The Modern Drone Program and Its Impact

The development of drones has been a vital advancement for U.S. military purposes. It allows an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to attack a specific terrorist location quietly, effectively, and is minimally violent to surrounding areas.

Drone strikes have come under criticism, however, due to the documented loss of civilian lives as a result of errant attacks or collateral damage. In our view, UAVs are the most effective weapon to date at killing specific threats to the U.S. without causing overreaching harm that other methods would inevitably lead to.

The argument that drone strikes can kill innocent people and thus should be eliminated as a military tactic entirely simply doesn’t hold water when analyzed reasonably.

Times of conflict lead to military engagement between two or more sides. When this happens, violence and death are inevitable. With any form of military involvement, there is a significant threat of the loss of civilian lives in the fray of battle. Opponents of drone strikes have cried that the loss of innocent lives, famously that of a pregnant woman and three children in a bus strike in September of 2012, is proof enough that UAVs are not safe enough for use.

However, if the U.S. is dedicated to eradicating members of Al-Qaeda as well as other terrorist threats, some form of military attack is necessary, as diplomacy is clearly not an option at this point. The military means available are few and far between: conventional aircraft attacks, specials operations forces, drones or troops on the ground.

Drones, at this point in time, make the most sense given their targeted victims. They are more effective than conventional aerial attacks, safer than putting U.S. troops on the ground and more reasonable than using special forces, who can only be in so many places at once.

President Obama insists that secret and precise drone strikes carry lower risks of civilian deaths and diplomatic fallout than any present alternatives, and that he and his military aides are constantly working on the effectiveness of drones.

In a speech Obama gave in May regarding the controversy of drones, he assured that America only acts “against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed of injured-the highest standard we can set.” Such a standard is as fair as can be expected with regards to military action, and it appears the President is dedicated to avoiding the loss of civilian lives.

Opponents of drone strikes also argue that this method of military attack incites locals to join Al-Qaeda or its affiliates as a form of anti-Americanism, further destabilizing the regions the U.S. chooses to strike. However, this theory has been refuted by political scientists such as Anoop Sarbahi at Stanford University. Sarbahi, who specializes in geospatial analysis and counterinsurgencies, found that drones “disrupt and degrade terrorist organizations, reducing their ability to conduct attacks,” and that “drone strikes are associated with decreases in the incidence and lethality of terrorist attacks.”

Further, studies from anti-drone groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which are trying to eradicate the tactic, are difficult to corroborate. Often their statistics come directly from Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, and Pakistani government has been clear in its disproval of drone attacks. At a Cabinet meeting a week ago, Pakistani ministers called the drone attacks “unacceptable” and a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. As such, statistics from their Foreign Ministry are not as unbiased as would be ideal. Also, most drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen occur in remote, hostile areas where independent assessment is difficult and thus not included in either group’s studies.

Overall, we think that drone strikes have been effective in reducing threats to the U.S., and have sent a message that we have the capability to find anyone looking to kill Americans. Hundreds of Al-Qaeda or Taliban members have been killed by drone attacks, most recently Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban arm based in Pakistan. The killing of such a prominent member—who was responsible for the Times Square car bomb attempt in 2010 as well as other suicide bomb attacks—earlier this month has given support to the use of UAVs.

While we agree that the loss of innocent civilian lives is an unfortunate circumstance of UAV attacks, ethically, we must look at the lesser of two evils. If the U.S. does not pursue terrorists and other threats with its best military tools, as a country we risk greater loss of life as a direct result.