Eyes in the Sky

Imagine that the U.S. is at war with another country, and you’re the President. You need to bomb a certain area and are given a few options. The first option would be to use traditional planes in a hostile area, risking the life of the pilots. Another option is to send an elite group of soldiers, like Seal Team Six, for example, to go in and capture the enemy. This operation is quite jeopardous, and would look bad upon failure. A third option would be to send in an unmanned drone, with no risk of U.S. military personnel. It’s like doing basic addition, there is only one solution. If you can save the life of soldiers with no possible risk to them, you will chose that option every time. Drones have been in the U.S. Army’s arsenal since World War I, though they were highly unsuccessful. The U.S. further expanded the drone program in World War II, again with little success. These drones were not completely unmanned like they are today. An operative would position the drone, then parachute to safety. After the war, the U.S. moved on to rockets to compete with the Soviets in the space race, and for military expansion during the cold war. While the drone program was put on hold, the U.S. began to use cruise missiles which was the drones closest relative. They had cameras like drones, but instead of staying in the air and keeping a live stream of footage, these missiles crashed and exploded. The Air Force began to develop modern day drones in the 1990’s. The first drone strike was intended to kill Osama Bin Laden, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The attack failed miserably, it killed 3 civilians (“Drones” Opposing Viewpoints 1-2). Much of the controversy surrounding drone use involves the risk of civilian casualties, leading to resentment towards the United States. Others say that there are better substitutes than drones. With that being said, The Drone program should be continued because it plays a vital role in protecting America, and American citizens from terrorists. They also have many uses. Finally, drones are highly effective in carrying out their tasks.

Critics argue that drone use leads to anti-U.S. sentiments internationally, in part, due to the collateral damage they cause. Critics like Audrey Cronin, a professor at George Mason University, note that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda have used drone strikes resulting in civilian deaths in an attempt to recruit new members. They make it seem like drone strikes are not well planned, and solely used for the purpose of killing Muslims (2). Even though the former may be true, Cronin’s argument contradicts itself. Earlier in the article, Cronin concedes that living under the possibility of constant death makes it harder to operate (2). Terrorists are forced to adapt which can be difficult at times. The slightest mistake can be catastrophic for them. Another reason why the use of drones is controversial is because they are unpopular with local people. According to a Pakistani public opinion survey conducted in 2011, sixty nine percent of people surveyed disagreed with the statement “Drone attacks are necessary”. Eighty nine percent of people agreed with the statement “Drone attacks kill too many innocent civilians” (“Drones” Issues and Controversies 5-6). While these surveys may seem disconcerting, they typically aren’t reliable, and do not paint the whole picture. Supporters of the drone program, like Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University in the Security Studies Program, assert that a majority of these surveys are given out by anti-drone agencies. This taints the final outcome of the survey. Other people don’t fully understand who is being targeted and why they are being targeted. The people who are targeted typically pose an immediate threat to the Pakistani people, and a future threat to the United States (Byman 3). The current model of public opinion surveys are biased, and unreliable. They need to change these surveys to get a better gauge of public opinion. Unpopularity with local people should not be as big of a concern compared to the threat of another catastrophic attack. Local governments are typically more supportive of U.S. drones than they concede because the strikes have mutual benefits. Byman writes that Pakistan has allowed drone facilities in their country and the current Yemeni president is one of the few who support it publicly stating their effectiveness (3). If the Pakistani government was more forthcoming in their support for the drone program, more of their citizens, in turn, would support it as well. The Pakistani government publically condones the use of drones to win political support, while secretly supporting the use of drones in their country, in part because they have helped get rid of many of their problems. Opponents of the drone program worry that their use causes too much collateral damage. A study conducted by the New American Foundation claims that since President Obama took control of the drone program, 11-17% of deaths accounted for were civilians (qtd Miller 2). It is a well known fact that drones cause collateral damage, including the occasional death of civilians. The death or injury of an innocent civilian should never go unnoticed, and is certainly not excusable. But as drone technology advances with new innovations, they will only become more accurate. As drones become more accurate, they will avoid civilians more often, thus causing less anger abroad. Civilian casualties will become a thing of the past, rates will drop each year.
Opponents of drone use also say that other options are much more effective than drone strikes. Some of these methods do not involve military action. Audrey Cronin believes that “publicly discrediting” al-Qaeda, and pointing out their hypocrisy would be more effective. Al-Qaeda claims that the United States military is a ruthless killer, randomly conducting drone strikes in Muslim countries. While this is clearly not true, some locals believe this. The U.S. should point out the fact that drones bypass innocent people eighty six percent of the time, where as al-Qaeda’s strategy is to attack civilians (2). “Publicly discrediting” them is a good start. The United States government should put more effort into degrading al-Qaeda, and pointing out the facts about drones, in the hope that they can win more support internally and internationally. With that being said, drone strikes could be used in addition to undermining terrorist organizations further swaying public opinion towards the United States. Fourteen percent of all drone strikes result in an erroneous death. The U.S. should be more active in pointing that out. The number of wrongful deaths will drop in the future as drones become more high tech. Calling al-Qaeda out on their attacks will DIMINISH (lower) the public support they receive, but it will not stop them from attacking. It’s like telling a convicted murderer what they did was wrong, and then slapping them on the wrist. This is where the use of drones becomes necessary. The most effective way to end the reign of groups like al-Qaeda is to kill them off. The best way to do so would be through the use of drones. Critics of the drone program believe that methods such as the special operations missions are more effective. Byman writes that “Raids, arrests, and interrogations can produce vital intelligence and can be less controversial than lethal operations” (2). Again, these methods are effective, but they need to be used in addition to drones. Special operations can only be used in stable countries, and they are vital for providing intelligence. But in countries like Yemen, a country that has lawless regions, drones are necessary. Special operations in these areas are very risky and to avoid the loss of U.S. citizens, drones must be utilized.
One of the reasons drones are vital is because they are highly successful in protecting the homeland from a potential terrorist attack. Drones are used to prevent a 9/11 like catophastre by attempting to kill those directly responsible for the attacks, and making them live in constant fear of being blown up, making it harder for them to actively conspire. According to Audrey Cronin, the number of terrorist related deaths domestically is the lowest since the 1970’s. Some contributing factors include more awareness, improved domestic and foreign policy, including the use of drones (4). For the most part, the country has been unscathed. Legislation improving security procedures at airports is one of the many of the domestic changes that were made. The increased use of drones has thwarted the groups ability to maintain any structure. Daniel Byman states that terrorist groups are having increased difficulty using electronics, and training members (1). This clearly proves that the use of drones are effective in the war on terror. If terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda can’t risk training their mercenaries in large groups because of the potential threat of a drone strike, how will they be able to carry out another devastating attack? When operatives are not careful, the results are devastating. Very recently, al-Qaeda members in Yemen posted a training video online. These operatives were a threat to the U.S. saying, “We must eliminate the cross.... The bearer of the cross is America” (qtd Dilanian 2). Within a month, the U.S. was able to find their location, and kill over 40 of the terrorists. The strikes might have eliminated two of al-Qaeda’s highest ranking leaders, a massive blow if proven to be accurate. Limiting extremist groups ability to train severely limits their capacity to carry out a large attack.
Another reason why drones are important is because of their current and potential uses, both military and nonmilitary. Militarily, drones are used by the U.S. to carry out strikes, and watch over hostile areas. What other purposes could they serve..? The possible serviceability of drones is almost endless. Carl Schuster, a retired Navy Captain writes that the Army uses small drones such as the FQM-151, and the RQ-1 Raven for safety purposes. They are used to locate Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), or to find a possible ambush. They have saved the lives of many U.S. soldiers (1384). It is obvious that the transition to unmanned aerial vehicles will eliminate the possibility of a pilot being shot down. The use of drones protects active soldiers, and reduces the need for boots on the ground warfare. Josh Solomon, a political writer says drones are used in a variety of ways. Drones are currently being used for scientific experiments. They can also help in the process of searching for missing people, with attachments such as heat sensors (1-3). The use of these remotely piloted vehicles improves upon the current standard. Scientists are able to see things in a brand new way. If drones were accessible to law enforcement, missing people’s cases that currently drag on for days, or weeks, the heat sensors could help find the person within hours. Foreign affairs writer Larisa Epatko notes that drones can fly into “inhospitable environments”. Examples of this include drones flying into hurricanes, and the Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011 (2). Without the use of drones, there is no safe way to assess the potential damage of a hurricane, or the condition of the Fukushima reactor. If a drone can measure the wind speed of a hurricane, meteorologists will be able to make more meticulous predictions about where the natural disaster will hit the hardest, and be able to provide more advanced warning to those areas. In theory, this should reduce the amount of lives lost during a execrable event like a hurricane. With regard to the Fukushima nuclear plant failure, drones were used to assess damage, and measure levels of radioactivity. Although there have been no deaths caused by radiation at this point, it would have been unsafe to enter the premise of the reactors without testing to see if the area was radioactive. Sending drones into these situations saves lives. These are just some of the current uses of drones. There are many more potential uses that could lead to an economic boom.
The use of drones abroad is imperative in part because they are highly effective in carrying out their tasks. Drones eliminate the risk of human error. They are very advanced, and they limit the potential for civilian injury. Lastly, drones kill many high ranking terrorists, people who actively plot to kill innocent people. According to Barbara Ehrenreich, a U.S. writer and political activist, “the fog of war can confuse and overwhelm soldiers because the human brain lacks the bandwidth to process all that data flowing into it. There may be no choice but to replace the sloppy ‘wet-ware’ of the human brain with a robotic system” (qtd in “Drones” Issues and Controversies 6). The traditional use of soldiers is becoming outdated. When troops are deployed in an attempt to capture or kill terrorists, they are prone to traumatic situations such as being shot, wounded or killed. Another problem soldiers have is the possibility of the operation going wrong. While being exposed to these horrendous situations, they are under high amounts of stress and pressure, which puts them at a higher risk to commit a devastating mistake. On the other hand, a drone flown by a highly skilled operative miles away from the battlefield is still under significantly high amounts of stress and pressure, but a different kind of pressure. The operative is not in the heat of battle, worried that they may get injured or fatally wounded. The drone operative is drastically less likely to make a fatal error. Sadanand Dhume, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a columnist at the Wall Street Journal states that highly advanced drones can watch over targets for three days, timing the potential attack to eliminate the risk of civilian death. Targets that typically have a high concentration of civilians such as schools, and mosques are off limits most of the time (qtd in “Drones” Issues and Controversies 6). While drones may occasionally take civilian lives, those responsible take every precaution they can to limit the possibility of a wrongful death. The death of civilians is tragic, and certainly should not be condoned, but the potential reward outweighs the slight possibility of civilian casualties. Drones are equipped with high tech cameras, so if a high number of civilians are detected in an area of a potential strike, the mission can be aborted and rescheduled for a safer time, or terminated if it is deemed to be too high risk. The procedures that are currently in place allow for legal, well planned strikes that limit collateral damage as much as possible. The main reason drones are used in the killing of terrorists is because they do their job. The New American Foundation reports that drone strikes are responsible for the deaths of thousands of terrorists, and 50 high ranking officials during Obama’s tenure as President. Daniel Byman writes that the killing of high ranking officials causes the untimely promotion of more inexperienced leaders. These raw leaders are more likely to commit an error to further set back the organization (qtd 1). Drones cause significant damage to terrorist groups. They have killed thousands of terrorists, making it harder for anti U.S. groups to execute another large scale attack. The killing of leaders makes it more difficult to plan attacks, and recruit new members. They also make it harder for them to carry out day to day operations in preparation for another attack. A drone safety tip sheet found in Mali by the Associated Press contained 22 ways to circumvent being killed by drone strikes. This shows that terrorist organizations are highly concerned about the threat that drones pose to them.
In conclusion, drones play a decisive role in the war on terror, and will become a staple domestically. Although it may seem like a scene from a Science Fiction movie; as early as next year, drones will probably be flying in residential areas. Baring an event that would hinder their progress, drones will be delivering Pizza’s and dropping off packages at houses. This may seem preternatural at first, but it will become second nature to us eventually. Drones will be extremely beneficial to use in the long run if the government further expands the drone program.


Works Cited
Byman, Daniel. "Why Drones Work." Foreign Affairs 92.4 (2013): 32. Advanced Placement Source. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Cronin, Audrey Kurth. "Why Drones Fail." Foreign Affairs 92.4 (2013): 44. Advanced Placement Source. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Dilanian, Ken, and Zaid Ali in Sana. "U.S. Launches Drone Strikes against Al Qaeda Targets in Yemen." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. <http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-drones-al-qaeda-yemen-20140421%2C0%2C1946490.story#axzz309cntn5k>.
"Drones." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. <http://www.2facts.com/article/i1700040>.
"Drones." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Epatko, Larisa. "How Are Drones Used in the U.S.?" PBS. PBS, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-are-drones-used-in-us/>.
Miller, Greg. "White House Acknowledges Drone Strikes." The Washington PostMay 01 2012. ProQuest. Web. 1 Apr. 2014 .
Schuster, Otis Carl. "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles." The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts. Ed. Spencer C. Tucker. Vol. 4. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2010. 1382-1384. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Soloman, Josh. "Uncertainties Remain as FAA Integrates Drones into U.S. Skies; Number of Drones May Hit 30,000 by 2020." The Drone Project, 19 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. <http://droneproject.nationalsecurityzone.org/uncertainties-remain-as-faa-integrates-drones-into-american-skies-josh-solomon/#more-91>.