Attacking the Enemy with Drones

Presidents have the rare ability to analyze classified national security information and to determine which defense strategies should be implemented to most effectively defeat enemies and maintain the safety of the American people.  However, President Bush and President Obama’s strategy of using unmanned military drones to attack and defeat our enemies has generated a significant amount of controversy regarding the legitimacy of such a strategy.  Although there are some flaws and hazards that accompany an unmanned drone program, because the strategy is far more effective and efficient than waging war, we should continue the unmanned drone program but also be extremely careful to avoid all hazards that might be created by the strategy. 

Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles, or military aircrafts that have no humans on board and that can fly to specific locations around the globe and drop missiles on enemy targets.  The unmanned drones can accomplish this feat through computer programming systems or through human pilots who operate the aircrafts mechanically from on the ground.  Although President George W. Bush utilized drone strikes, the strategy to use drones as a method of eliminating enemy combatants has been dramatically intensified and has been used much more frequently by the President Obama administration.  The secretive and classified nature of the missions make it hard to acquire exact numbers, but US officials estimate that the total number of people killed by drone strikes under the Obama administration ranged from around 500-1,000 people between 2008 and 2010 (Entous).  There are many advantages and disadvantages to the use of an unmanned drone program as a counterterrorism strategy.  

A significant disadvantage of drone strikes is that the drones often lead to the killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage.  While only high-value enemies are targeted, the drone attacks from high in the air inevitably kill innocent civilians who are in the area being attacked.  The exact number of civilian deaths can be difficult to determine, but US officials estimate that around 5 to 20 percent of the deaths have been civilians, and a large percentage of the other deaths were low-level combatants or foot soldiers (Entous).  

The killing of innocent civilians as collateral damage wastes valuable lives and diminishes the safety of the American people, for the collateral damage exasperates the tensions between the US and the Islamic cultures and it magnifies the amount of anger and hatred that the communities we strike exert towards the US.  This amplified anger and resentment makes it easier for terrorist networks and enemy organizations to recruit more combatants, which increases the number of total enemies that we face. 

Another disadvantage of the use of drone strikes is that the attacks are always designed to kill enemy combatants, which eliminates any potential for the US to gather information from the combatants.  The interrogation of captured enemies by the CIA has resulted in several intelligence revelations that have enhanced our understanding of the enemy organizations, the leaders of those organizations and the methods that can most effectively defeat the organizations.  However, because unmanned drones kill the enemy, the strategy prevents the military or the CIA from being able to capture high-profile enemies, interrogate combatants and accumulate beneficial information that can help us defeat terrorist networks (Entous).

There are also many advantages that make drone strikes an appealing choice as a strategy to attack and defeat our enemies.  A primary advantage of drone strikes is that the aircrafts can access very remote areas of the globe to track down and eliminate high-profile leaders of terrorist networks (Entous).  The loss of leadership dramatically demoralizes enemy organizations and significantly impairs the ability of those organizations to develop and implement strategies to attack and harm the US.  Thus, the ability of drones to locate and kill enemy leaders helps weaken the enemy organizations and increase the safety of the American people. 

Another benefit of unmanned drone strike is that the strategy enables us to defeat enemy organizations without the need to wage war, spend an excessive amount of money or risk American lives in the process.  The war on terror caused President Bush to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which provided the United States with a very minimal benefit and both of which wasted a significant amount of resources in the form of the many lives lost and the excessive amount of money spent.  A study conducted by Brown University indicates that approximately 176,000 to 189,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” Iraq war, and around 4,500 US soldiers also lost their lives during the war (Trotta).  

Additionally, the Iraq war was wasteful in that the US spent approximately 1.7 trillion dollars throughout the process (Trotta).  Especially considering the economic recession that the US has been attempting to overcome since 2008, that abundant amount of money could have been used to create jobs by funding infrastructure projects, transportation projects, energy projects and scientific research projects. The resources spent in Iraq could have also been applied to improve the struggling educational system in the US.  However, drone strikes do not require us to spend much money, use valuable resources or risk any American lives.  Thus, the use of drone strikes is a much more efficient, affordable and effective option to fight terrorism, as the strikes enable us to defeat terrorist networks without the need to wage war or waste lives, money and time (Mazzettie and Shane).  

Although the use of an unmanned drone program is a beneficial strategy that should continue to be executed, we also must utilize technological advancements and human intelligence reports to ensure that we only target high-profile enemies and avoid killing innocent civilians.  Reports from US and military officials indicate that improved technological advancements regarding drone systems have gradually reduced the percentage of collateral damage deaths caused by drones (Entous).  The unmanned drone program is an efficient and effective counterterrorism strategy that should be implemented to kill high-profile enemy combatants, diminish the strength of terrorist organizations and preserve the safety of the American people.  However, because drone strikes also risk the chance of killing innocent civilians as collateral damage, which can anger the communities and increase the number of US enemies, we must be careful to only use drone strikes when the attack is supported by compelling evidence and must be diligent to ensure that the strikes are designed to cause a minimal amount of collateral damage.  

 Works Cited

Entous, Adam. "Special Report - How the White House learned to love the drone| Reuters." Breaking News, Business News, Financial and Investing News & More | Reuters.co.uk. N.p. Web. 19 May 2010. <http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/05/19/uk-pakistan-drones-idUKTRE64H5U720100519?pageNumber=3>.

Mazzetti, Mark, and Scott Shane. "Threats Test Obama’s Balancing Act on Surveillance - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p. Web. 9 Aug. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/us/threats-test-obamas-balancing-act-on-surveillance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0>.

Trotta, Daniel. "Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study| Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314>.