Running head: GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

Global War On Terror: Drones

Adrian Almanza
University of Texas El Paso

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

2
Abstract

This paper will discuss the issues surrounding the use of drones in foreign countries to
fight against militants. It will discuss the effects on the people of these countries, both the
negative and positive, as well as President Obamas justification for employing such tactics. The
paper will also discuss the coverage of the drone strikes, whether positive or negative, in the
media and how they were covered.

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

Global War On Terror: Drones

Beginning with the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, it seems as if The United
States has been enduring an ongoing war that has lasted for nearly two decades. Since the Bush
administration and now towards the end of President Obamas second term in office, the war has
raged on in many parts of The Middle East, which include, but are not limited to, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen. The United States has lost countless soldiers all throughout the war
and now through the advancement of technology; the military is able to carry out precise strikes
on their enemies from an unmanned airplane called drones. These drones, officially called
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), have been in use in Pakistan and Yemen to target militants
that have hidden within the civilian populace, or so they claim. Many eyewitness accounts of
innocent civilians being killed have been reported that were caused by these drones. Although
the United States claim these strikes have killed more militants than civilians, the people of these
countries have been terrorized day in and day out according to investigative reports. Drone
strikes are a complex issue that must be evaluated using both views of the groups of people
involved, only through this examination could we come to a conclusion to determine whether or
not these drones have been used in an effective way. Through the use of research and critical
analysis, we will answer three questions to come to a conclusion. The questions are as follows:
1. What were the positive and negative effects of the drone strikes that were carried out
by The United States?
2. What is President Obamas justification on the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen?
3. How are the Drone strikes being portrayed in the media?

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

To fully understand the questions at hand, one must first examine what exactly is a drone.
The official name of these aircraft is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), used by the US military,
FBI, CIA, Border Patrol, and the Department of Homeland Security. These UAVs, most
commonly known as drones, have immense capabilities in the modern battlefield. The United
States has been using these types of unmanned aerial aircraft for surveillance of key assets, after
the events that occurred on September, 2001, the US, specifically the CIA which was in charge
of the program in the beginning, started flying the aircraft fully armed with air-to-land missiles
capable of engaging a target miles from the operator. A single, trained soldier operates these
drones, and the aircraft can spend close up to 14 hours fully loaded with weapons in the air.
There are several variants to these drones, however, the most common used ones in
Pakistan and Yemen, are the RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-1B Predator, and the MQ-9 Reaper.
Although the Global Hawk drone does not carry weapons, it can stay in the air for up to 36 hours
of continuous surveillance. The other two variants, the Reaper and the Predator, can carry up to
3,000 lbs. of weaponry and gadgets on board. These state-of-the-art aircraft are the center of the
controversial issue in the ongoing struggle against a foreign adversary. (US Drones, 2014)
What were the positive and negative effects of the drone strikes carried out by the
United States?
Now that we have an understanding of what a drone is we can further assess the situation
in Pakistan and Yemen. In The National Interest magazine, an article by Hussain Nadim states,
Many in Pakistan, especially in the army, understand the positive impact of this weapon. Drones
are coming in handy for two reasons: their precision and psychological effect. Many analysts of
this subject have been concerned only with the military aspect, such as whether or not drones are
precise enough and the casualties they incur. But part of what works in favor of the United States

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

is the psychological impactthe fear that drones have instilled in the militants. The fact that the
United States might strike day or night, inside the militant compound or outside while traveling
in the convoys, works to deter militants and restrict their operations. This tilts the balance of
power in favor of the United States. This web published article, argues how the Pakistani
peoples, especially ones in the military, understand the positive effects of using drones. The
author simply stated this as fact without attempting to establish some form of credibility.
However, it does continue to express how the weapon has the ability to instill psychological
effects on militants. These effects cause the militants to continue moving from village to village
in hopes to not be targeted by the drones many times even making them sleep under trees at
night. (Nadim, 2012) This results in opportunities for the Pakistani Army to gain control of vital
areas in the fight against these militants.
The United States has spent over a trillion dollars in the war in Afghanistan and another
trillion in the war in Iraq. The use of drones helps the US by not having to deploy troops on
ground, which costs a lot of money, and eventually having to deal with lives lost as a result.
Drones are a great advantage that the US has over these militants that seek refuge in places such
as Yemen and Pakistan.
Drones are a powerful, effective alternative to deploying troops on the ground to fight
these opposing forces from village to village in hopes of deterring them from the area. This also
causes the locals to be frustrated with fear of getting hit by a drone, but it also serves as a reason
to shut their doors to these militants that try to seek refuge in their homes. Since militants are
forced to stay on the move, this causes terrorist activity to diminish in an area. (Nadim, 2012)
The United States has employed the use of these drones for the cause against terrorism.
Like most things, there are always some negative side effects. The psychological effects that

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

drones have on the enemy militias are effective, but they are not the only ones affected by this
traumatizing terror. (Nadim, 2012) In an article from Rolling Stone magazine by Vivian Salama,
it states how over half of Yemens 24.8 million citizens militants and civilians alike are being
impacted everyday. (Salama, 2014) Forms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), most
commonly found in soldiers, is being found in normal civilians that have nothing to do with the
terrorist activity in their countries. Research done by Peter Schaapveld, a London-based forensic
psychologist, reported that 92 percent of the population sample he examined was found to be
suffering from Post Traumatic stress Disorder. Among those affected, some suffer from
sleeplessness, anxiety, short-tempers, an inability to concentrate, and paranoia. (Salama, 2014)
One example of how the population in these countries are being affected, is with the story
of Faheem Qureshi, in 2009 he was the only survivor of one of the first drone strikes ordered by
President Obama. Before the strike, Faheem was among the top four students in his class, he
suffered a fractured skull and nearly went blind after the attack. He explains, At the time the
drone struck, I had to take exams, but I couldn't take exams after that because it weakened my
brain. I couldn't learn things, and it affected me emotionally. My mind was so badly affected.
Parents began pulling their children from schools for fear that they will be targeted. They do not
want their children congregating in large groups; many go as far as living in one small home
together with multiple families. Others go homeless, either after losing their homes to strikes or
because they cannot deal with the stress. (Salama, 2012)

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

Take this photograph taken by Khaled Abdullah, it pictures street art with a clear message
as to how the locals feel about the strikes. There is a child painted on the wall and it looks as if
he is the one sending the message. The people of these countries are clearly tired of the
oppression and living conditions that these drones produce by attacking militants.
What is President Obamas justification on the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen?
Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United States has expanded dronebombing raids in Pakistan. Obama first ordered a drone strike against targets in North and South
Waziristan on January 23, 2009, and the strikes have been conducted consistently ever since.
(Obamas Speech on Drone Policy, 2013) In a speech by the president he states, Americas
actions are legal; he uses the events that occurred on 9/11 as a means to justify using drones in
foreign land. President Obama used drones since the very beginning of his first term in office.
In an interview with ten different people, I asked the question, what do you think about
the use of drones in the Middle East to target and kill militants? Most of the people, about 8/10,
said they did not know what I was talking about. After I explained to them what drones were and
how the United States was using them to kill militants in places such as Yemen and Pakistan, and
also how the people there were terrorized according to a doctor in London. I also explained how

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

the use of drones has decreased the American lives lost in war. After I explained what the
question was, 4/8 said it was a good thing the US has been using them to kill those militants, the
other four people agreed it was a good thing that the US did not have to suffer more casualties as
a result of these conflicts but that they would not like to have drones flying over them, not
knowing who was going to be targeted next.
This is an indication of the famous ideals of Machiavellis, the lion and the fox, and
austerity measures. According to Machiavelli, austerity measures should be put to in place since
the very beginning of a leaders time in office or position of power. President Obama used this
tactic because he started to use drones in the beginning of his term and all at once. For the
president, he justifies the use of drones because of the immense risks there would be if he were
to send troops to these countries just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Obamas Speech on Drone
Policy, 2013) In the speech, he continues to express his concern of the problems that drones
cause when he states this, As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises
profound questions about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of
creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about
accountability and morality. This is a clear indication in which President Obama understands
the many difficult questions that arise from using these drones. In the lion and the fox
philosophy, a leaders action when faced with a problem is justified if the end result is for the
greater good of the people just like how the resulting end justifies the means for President
Obama. He rather use a controversial tactic to eliminate the forces that attacked The United
States in September 11th, 2001, than to send more troops and cause more damage to our country.
In the case of civilian casualties, President Obama justifies this fact by stating, But as
Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties not just in
our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sanaa and Kabul and
Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target
civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of
civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option. His justification in this
is clear, he rather have some innocent casualties in his hands by the use of drones than to allow
the terrorists to do as they please in these areas of the world. The president argues that the US
has a right to self-defense from their enemies in these areas of the world.

This image shows how the United States has been using the drone program under the
Obama Administration to target which areas within Pakistan they have been operating in the
most. It also shows information on who was actually killed in all of those strikes.
How are the Drone strikes being portrayed in the media?

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

10

Drones have been slowly shown in the media more and more as the people have
demanded more information on them. Although most of the coverage of this strategy being used
in the global war on terrorism that The United States has been participating in has been on the
negative side, some media outlets choose to focus on President Obamas policies regarding this
program. Other news outlets choose to over emphasize on how the drones are precise and how
more militants have died and very little innocent bystanders have suffered as a result.
The United States has gone from deploying large-scale war on the foreign countries in
which the terrorists reside in, to using surgical tactics to destroy the enemy. (Sifton, 2012) What
ever the case has been, or what it will be in the near future, there will always be media coverage
of the negative side of a situation as well as the positive side. Many online news articles have
covered more about the negative side of the effects that drones have had on the people of these
foreign countries as well as the moral, and even legality of these attacks.
Two media outlets, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, have been among
the many organizations to cover these strikes. In the beginning of President Obamas first term,
there was little to no coverage of drone strikes in the media, even after the president ordered the
first attack just days after he assumed office. These two outlets have focused their coverage on
two different spectrums of the drone issue. The New York Times has been focusing more on the
international approach of coverage, and The Washington Post covers more of the federal
agencies that are in charge or have to do with the program. (Calderone, 2013) The Washington
Post published 72 articles in 2009 about the agencies like the Department of Defense and the
Central Intelligence Agency, which are the main managers of the drone program. (Scahill, 2009)

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

11

This image is an example of all of the news coverage in the media. Most headlines are
focusing on the deaths of militants in Pakistan and Yemen. The media was not slow in reporting
on these cases, whether positive or negative. Most cases were covering the negative side of this
issue as shown in the sources used in this review.
Conclusion
The use of drone strikes in foreign countries, more specifically Pakistan and Yemen, is an
ongoing topic with many issues to address. From the ethical standpoint, to the protection of US
citizens from being involved in yet another war by sending troops. This topic is a serious issue in
modern America that needs either a solution or a swift change in the plan of actions. Since the
beginning, the program was plagued with secrecy and irresponsibility by the people in charge of
overseeing the program. The debate continues and many questions arise from the discussions, as
more facts are being revealed everyday. War evolves rapidly when appropriate conditions are not
being met, so perhaps instead of attempting to kill these militants more effectively, there should
be a political solution to this problem.
Sources Cited

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: DRONES

12

Calderone, M. (2013, February 8). Drone Media Coverage Was Scarce During
Obama's First Term.
Nadim, H. (2012, August 3). How Drones Changed The Game In Pakistan. The
National Interest .
Obama's Speech On Drone Policy. (2013, May 23). The New York Times .
Salama, V. (2014). Death From Above: How American Drone Strikes Are
Devastating Yemen. Rolling Stone .
Scahill, J. (2009, November 23). The Secret US War in Pakistan. The Nation .
Sifton, J. (2012, February 7). A Brief History Of Drones.
U.S. Drones. (2014, January 3).