones to kill targets.
ReplyDeleteI think that future use of US drones is inevitable because of the benefits to the US. There are problems associated with them such as civilian deaths, but there are problems associated with other means of military involvement as well. I agree that the use of these drones has to be carefully monitored and implemented and the best strategy is to make sure they are as effective in striking as they are in being handled safely.
ReplyDeleteI think they'll be used more. As stated in the drone article on Somalia, opportunity costs of war are significantly reduced and the resolve of a powerful hegemony like the US to get involved in conflicts is increased. It seems the logic in military operations seems to be a utilitarian one, so if the lives saved outweighs the dead then the U.S. will keep using drones. I don't agree with this, however; Every innocent life taken is a tragedy and just breeds resentment and possible future anti-U.S. terrorists.
ReplyDeleteAs predicted by the prior comments, drones will continue to play an increasingly important role in future warfare. The more powerful and technologically advanced states have a way to engage enemy forces without enduring the costs associated with soldier casualties. In regard to the present inaccuracy of these strikes, I agree with two of the statements: (1) the increased loss of civilian life is not something that a country like the U.S. should allow, and (2) the technology will become more advanced and military drones will become more effective making them non-disposable tools of warfare.
ReplyDeleteBecause we have the technology to be more accurate, to shoot of missiles/rockets or whatever from miles away, to have pilots able to fly machines that could bend and break the sound barrier...makes me think there should be some sort of control, some sort of effort to make something destructive hit its intended target, and not hit civilians. My qualm is the lack of understanding, or human element to make a judgement call on the ground. Granted I like the idea that drone attacks and observation/intel gathering can effectively save the lives of our boys, but mistakes can be made in the air just as much on the ground. The whole idea of targeting something from airplane level just sounds like some sort of terrifying magnifying glass looming over an anthill. At least from a civilian standpoint, I see it as such.
ReplyDeleteI think that whether we like it or not, militaries worldwide, including ours, are going to continue to utilize drone technology in the future. I can understand both points of view about the topic. However, I still think targeted strikes are a better alternative than in the past, where we would rely on larger bombs and incur even more civilian casualties. At the same time, unintended civilian deaths from these frequent drone strikes could play a role in angering the local population and hampering American progress in the region.
ReplyDeleteI think drones will be used more in the future, but have certain limitations alongside them. Their benefits, however, include removing the risk from our soldiers, they make fewer mistakes than weapons platforms, and once our technology becomes more efficient, so will our drones, which will increase their use in the future, further making other forms of war outmoded. Drones have the technical benefits of moving along countries' borders without putting the workforce in a dangerous environment, at the same time providing detailed investigation of targets. Taking pilots out of the danger zone allows for better targeting options because the pilots are less concerned about their protection. However, drones are able to kill so effectively that they ruin any chance of acquiring more information such as interrogation or subsequent documentation. I believe drones will definitely be a part of our wartime future, yet their use in battle will be inhibited by their restrictions.
ReplyDeleteYes it appears that the use of drones has many implications and benefits. It seems as though most people believe they will be used more in the future. I believe drones are more than just a strategic asset. Psychologically having a weapon that can reach an enemy at anytime or anywhere has a huge impact on the enemy. Above someone said that these civilian strikes could breed more anti U.S. terrorists, however I believe that just having this capability and technology is enough to deter any foreign enemy of the U.S. from engaging in conflict.
ReplyDeleteAs I've mentioned on another post, there is no doubt the use of drones produces results, but with some implications such as civilian casualties. Drones, in a sense, lower the costs of war. There are less domestic military deaths, and as mentioned above relatively low cost. But, because the costs of war are lowered, does this make war more likely? A huge deterrent of war that we've discussed a lot in class is the fact that war is costly. And what happens when other actors obtain this technology and develop drones of their own? It is definitely something that needs to be considered, because the threat is very real.
ReplyDeleteOverall drone strikes are more efficient and need to be used more often then they are. While it is unfortunate to have civilian casualties it is much better to save our men and women and be able to take out deadly targets instead of having to risk our troops lives. Ultimately while it is bad to hit civilian, if you do not take out these targets the death toll will be greater overall.
ReplyDelete