and ISIS, drones were used to remotely attack aerially while keeping American pilots safe from anti-aircraft weaponry and capture. However, with the advancements in technology, have
the higher-ups in the military become too carefree with the way they use this new powerful equipment?
In September of this year, another drone strike was carried out in northwestern Syria in an attempt to assassinate a senior al Qaeda leader. The acknowledgment of potential civilian
casualties and the investigation on such circumstances was led by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in which the Pentagon admitted to there being several civilian casualties. This
information which became public in late November was the first time that US Central Command had acknowledged that these previously undisclosed airstrikes had claimed the lives
of innocent Syrian citizens including young women and children. Austin said he believes “leaders in this department should be held to account for high standards of conduct and
leadership, however, if this was the case was there a need for the drone to attack? Or perhaps intel was not enough for those behind the monitor to feel satisfied with their work.
Although the evidence has come to light, the Defense Department has yet to hold anyone accountable for the deaths of innocent civilians since August 29th of 2021, in which 10 Afghan
civilians were lost. Although the investigation found that significant errors were made when carrying out the planned mission, there were no legal violations of law including the law of war.
Austin closed his interview claiming that the RAND Corporation focuses on civilian casualties in Syria is helping undergo a security review of those behind these unsolicited drone strikes.
It seems as though the government brought this to light amidst other events such as Covid to distract from the innocent lives they took. The Pentagon’s involvement with such crimes
against humanity not charging anybody with the killings is surely something that cannot be morally correct, however, if those who instigated such drone strikes are allegedly protected by the law.
Although not illegal, do you think it was right for the US to send these unsolicited drones in an attempt to take out an al Qaeda leader while knowing civilians were in the way of harm?
Does the apparent lack of knowledge from the older military officials contribute or justify the blunt force used in an attempt to eliminate a senior al Qaeda leader?
Do you believe drone strikes are beneficial in war? What do you think makes them necessary or unnecessary?
7 comments:
These types of drone strikes from the US are not right nor justified.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani
The report linked above highlights the harm of these drone strikes in the middle east. Yes, it is true that these drone strikes have the potential of eliminating potentially dangerous terrorist targets with ease while simultaneously endangering virtually no American lives. This is far safer than any raid using American troops. For example, one of the most notable terrorist raids was the operation to kill Osama Bin-Laden, which is detailed in multiple articles but I'll link one here(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/osama-bin-laden-killed-by-u-s-forces) for convenience. Though no American troops were killed in the raid, one of the helicopters crash landed into the compound, demonstrating how these in-person operations pose much of a safety risk.
Drone strikes require the press off a button from thousands or tens of thousands of miles away from any actual danger. Though they are safe and they deliver results, they are messy; as shown in the article, the report I linked, and any other news search about drone strike casualties, collateral damage from the massive areas of devastation with such strikes are innumerable. This is unacceptable. It is true that *sometimes* killing dangerous terrorists can possibly save future lives (emphasis on sometimes, due to MULTIPLE occasions where military officials make an oopsie daisy "accident" of mindlessly killing civilians without ANY benefit and seemingly without much punishment either: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/pentagon-drone-strike-afghanistan.html); however, the risk as well as the cost is too high. Innocent civilian lives cannot be traded for the sake of "possible" safety in the future.
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-09/20/c_1310198857.htm
The article linked above states that "according to London-based nonprofit news organization the Bureau of Investigative Journalism... [f]rom January 2004 through February 2020, the United States launched at least 14,040 drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, resulting in the deaths of 910 to 2,200 civilians, including 283 to 454 children."
The innocent civilians in the middle east, living their lives regularly, are forced to live in constant fear. Constant fear that someday, before they can even register a danger, a random bomb will fly down from the sky from a flying killing machine they cannot see--instantly killing them. A constant threat of fear and danger looms over these peoples (who have likely seen or heard of the amount of civilians who are killed in these drone strikes) because of mindless American drone strikes; in the eyes of innocent middle-eastern civilians, what makes us different from the terrorists that we so desperately wish to get rid of?
Then, there is the question of if these drone strikes do nothing but create more of what the US seeks to destroy. This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/) covers how drone strikes have been inspiring more terrorists to rebel against America and are being used as somewhat as a "recruiting tool". It's not difficult to see how it works; after 9/11, enlistment into the US armed forces increased (https://www.foxnews.com/us/9-11-military-recruiting). After seeing a danger worth fighting against, a danger which poses a threat to families and friends, people become inspired to fight for themselves and the people around them; in the middle-east, for radical terrorists and civilians alike, this danger has become the United States in the past couple of decades.
I think that the goal of eliminating a threat becomes so focused in the minds of officials that they take actions that they think need to be done, regardless of the what comes with it. These may be seen as ignorant, as they are discrediting the lives of many innocent people, the lives of people that were born on a battleground with no end, the lives of people instantly made targets just by being where they are. The elimination of a threat to the United States certainly is beneficial in the aspect of "good riddance" but what it creates is a fear to our country. What also emerges is a hatred towards the US, and possible terrorist groups showing the devastation that the American attacks cause as examples as to why they should join them in combating our country, why we are the real evil and they are victims that must fight back to protect the lives of their families, and the heartbeat of their country. I remember after the Trump Administration launched a drone strike on General Quassim Suleimani, killing him, many chanted "Death to America" solidifying their anger towards America. These attacks will not be coming to an end anytime soon, as animosity and disagreements will continue. We live in war to make peace, but at the cost of many innocent lives.
Drone strikes have been cited as an invaluable resource to the cause of counterterrorism (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23526906).
However, I struggle to justify the character of US drone strikes in the Middle East of late, and of US involvement in the region in general. Counterterrorism has been on the US policy agenda and consciousness since the September 11 attacks. However, has continuous US involvement in the Middle East been a net positive? I don't think so. In fact, US military action and especially drone strikes have been an important source of anti-West sentiment. Although these strikes are safe (for US military personnel), they often result in unacceptable civilian tragedies that are under-acknowledged by the US. The US has contributed to the instability in the Middle East, and many innocent civilians live in fear of dying from a drone strike gone wrong. If anything, the drone strikes can be easily turned into anti-US propaganda, and can work to the benefit of terrorist organizations.
War is hard to talk about; any improvement in military weaponry has the potential to lead to more death and destruction. I believe that the usage of drones has been one of the somewhat beneficial innovations: less US lives are lost. However, they must be used more responsibly, with more respect for the lives of innocents.
In my opinion, drone strikes are no different from past forms of warfare. Airstrikes have been used extensively since the onset of World War 2 and in wars after. Drones are simply modern airplane bombing runs. However, the difference lies in the fact that the drone strikes can be used at the push of a button from miles away. This means American soldiers do not have to risk their lives flying a plane into enemy territory to perform an airstrike. In addition, because of modern computing, drones are meant to be more accurate in their strikes, way better than a human pilot who needs to time their strike to hit their target, although this is most likely computer assisted in the modern era as well. Drone strikes allow precise attacks that hit a specific target, which, at least on paper, are better to reduce civilian casualties. I believe that a human bomber would do a worse job of avoiding civilian casualties.
I think that the US, in order to avoid civilian casualties to the utmost, as they should, ought to reduce the chance of error on their drones. While easier said than done, this could mean performing more extensive surveying of the bombing site before the strike and only striking when the chance of civilian casualty is as low as possible. The easiest way to do this is to have more transparency in each strike and holding failed strikes strongly accountable. I expect that if officials were very strictly disciplined for civilian casualties they would do everything in their power to reduce them. Currently, many civilian casualties are brushed off and ignored and hidden from the public.
Drone strikes remain an effective way to assassinate enemy officials that could bring harm to the US, but they should not come at the cost of civilian casualties. The US military ought to do everything in their power to bring the number of unintended casualties to near zero, even if it comes at the cost of cancelling some strikes and waiting for a better opportunity and punishing military officers who did not take enough steps to avoid civilians.
I agree that the use of drones in the past has been warranted but the strikes mentioned above were not justified, especially knowing civilians would be harmed and the casualties were unacceptably high. The lack of knowledge from the older military officials does not justify the blunt force used, in fact, it furthers highlights the breakdown in command and control and the lack of good intelligence used in the strike. As I stated above, the use of drones in warfare is justified in some cases, however, this particular drone strike further demonstrates the humanitarian costs for the safety of civilians in surrounding areas. According to the International Human Rights Law(IHRL), which determines whether a drone strike is warranted in armed conflict, there are many discrepancies in the accountability and transparency of drone warfare. Under IHRL, the principle of distinction sets a precedent that the casualty of drone strikes should not exceed the “military advantage”. Despite, the IHRL setting these guidelines 10 civilians were a casualty in the aforementioned drone strike, which the Defense Department ruled was not in violation of any law. This shows that while drone strikes might be beneficial in certain armed conflicts, the laws remain somewhat ambiguous allowing for casual actions resulting in numerous casualties.
Links:
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/humanitarian-concerns-raised-use-armed-drones
At first glance, I thought that civilians being knowingly killed is simply unacceptable. Especially in a country like Syria where civilians endure hardships daily and have been for many years and counting. However, I know that the US war against terrorism has been rampant since 9/11, and killing an Al Qaeda leader is an achievement in its own right. With that being said, I think the risk outweighs the reward. There will always be another terrorist leader to fill his shoes and the reality is that the danger and strength of Al Qaeda will not be compromised based on the removal of one key leader in a group structured around multiple men of high power with someone always there to fill their shoes. The lives of these civilians however are worth far more, and the fact that multiple civilians were murdered just to capture one man sends the completely wrong message to terrorists worldwide. Our government illustrates our desperation and inhumanity by killing innocent civilians simply to capture one terrorist, giving terrorists the power by making them feel that their lives are more important to us than civilians.
In general, I think drone strikes are at the level of technology, via surveillance cameras and precise timing capabilities, that they can be extremely useful in time of need. They keep the American military as safe as possible because they don't compromise our location and force us to go too close to our target while also achieving our goal. However, drone strikes are a useful tool that shouldn't be abused like it was in this case. I'm worried that Al Qaeda may retaliate against our military with extreme measures because they now know just how desperate we are to eliminate the.
After reading Nathans comment (partially claiming that drone strikes by the US are messy), and Juliens comment (guessing that drone strikes should be more accurate than manned strikes), I looked into which is really more accurate in not causing civilian casualties, manned or drone strikes? According to a research post on cfr.org (linked here https://www.cfr.org/blog/are-drones-more-precise-manned-aircraft), drone strikes are "roughly thirty times more likely to result in a civilian fatality than an airstrike by a manned aircraft". The post also stated simply "based upon the best available information, drone strikes result in far more civilian fatalities than airstrikes by manned platforms." Does this tell us that drone strikes are, for whatever reason, inherently less accurate than manned strikes? Possibly. Or maybe it shows that they are more poorly executed, from the surveying to the strike. As others have mentioned, drone strikes have allowed the military to risk significantly less (none of our soldiers there). Perhaps the military has been more sloppy with the execution of these drone strikes from start to finish as a result, which has lead to the increased civilian deaths that are being seen widely.
I agree with Julien that in order to reduce the civilian deaths, military officers should be held significantly more accountable. Whether the deaths are the result of less care due to the low risk of drone strikes or not, accountability would force them to be more accurate and minimize civilian casualties.
Finally, I thought the point brought up by Nathan and Emily, how drone strikes can actually fuel terrorist organizations by inspiring anti-US sentiment, was very significant in this matter. In addition to the increased civilian lives they are costing, I imagine that drone strikes as compared to manned strikes especially can be demonized, due to their risk free nature.
Post a Comment