Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants

ProCon.org states that drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed more than 3,500 militants. These include many important commanders who have been suspected of organizing plots against the United States. When President Obama was in office, he said that many highly skilled Al Qaeda fighters have been eliminated through the use of drones. Plots against the United States have been disrupted that could have killed many people.

Traditional weapons cause more collateral damage than drones do to people and property. This is because the accuracy and precision of drone strikes limits casualties to intended targets. ProCon.org states that 174 to 1,047 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia since the United States has been conducting drone strikes abroad.

Drones are launched from bases in allied countries. They are operated remotely by personnel in the United States. This reduces the risk of injury and death that results from using ground troops and pilots. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their affiliates usually operate in rough terrain. In these places, it is very dangerous for the United States to employ teams of special forces to locate and capture terrorists. Drones eliminate the risks that are associated with all “boots on the ground” deployments.

There is around 5 billion dollars that is allocated for drones in the defense budget. This is only about one percent of the whole military budget. By comparison, the military’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program by itself costs the United States 9.7 billion dollars a year. US manned military attack aircraft cost up to 42 times more than drones to operate. Al Qaeda spent around half a million dollars to carry out the September 11th attacks. The US spent around 2.2 trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on homeland security in response. The disparity is enormous.

Article 51 of the UN Charter permits a country to defend itself when it is attacked. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has stated that Article 51 pertains if the targeted country agrees to the use of force in its territory. This is also the case if the country is unable to control the threat themselves. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have agreed to US drone strikes within their borders because they are under threat from terrorist groups. Apparently, a country that is under a threat does not need to provide targets with legal processing before using lethal force. The United States also has the right under international law to “anticipatory self-defense.” This gives it the right to use force against a real and imminent threat.

Article 2 of the US Constitution permits the use of force against an imminent threat without congressional approval. Also, in 2001, Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda indefinitely. This authorization permits the use of force against any entity that was any way involved with the September 11th attacks. This authorization has no geographic boundary restrictions.

Since the time of the September 11th attacks, the main threats to the United States are terrorist networks that function in various countries around the world. The US has not been fighting major countries. To invade a country with troops to control small terrorist groups would be very expensive for the United States. Also, the United States might become responsible for destabilizing the governments of other countries. In fact, the attempt of the United States to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan by invading the country has resulted in a war that has dragged on for a long time. Using drones to control terrorist groups allows the United States to achieve its goals in a cheaper way. It also costs less manpower and lives.

President Obama, in 2013, set up five conditions that must be met before lethal action can be used on a foreign target: 1) We must be almost certain that the terrorist target is present, 2) We must almost be certain that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, 3) Capture must be an alternative that can’t be carried out, 4) The country where the problem exists will not take care of the problem itself, 5) No other reasonable alternatives exist to control the problem. Intelligence committees and members of congress are informed of every attack that America carries out. A long time before Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, the Obama administration passed on information for analysis to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice analyzed the information to make sure that the action was consistent with US laws.

US drone attacks assist countries in handling their terrorist threats. This includes Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab. The president of Yemen has openly praised the use of drones within his borders. In Pakistan, where the majority of drone attacks are carried out, these attacks have reduced violence. The number of suicide attacks in Pakistan has decreased over time.

More than 87 countries currently have some kind of surveillance or attack drone. China and Iran are two countries that have unveiled such programs. Insurgent groups are also moving quickly to acquire the technology. Libyan opposition forces used drones and Hezbollah claims that it has used drones as well.

Drone pilots suffer less trauma than military personnel who must be present on the battlefield. They can actually lead a normal civilian life here in the United States. They also do not risk death or serious injury.

According to a 2013 survey by Pew Research, 61 percent of Americans support drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The support was spread across all political parties.