Article One: Dainel Byman, in his article Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s weapon of Choice in an August 2013 article in the Brookings Institute, identifies the positive impact of US drone strikes. Byman contends that US drone strikes are extremely efficient, at little financial cost to the government, and protect the lives of American soldiers. For these reasons, Byman believes that US drone strikes are necessary to the war on terror. Byman’s first argument is that US drone strikes are extremely efficient in their purpose: eliminating high value targets in foreign countries that pose a threat to national security. He cities a study done by the New America Foundation, which found that “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen” (Byman 1). Of these 3,300 militants, over 50 were senior leaders of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Additionally, drone strikes indirectly hinder communication between terrorist leaders and their operatives. In an effort to avoid detection, many foreign militants have stopped using cell phones and other electronic forms of communication. Although the elimination of technology makes it harder to find high value targets, it also significantly impacts their ability to communicate, which reduces the amount of organized attacks. Without considering the cost of civilian casualties or other negative impacts associated with the drone strikes, it is clear that UAV drones have been effective in eliminating foreign threats. In addition, Byman argues that “drones have devastated al Qaeda and associated anti-American militant groups... and they have done so at little financial cost” (Byman 1). In the article, Byman compares the financia... ... middle of paper ... ...e argument; if the argument did not contain facts and statistics, it would simply be a compilation of theory and unsubstantiated claims. Cohn uses Pathos to appeal to the reader’s emotional side. She attempts to make the reader frustrated, or even angry, about the fact that US drones are killing innocent civilians. This is demonstrated in when she cites an article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that found that “The CIA's drone campaign has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to rescue victims or who were attending funerals” (Cohn 1). Cohn’s argument is effective in arguing for the elimination of US drone strikes, which is why I agree with her. Despite their advantages in the war on terror and the protection of the United States, I believe that drone strikes are both illegal and unjust, which is why they should no longer be used by the US military.
The post 9/11 era in The United States defense policies have been one of proactive as compared to reactive. The United States has been looking at methods to gather intelligence on our enemy while ensuring the safety of our troops. The drone has been the answer to the search because the drone is capable of ensuring the U.S. life, forced projection of power over our enemies, and Strategic stealth tactical striking.
The letter from George Bush to Saddam Hussein was littered with aspects of Pathos, due to perpetual use of fear. Throughout the letter, Bush seems to make threats to not only Hussein, but also to the entire country of Iraq. This is exhibited when Bush writes, “it will be a far greater tragedy for you and your country” (par. 5). Furthermore, the use of threats amplified the aspect of fear from the Pathos ideology, that is, Bush perpetually utilizes threats in order to convince Hussein to leave Kuwait or else Iraq will face major consequences: “What is the issue here is not the future of Kuwait –it will be free, its government restored – but rather the future of Iraq” (par. 4). However, Bush also
At the beginning of the president’s speech, Bush used pathos to convey images of the terrorist attacks to the American people. George Bush recalls, “The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge -- huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger” (Bush). This recollection of the terrible events tugs at the emotions of those who were listening to his speech at the time because many families had lost their loved ones to the attacks. The president recalled these terrible images of destruction in order to grab the attention of his listeners and express the mood of the situation. However, President George Bush does not only use pathos for sadness but he also uses pathos to portray American patriotism. The Commander and Chief states, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve” (Bush). This pathos is used for a completely different purpose. Instead of using the rhetorical device to touch on the emotions of the situation, here Bush uses pathos in an effort to lift up a grieving nation. His words are intended to give the horror stricken people hope when he explains how America is not a nation that will be broken so
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
On the use of drones, NYT’s Peter M. Singer (“Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”) makes the comprehensive argument that the use of drones goes against the how wars are meant to be fought—human participation. It can be counter argued that these automatons are better in terms of expendability; personnel are not easily replaced while drones are easily replaceable. The Bush 43 strategy relied more on men, and it did yielded adverse results politically. The switch to drones presented dynamic political benefits, for which Singer argued allowed for circumvention of aggravated/emotive discourse among members of the American populace, academics and mass media. It is imperative to remember that the cost of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq—increases in casualties—was detrimental to the American credibility and brought about victory to Obama in 2008 elections.
It is spread throughout his essay, starting with the statistic he provides. The statistic states, “We are advised that in order to secure the boarders, we must deport 12 million people. Never mind who they are or where they and that it could cost up to $230 billion to do it.”(Schwarzenegger, 26) That appeals to pathos because that is a lot of money and its innocent people getting deported. Mr. Schwarzenegger uses 9/11 to his advantage also. Before 9/11 Congress assumed everyone had good intentions; after 9/11 Congress feels like they cannot assume that anymore. 9/11 is a part of pathos because it was a very traumatic event when the towns fell and, many people died. He also appeals to the family providers by using the example of the father not letting fences stop his dreams of providing for his family. Schwarzenegger also used the fact that some charities are being punished for helping immigrants.
After the twin towers fell emotions across the nation ran high with sadness and anguish. President fed off this emotion to evoke response in our nation through the use of pathos. Pathos is the appeal to persuade the
President Bush’s speech was directed towards an audience of northern Arizonan republican supporters. Bush continuously uses the rhetorical appeal of pathos, the appeal to the audience’s emotions, to gain support from the crowd and connect them to the issues he addresses on an emotional level. The best example of such an issue is the promise of creating a new forest policy. By raises an issue that the audience was emotionally concerned with, Bush is able to persuade the audience to his purpose as well as relate them to it on an emotional level. It was likely that there were people in the audience who were directly affected by the recent forest fires in Arizona who felt very passionately about the topic of a new national forest policy. The appeal of emotion became a very effective tool in motioning the audience in the direction of his purpose, mainly the gain of support for the republican candidates in the next Arizona election.
In comparison to the f35 jet the article “The Coming Revolution of Drone Warfare” states “drones are low budget when being compared to jets, the price of a drone is about 14 million, and an f35 jet is 148 million to 337 million” (Zergat 15). The drone is just as capable of killing as an f35; the biggest difference between the two is that drones can kill just as effectively but for a much lower cost compared to the f35. An example of how capable drones are at killing is, “Al Queda has lost over 40 loyalists, of all ranks, to American drone strikes in the past six months” (Walsh 1). Drones are just effective as jets due to their very high killing track record, and can be as effective as a jet. Not only that, but Secretary John Kerry announced that the drone program has killed 1/2 of ISIL’s top command (Cockburn 7). Drones are extremely powerful especially considering their low cost compared to the f35 jet, and considering their high track record for success. Altogether a drone is extremely powerful, it has a very high track record which is impressive considering its low cost when being compared to
One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones; which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for less casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve. The use of drones as weapons of war and delivery and surveillance systems should not be dismissed because many people do not realize the real capabilities of drones and how they can be used to better the world through efficient air strikes, faster delivery times, and useful surveillance.
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)
Many people are concerned about the possible repercussions of drone use in radical Islamic states. They say that “Drone strikes make civilians turn radical, and makes the terrorism problem worse.” This is known as blowback, when civilians take up arms or choose to support the opposite side because of actions committed by the aggressors. It's unwise to assume drones are solely responsible for terrorist recruitment. As Kenneth Anderson worded it, “The trouble with the blowback theory is simple: it will always be done nothing rather than something.
Living in the digital age where we enjoy the various fruits of latest technological tools and advancements, then at the same time we cannot escape from their hidden or apparent harms. Also, it is a fact that some gadgets supported by these technological advancements are much capable to bring destruction and disaster then construction and convenience. The same goes for the Drone Technology which since past 200 years is being used to create turbulence at the global level. It has proved to be a powerful investigator and bomber at the same time. Drones are specifically associated with military actions and the countries having used them for surveillance purposes include UK, USA, Italy, Japan, Austria, Australia etc. The list of victim counties or nations is much bigger in contrast. Some prominent victims of Drone Air Strikes include Congo, Venice, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. However, it is also an undeniable fact that the massive production and usage of Drones got multiplied in the 21st century.
Many leaders and suspected members of terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda seek asylum and refuge within the borders of Pakistan. It was not too long ago that the number one on our wanted list, Osama bin Laden, was killed in a raid just over the Pakistan border at a compound. The targeted attack lead by Seal team six members, garnered harsh criticism from Pakistan officials simply because they were not informed of the attack before it occurred, nor asked for the permission to carry out such an assault. The potential danger to soldiers and the risk of igniting additional ire and criticism from the Pakistan government, lead to the widespread use of drones across this particular international border. It is particularly challenging to limit collateral damage in dense urban areas. These lea...
Every day the world is evolving, different types of technology are being made for different kinds of uses. Some people in the army want to use drones to carry out different types of missions, in other places in the world. Using will help soldiers carry out missions, quicker, easier, and much more efficient. 60% of Americans agree on the usage of drones for army purposes. Many people say that the army should not use drones because drones will increase the number of terrorists, drones can kill and injure innocent civilians, and that drones will “...allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war” (ℙ8, Drones). There are many advantages with having drones aid military bases, because