Critical Thinking: The Drone War

Nate Bodner
Green Group

The United States of America should not be using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs) in combat because many of their strikes represent a direct breach of the
International Human Rights law, the drones are unable to distinguish civilians from the
enemies due to unclear camera feed, and the negative psychological effects on the drone
operators. Instead of bombing innocent civilians of other countries, there should be a
strict international ban on weaponized drones in domestic airspace. Such a ban would halt
the terrible amount of civilian casualties while allowing drones without missiles to survey
and locate terrorists for the local governments to arrest. This would allow for more
communication between the USA and countries in which they partake in drone
operations. Finally, the process would not undermine the sovereignty of local
governments and not subject pilots and civilians to emotional duress.
Historically, Iran was the first country to decide to try using an armed drone in
combat during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Impressed with Irans success, the USA
quickly acquired and started to build a large number UAVs. The first real drone war
was the first Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm. According to a 1991
report by the Navy, at least one UAV was airborne at all times during Desert Storm
(Wikipedia). The Gulf War successfully demonstrated the drones utility and as a result
many militaries around the globe began researching the relatively new technology.
Attempts to stop the use of drones in combat have only surfaced in the most
recent drone war with the US in the Middle East and parts of Africa. This war has
shown the many issues that occur when using these deadly killing machines. Recent
investigations by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have indicated that the
USA violated the International Human Rights law, which states that deadly force is only

permitted when strictly and directly necessary to save human life. The United States
has not obeyed this universal law and have killed many more people then they have
saved. But even though these reports generated big news stories across the country and
caused plenty of outrage towards the drone program, little has been done to stop these
deadly drone strikes. Thankfully, the anti-drone movement still grows. Human rights
groups question the drones legality, clergy members question the ethics of their use and
activists across the world protest their use. And still, many more ask if the use of drones
is actually decreasing or increasing terrorism (truth-out.org, Kevin Zeese, Margaret
Flowers).
This drone problem has affected many different groups in the Middle East, and in
the US. Even thought America is targeting Al Qaeda members they rarely kill any highranking members. In a study by the New America Foundation, from 2004-2014 an
estimated 49 militant leaders were killed by drone strikes. This constitutes about 2% of
all drone-related fatalities (Drones.procon.org). In Pakistan alone, 24 terrorists were
targeted and killed by drone missiles. However, in the process the missile strikes killed
874 people, 142 of them being children (TheGuardian.com, Spencer Ackerman). The
terrorist to civilian death ratio is appalling. The numbers prove that the system doesnt
work. Those lucky enough to not to be collateral damage are not left unmarked. Many
local villages across Pakistan and many other countries are left traumatized by drones.
The villagers live their lives in constant fear that a strike could occur at any moment.
Victims hear drones hovering 24 hours a day. Children are too scared to go to school,
and adults are too scared to go to work.

But, the trauma goes both ways. Many drone pilots experience extreme mental
stress from the drone program. They suffer from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). Drone operators might have to look at the carnage from their
missiles for days at a time. Fighter jet pilots dont see the destruction they cause. For
some, like ex drone camera operator Brandon Bryant told KNPR radio in Nevada, it is
horrifying to know how easy it is to kill another man. Also drone pilots see everything,
they see the missiles hit their target and they see the terrible outcome. Finally the drone
strikes violate the sovereignty of other countries. The strikes are often carried out
without the permission and against the objection of target countries. In fact, a recent
revolt in Yemen was due in part to the governments inability to stop the drone strikes
carried out by the USA.
Much needs to happen to remedy this drone problem. Short-term, the government
needs to end the secrecy around the entire program. The President should publically
acknowledge all of the targeted killings outside of traditional combat zones within a
reasonable time period, identifying those targeted and laying out the legal basis in which
the decision was made. The President should also provide the public with information
about the process through which targeting decisions are made. There are currently many
groups advocating for accountability for targeted killings and greater transparency
concerning the drone program, but not many substantial laws have been passed. These
steps would hopefully lower the number of civilian deaths by forcing the government to
be 100 percent confident in whom they are targeting. The risk of failure for the
government would be substantially increased because of the negative press and antidrone sentiment that would be unleashed if their was another accidental civilian bombing.

Long-term, armed drones should not be used outside combat zones at all. They
should only be applied to scouting, target identification, and location of a target. This
would keep the program within the law. Once targets are located, the local governments
could be notified, and they would get the target on their own. This would increase
communication between countries, while greatly reducing the civilian collateral damage.
Also this new plan would insure that the sovereignty of the local governments would not
be compromised by having them detain the targets without the US help and reduce the
psychological duress suffered by the pilots by exempting them from doing the killing.
If not solved, the drone problem will continue to spread havoc across the world.
The drones will continue to kill and traumatize everyone that the USA deems a terrorist
across the world (thebulletin.org, Hugh Gusterman). Also, as the technology advances, so
does the terrorists technology. If drones start to get produced more and more, there is a
greater likelihood of the technology falling into the wrong hands. Once terrorists have it,
there will be nothing to stop terrorists from using drones to cause destruction anywhere in
the world. Terrorists could load them with explosives and fly them into buildings. Or use
them in extreme assassination attempts around the world. Especially if drones become so
normalized that the Federal Aviation Administration gives them widespread flying rights.
Police departments in many countries are beginning to acquire drones for crowd
surveillance and criminal pursuit; and The Border Protection Agency, which own ten, has
considered arming them with non-lethal weapons (thebulliten.org, Hugh Gusterman).
Apart from the fact that non-lethal weapons sometimes turn out to be lethal after all,
this could be a very slippery slope, possibly leading to these weapons beginning to kill
people domestically as well as abroad.

At the moment very few countries have used weaponized drones. But many
countries have watched carefully at our experiments, trying to find a use of this relatively
cheap technology. If these countries begin to use drones to kill people they brand as
terrorists outside of their own borders, the US will hardly be able to condemn them.
The US military should not use armed drones outside of combat zones because of
the tremendous amounts of civilian casualties, the mental effects taken on drone pilots
and civilians alike, the drones direct violation of the International Human Rights law, and
the many potentially dangerous possible outcomes of the normalization of drone
technology. A stand has to be taken soon to stop the use of combat drones worldwide.