Argument Essay The topic of the use of drones is widely considered as a “hot topic”. As of today the U.S. still continues it’s use of drone strikes overseas. I believe the U.S. should stop it’s use of drones because it is making our current situations worse while others believe it will make the U.S. safer by annihilating terrorist networks across the world. Drone strikes don’t help us solve our current situations but instead they make more problems worse. Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula extremist grew from 300 in 2009 to 700 in 2012 due to drone attacks. The U.S. should stop it’s use of drones strikes because it doesn't help. Drone strikes lead to the creation of more extremists than reducing the number as intended. Civilians who see their loved one get hurt and become angry with the United States and turn against the United States. Both the Underwear Bomber and Time’s Square Bomber cited drone strikes in Pakistan,Yemen, and Somalia as motivators of their plot’s. This statistic proves that as the use of drone strikes increase, it causes more and more ordinary people to become extremists. …show more content…
President Obama policy of “signature strike” allow the CIA ( Central Intelligence Agency) and the JSOC ( Joint Special Operation Command) to target anyone who fits a specific terrorists profiles of engages behavior the U.S. associates with extremists of weather or not they have been conclusively identified by name or enemy combats. In 2 sets of classified documents obtained by NBC News describing 114 drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan between September 3 2010 and October 30 2011, 26 strikes targeted “other militants” meaning that the CIA could not conclusively determine the affiliations of those
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.
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.
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.
In this paper, I will examine how drone strikes are instituted in America’s foreign policy and their effectiveness against terrorist organizations. Although drone warfare might seem effective and thus desirable for many people, the civilian casualties that it causes increase anti-American sentiment in the region. This sentiment creates a backlash that in fact helps terrorist groups regain their leader, recruit new members, and facilitate revenge, making drones a counterproductive foreign policy
It’s important to acknowledge that yes, drone strikes have brought about a completely different type of warfare, one which the original thinkers behind just war theory probably could not fathom. As put by Yemeni activist Farea al-Muslimi, “When there is a normal war, people can hide, or they can stay away from the military – they can make choices and be careful, but when drones come, you just don’t know when you’ll be next. The fear is incredible.” Drone usage comes at a great cost; the psychological effect of constantly being on guard on Yemen’s civilians are perhaps a new aspect of war that should be considered when considering the behaviors considered ‘just’ during
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical question regarding observation and reality, which can be further applied to the use of war drones. War drones, are remote controlled aircrafts that humans control on land in remote locations. These unmanned aerial vehicles must be analyzed to determine their legitimacy and morality. Drones, although having the possibility of decreasing risks to civilian and U.S. militant lives, make no binding promise. Furthermore, due to the secrecy in which they are operated the kills the vehicles do execute tend to go unnoticed because U.S. militants aren’t physically harmed; therefore, the kills go unobserved and mostly unacknowledged by the public. Secondly, drone attacks are merely aimed at killing, as opposed to capturing enemies; consequently, there is no gain of intelligence into the terrorists’ cells. Lastly, these remote controlled aircrafts can be hacked by enemies and currently we lack the security necessary to halt the hacking. The promises drones offer are empty and lack supporting evidence, while the negatives are clear and demonstrably verified; accordingly the risks drones present outweigh their possible benefits.
Murphy, Dan. "Aerial Drones Serve as Weapons of War." Weapons of War. Ed. Diane Andrews Henningfeld. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Briefing: Aerial Drones as Weapons of War." Christian Science Monitor (22 May 2009). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
The moment I received the prompt to explore just war theory, the first controversial topic containing strong arguments on both sides that interested me was that of drone warfare. As tensions rise between countries and technology improves, the possibility of advanced warfare among nations seems imminent as drones are deployed in replacement of soldiers. The purposes of these unmanned drones in present day are primarily intel collection and target acquisition, which usually leads to extermination of known and presumed threats to the dispatcher. In the United States, when it comes to the topic of using drones within foreign countries, most of the citizens will agree that it is an efficient way to remotely deal with immediate threats to the country.
A United States citizen turning against one’s own government and embracing an ideology to kill another citizen or commit an act of violence is a growing phenomenon commonly known as homegrown terrorism. This transition or radicalization process that transforms an individual into an adversary has intensified since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The problem continues to persist in other parts of the world such as Canada, United Kingdom and even in Saudi Arabia, a Non-Western country. This form of extremism has shown its propensity in the United States since the turn of the century when Muslim extremism had its early beginnings as a venue to support a black separatist movement. Today, the threat emerges more rampantly with the accessibility and excess of information technology; as well as the political and socio-economic environment influencing many spectrums of perception and intent.
War can be defined as “an organized and deliberate political act by an established political authority, which must cause 1,000 or more deaths in a twelve-month period, and which requires at least two actors capable of harming each other” (253, Mingst.) This is a broad definition as war can take several different forms, categorized in various ways. Today, the United States is engaged in the War on Terror. In a post-9/11 world, terrorist attacks are even greater sources of fear to citizens, as well as massive threats to national and international security. Over the past few decades, terrorists have been successful in increasing support and achieving political aims. This poses a major security dilemma to victims, such as the United States. It is this sense of insecurity that leads to military action. Any sense of threat is likely to send a nation to arms (251-252, Mingst.) The U.S. government thus must decide as to what the best course of action would be, in protecting the nation. Over the past decade, drone use has increased exponentially for this purpose. These unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, are often used in attempts to eliminate terrorism. While it is evident that terrorism poses massive threats to the nation, drone strikes are not conducive to a just war.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), also known as Drones have been used since the civil war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The idea of unmanned aerial vehicles had been growing more and more with every conflict our nation has come across. The use of drones is now in full effect, ranging from military operations to relief efforts. Controversies around the increased use of drones include target killings by the military and surveillance by drones within the U.S. Target killing has shown to be effective and favorable against terrorism but some have seen it as a violation of human rights
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.
On September 11, 2001 the United States finally understood the reality of terrorism. As people watched The World Trade Center collapse, terrorists became more than a group of Muslims in the Middle East. After that fateful day, terrorism became a real threat, and the United States declared war on Terror. Since then, American soldiers have been sacrificing their lives to keep the United States free from many foreign terrorist groups. The background and history of the terrorist groups helps the United States understand the culture and motivation for the attacks. Therefore, since terrorism is ever present, the United States has
A lot of countries all over the world depend on technological advances to fight against their opponents. This reduced the risk of having a soldier wounded or dying in a war by making it easier with using these technologies when it comes to head to head combat. Even though using technologies are a great idea but many ethical issues arise from it. One of the main issue is the use of these Drones. This technology is developing more and more. In a recent study showed that there are over 700 active drone development all over the world and these programs are controlled under companies, research institutes, and the government. United States is mainly using these drones to fight against so called “terrorist” but some other countries use them as well. It is immoral and unethical to use these drones because it cause psychological disorders, violate privacy, cause deaths of innocent lives, and increase terrorism. (Reardon)
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